Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

OR

Commission File Number 001-36352

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 871-2098

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on The Nasdaq Global Market on June 28, 2019, was $565,808,424.

The number of shares of registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 1, 2020 was 129,858,262.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that are being made pursuant to the provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with the intention of obtaining the benefits of the “safe harbor” provisions of that Act. All statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements may be accompanied by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “build,” “can,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “should,” “designed,” “estimate,” “project,” “expect,” “forecast,” “future,” “goal,” “intend,” “likely,” “may,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “strategy,” “seek,” “target,” “will,” “would,” and other words and terms of similar meaning, but the absence of these words does not necessarily mean that a statement is not forward-looking. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

2

Any or all of these forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may turn out to be inaccurate. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including those that are described in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors included in this Annual Report and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, that could cause our actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements to be materially different from those indicated in these forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason. Unless otherwise stated, our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates and other information concerning our industry and the markets for certain diseases, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, and the incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, market and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources.

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires, references to “Akebia,” “we,” “us,” “our,” “the Company,” and similar references refer to Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. and, where appropriate, its subsidiaries, including Keryx.

AURYXIA^®, AKEBIA^® Therapeutics and their associated logos are trademarks of Akebia and/or its affiliates. All other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. All website addresses given in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are for information only and are not intended to be an active link or to incorporate any website information into this document.

3

PART I

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of renal therapeutics for people living with kidney disease.  Our portfolio includes a late-stage product candidate and a commercial product:

If the results of our global Phase 3 studies for vadadustat are positive, we plan to file for regulatory approval in the United States and other regions. In connection with our plan to file for regulatory approval for vadadustat in the United States, we entered into a letter agreement on February 14, 2020, or the Letter Agreement, with Vifor (International) Ltd., or Vifor Pharma, relating to Vifor Pharma’s agreement with a third party to purchase a Priority Review Voucher, or the PRV, issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, or the PRV Purchase. A PRV entitles the holder to priority review of a New Drug Application, or NDA, or a Biologics License Application for a new drug, which reduces the target FDA review time to six months after official acceptance of the submission, and could lead to expedited approval. Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, we will pay Vifor Pharma $10.0 million within fifteen business days after the closing of the PRV Purchase. Vifor Pharma is obligated to retain all rights to, and maintain the validity of, the PRV until we and Vifor Pharma (a) enter into a definitive agreement setting forth the financial and other terms by which Vifor Pharma will assign the PRV to us for use with our planned NDA for vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in both DD-CKD and NDD-CKD patients, or (b) make a mutual decision to sell the PRV and share the proceeds based on certain terms.

We plan to commercialize vadadustat, subject to FDA approval, in the United States with our existing nephrology-focused commercial organization, while also leveraging our collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, and its U.S. commercial organization. We also granted Otsuka exclusive rights to commercialize vadadustat in Europe, China and certain other markets, subject to marketing approvals. In Japan and certain other countries in Asia, we granted Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC, exclusive rights to commercialize vadadustat, subject to marketing approvals. In addition, we granted Vifor Pharma an exclusive license to sell vadadustat solely to Fresenius Kidney Care Group LLC, or FKC, which manages approximately 40% of the dialysis patients in the United States, at its U.S. dialysis clinics, and to certain third party dialysis organizations in the United States, approved by us, or Third Party Dialysis Organizations, which account for up to an additional 20% of the dialysis market in the United States. The license granted to Vifor Pharma would be effective upon FDA approval of vadadustat in the DD-CKD indication, the earlier of a determination by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, that vadadustat will be included in Medicare’s bundled reimbursement model or that vadadustat will be reimbursed using the Transitional Drug Add-On Payment Adjustment, or TDAPA, and a milestone payment by Vifor Pharma.

We market Auryxia in the United States with our well-established, nephrology-focused commercial organization. Our Japanese sublicensee, Japan Tobacco, Inc., or JT, and its subsidiary, Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Torii, commercialize Riona in Japan.

We were incorporated in 2007 under the laws of the State of Delaware. On December 12, 2018, we completed a merger, or the Merger, with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, combining a nephrology-focused commercial organization with our robust development organization. Following the Merger, Keryx is our wholly owned subsidiary, and we are integrating our business and Keryx’s business with the goal of positioning Akebia to realize the potential growth opportunities and synergies from the Merger.

4

Strategy

Our mission and our culture are centered around the goal of improving the lives of people impacted by kidney disease, through the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapeutics. Our strategy is to execute on the following initiatives, which we believe will create significant market opportunities for us:

Our management team has extensive experience in developing and commercializing drugs for the treatment of renal and metabolic disorders, a deep understanding of the renal space and biological pathways involved in kidney disease including HIF biology and iron metabolism, and broad business development expertise. With this management team, fully integrated capabilities spanning research, manufacturing, development and commercialization, a commercial revenue stream and a strong balance sheet, we are well positioned to execute on our strategy.

Background on Kidney Disease

Kidney disease is an area of major unmet need globally, driving massive healthcare costs and with a generally poor prognosis: eventually many patients will progress to a stage where they are dependent on dialysis, with high morbidity and a significant increase in mortality rate.

Kidney disease can be caused by a number of distinct and concomitant factors, including cardiometabolic disorders (primarily diabetes and hypertension), genetic kidney diseases, autoimmune disorders, and aging. Given the prevalence and growth rates of these various underlying conditions, kidney disease prevalence is expected to continue to increase globally. In the United States, chronic kidney disease significantly impacts the U.S. healthcare system, affecting about 37 million patients and costing Medicare over $120 billion annually in 2017 for treating Medicare beneficiaries with CKD of end-stage renal disease. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recognized the national pandemic and partnered with the American Society of Nephrology to found the KidneyX Innovation Accelerator, a public-private partnership to improve the lives of the 850 million people worldwide currently affected by kidney diseases by accelerating innovation in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of kidney diseases.

Most of the conditions covered by the term “kidney disease” may lead to dependence on dialysis or kidney transplant for survival, causing renal failure, directly or indirectly, by accelerating the onset of CKD. Dependence on dialysis is associated with a significant increase in mortality and hospitalizations, and a significant reduction in quality of life for patients. There is a clear need to improve the clinical and quality of life outcomes for people living with kidney disease. It is our vision, in time, to provide or contribute to better alternatives that improve the lives of people impacted by kidney disease.

5

As a first step towards our vision, we aim to advance care for patients with CKD, which is the current focus of our pipeline and portfolio of approved indications.

CKD is a condition in which the kidneys are progressively damaged to the point that they cannot properly filter the blood circulating in the body. This damage causes waste products to build up in the patient’s blood leading to other health problems, including anemia, cardiovascular disease and bone disease. As illustrated in the table below, CKD patients are categorized in one of five stages based on the degree of their loss of kidney function as measured by the glomerular filtration rate, or GFR, and the level of protein in the urine, referred to as albuminuria.

Stages and Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States

Sources:

The prevalence and incidence of CKD is increasing in all segments of the United States population. Risk factors for the development of CKD include concomitant diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, lifestyle factors such as tobacco use and inactivity, family history, aging and prenatal factors such as maternal diabetes mellitus, low birth weight and small-for-gestational-age status. According to an article in The Lancet published in May 2013, projected worldwide population changes suggest that the potential number of cases of CKD, specifically end-stage, will increase disproportionately in countries such as Japan, China and India where the number of elderly people is increasing. This effect will be accelerated further if the growth in the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes persists, along with the associated increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease, and access to treatment does not improve.

The progression of CKD towards renal failure is complicated by multiple conditions which further deteriorate kidney function and the general health of patients if left untreated. Typically the prevalence of these conditions increases as CKD progresses. For instance, anemia is characterized by low hemoglobin levels and is typically associated with a worsening quality of life, increased hospitalizations and increased mortality. The prevalence of anemia increases with the severity of CKD from an estimated 20% in patients with Stage 3 NDD-CKD to an estimated 95% in patients with Stage 5 DD-CKD.

Anemia, or low hemoglobin/red blood count, in patients with CKD most commonly arises from two etiologies:

6

Anemia due to CKD in NDD-CKD and DD-CKD patients are the two indications being investigated in Phase 3 clinical trials for vadadustat, and IDA in adult patients with NDD-CKD is an FDA-approved indication for Auryxia.

Hyperphosphatemia is another condition associated with CKD that is characterized by elevated serum phosphorus levels and is also typically associated with a worsening of health including increased cardiovascular risk and increased mortality. Hyperphosphatemia in DD-CKD patients is also an FDA-approved indication for Auryxia.

In addition to these conditions that are the current focus of our pipeline and portfolio of approved indications, there are several other disorders that have deleterious consequences on patient’s health, including hypercalcemia, hyperkalemia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, and hyperparathyroidism. These conditions are generally not well controlled, particularly in the later stages of CKD and as patients transition to dialysis.

When considering the clinical and commercial opportunities in CKD, it is important to take note of the contrasting market dynamics between DD-CKD and NDD-CKD.

DD-CKD patients receive treatment for the various complications of CKD including anemia and hyperphosphatemia. Given the concentration of dialysis clinics in large networks, with DaVita and Fresenius Kidney Care accounting for a vast majority of the dialysis population in the United States, treatment is usually driven by medical protocols that are rolled out across the entire network of clinics. These protocols are informed by very large data sets and when updated, result in rapid change applicable to large segments of the patient population.  This is particularly true of medications covered under the End Stage Renal Disease, or ESRD, Prospective Payment System, or PPS, in Medicare, or the ESRD Bundle, a payment structure with a flat base rate per dialysis session adjusted for individual patient and facility characteristics. Dialysis-related drugs are included in the ESRD Bundle if they fall into functional categories such as anemia management and bone and mineral metabolism, except that oral-only drugs are exempted from inclusion until 2025.  In a final ESRD PPS rule published in November 2018, CMS confirmed that it will expand the Transitional Drug Add-On Payment Adjustment, or TDAPA, to all new dialysis drugs approved by the FDA after January 1, 2020.  The TDAPA will provide separate payment for new drugs for two years based on the drug’s Average Sales Price, ASP, that will be added to the base rate in order to facilitate the adoption of innovative therapies. Although there are several details that need clarification, the rule provides support for our assumption that new anemia treatments, including the HIF-PHI class, will be included in the ESRD Bundle and will be eligible for separate payment initially under TDAPA.

In contrast, NDD-CKD is characterized by larger patient populations with lower treatment rates for CKD-related conditions. In addition to improving cardiovascular risk and quality of life, unmet need includes delaying the progression of CKD and therefore the transition to dialysis. Reimbursement in the non-dialysis setting aligns with traditional commercial and government payer reimbursement for outpatient drugs.

Vadadustat

Overview

Vadadustat is an investigational oral HIF-PHI product candidate in global Phase 3 development for two indications: anemia due to CKD in adult patients with DD-CKD, and anemia due to CKD in adult patients with NDD-CKD. We believe vadadustat has the potential to set a new oral standard of care for patients with anemia due to CKD, subject to regulatory approval. Vadadustat is designed to mimic the physiologic effect of altitude on oxygen availability. At higher altitudes, the body responds to lower oxygen availability with stabilization of HIF, which can lead to RBC production and, improved oxygen delivery to tissues. The significance of the HIF pathway was recognized by the 2019 Nobel Prize and the 2016 Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award, which honored the three physician-scientists who discovered the HIF pathway and elucidated this primary oxygen sensing mechanism that is essential for survival.

Market Opportunity

Anemia due to Chronic Kidney Disease

Anemia is common in patients with CKD, and its prevalence increases with disease progression.  Anemia due to CKD results from inadequate EPO levels, which negatively affect RBC production. Left untreated, anemia accelerates overall deterioration of patient health with increased morbidity and mortality. Based on third party prevalence data and company estimates, approximately 37 million people in the United States have CKD and approximately 5.7 million of these individuals suffer from anemia. The current standard of care for anemia due to CKD is treatment by injectable recombinant human ESAs, such as EPOGEN^® (epoetin alfa) and Aranesp^® (darbepoetin alfa), or blood transfusion. Based on publicly available information on ESA sales and market data compiled by a third-party vendor, global sales of injectable ESAs for all uses were estimated to be approximately $6.1 billion in 2018. The vast majority of these sales are believed to have been for the treatment of anemia due to CKD.

7

When administered to a patient, injectable ESAs provide supraphysiological levels of exogenous EPO to stimulate production of RBCs. While injectable ESAs can be effective in raising hemoglobin levels, they have the potential to cause significant side effects, and need to be injected subcutaneously or intravenously. In particular, injectable ESAs may lead to thrombosis, stroke, myocardial infarction and death. While these safety concerns, which became evident starting in 2006, have led to a significant reduction in the use of injectable ESAs, injectable ESAs remain the current standard of care for both NDD-CKD and DD-CKD patients with anemia.

NDD-CKD Market

Data from the U.S. Renal Data System, or USRDS, 2015 Annual Data Report indicate that the collective injectable ESA treatment rate in NDD-CKD patients in the United States decreased by approximately half from 2009 to 2013. As a result of the safety concerns associated with ESAs, today, a high proportion of NDD-CKD patients with anemia are either not treated or inadequately treated despite having low hemoglobin levels. In contrast to treatment with ESAs, we believe vadadustat, subject to regulatory approval, has the potential to expand the number of NDD-CKD patients receiving treatment by offering an alternative oral treatment for anemia due to CKD with a differentiated safety profile.

DD-CKD Market

According to the USRDS 2019 Annual Data Report, there were approximately 524,000 patients in the United States on dialysis in 2017, of which 88% were on in-center hemodialysis and the remainder on peritoneal or home hemodialysis. ESAs are given to approximately 90% of in-center hemodialysis patients and 75% of peritoneal dialysis patients.

There is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with anemia due to CKD that offer a differentiated and/or improved safety profile, and such agents would have significant market potential.

Vadadustat Has the Potential to Set a New Oral Standard of Care

We believe that, based on the HIF-PHI mechanism of action and clinical data to date, vadadustat has the potential to set a new oral standard of care for the treatment of anemia due to CKD within both the NDD and DD markets. Below is a summary of the key clinical findings; further details are included below.

Based on this and other data, we believe vadadustat has the potential to be a treatment for anemia due to CKD with a differentiated safety profile compared with the current standard of care, injectable ESAs, by:

8

Based upon these key characteristics, we believe vadadustat has the potential to possibly reduce the risk of cardiovascular and thrombotic events associated with injectable ESAs. The efficacy of vadadustat in raising/maintaining hemoglobin levels within a target range, and the cardiovascular safety of vadadustat as compared with darbepoetin alfa, an injectable ESA, is being assessed in our global Phase 3 clinical program for vadadustat.

Vadadustat Clinical Development Program

We believe vadadustat has the potential to address limitations of injectable ESAs and set a new oral standard of care for the treatment of anemia due to CKD, subject to regulatory approval. We are conducting a global Phase 3 clinical development program for vadadustat, and our collaboration partner, MTPC, recently completed its Phase 3 clinical development program for vadadustat in Japan and submitted a JNDA in the third quarter of 2019 for vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD. We expect top line data from our global Phase 3 programs, INNO₂VATE and PRO₂TECT, to read out in the second quarter of 2020 and mid-2020, respectively. If the trial results are positive, we believe these studies will support filings for regulatory approval in the United States and other regions.

Vadadustat Global Phase 3 Clinical Program

We are conducting a global Phase 3 clinical development program for vadadustat which includes two separate programs called INNO₂VATE and PRO₂TECT. INNO₂VATE studies vadadustat in DD-CKD patients with anemia due to CKD in two separate studies and PRO₂TECT studies vadadustat in NDD-CKD patients with anemia due to CKD in two separate studies. Combined, we enrolled approximately 7,500 patients in these studies and are evaluating once daily oral dosing of vadadustat against an injectable ESA active comparator, darbepoetin alfa.

In August 2016, the first patient was dosed in INNO₂VATE. We completed enrollment in the larger of the two INNO₂VATE studies, which enrolled 3,554 patients, in February 2019, and we completed enrollment in the smaller INNO₂VATE study, which enrolled 369 patients, in April 2019. We anticipate reporting top-line data for the INNO₂VATE studies in the second quarter of 2020.

The first patient was dosed in PRO₂TECT in December 2015. We completed enrollment of PRO₂TECT correction and conversion studies, which enrolled 1,761 and 1,752 patients, respectively, in August 2019. We anticipate reporting top-line data for the PRO₂TECT studies in mid-2020.

In both the PRO₂TECT and INNO₂VATE Phase 3 programs, the primary efficacy endpoint of each program is the mean change in hemoglobin between baseline and the primary evaluation period. Non-inferiority, or NI, is achieved if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference of the mean hemoglobin change does not fall below the pre-specified NI margin. Both the PRO₂TECT and INNO₂VATE programs include the primary safety endpoint of the assessment of major adverse cardiovascular events, or MACE, with a comparison of vadadustat to darbepoetin alfa. MACE is defined as the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. The primary analysis for each program is based on the combined MACE events from the two Phase 3 studies in each program (PRO₂TECT and INNO₂VATE). NI is achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of vadadustat to darbepoetin alfa does not exceed the pre-specified NI margin. We have prospectively defined and agreed to non-inferiority margins with the United States and European regulatory authorities and have agreed with the United States regulatory authorities on the key components of our statistical analysis plan.

In addition to our Phase 3 clinical development program, we are conducting a Phase 2 clinical study of vadadustat, FO₂RWARD-2, evaluating a modified approach to once-daily and three-times weekly dosing, including assessment of a vadadustat starting dose based on an individual’s pre-conversion ESA dose prior to study entry and higher titration doses of vadadustat (750 mg and 900 mg). We believe data from this and other studies could support registration of the modified approach to once daily dosing and supplemental registration of three times weekly dosing, and further strengthen our potential commercial position if vadadustat is approved for marketing.

We completed a series of clinical drug-drug interaction studies largely focusing on transporter pathways evaluating vadadustat as a victim (using probe inhibitors) or perpetrator (using probe substrates) of drug interactions. No meaningful drug interactions were observed with atorvastatin (P-gp/OATP1B1 substrate), pravastatin (OATP1B1/1B3 substrate), digoxin (P-gp substrate), furosemide (OAT1/OAT3 substrate), adefovir (OAT1 substrate), cyclosporine (P-gp/BCRP/OATP inhibitor), probenecid (OAT3 and UGT inhibitor), or rabeprazole (gastric acid-reducing agent). With concomitant administration of vadadustat, a mild-to-moderate interaction was observed with simvastatin (OATP1B1/B3 substrate), and moderate drug interactions were observed with rosuvastatin (BCRP/OATP1B1/1B3 substrate), ferrous sulfate, and sulfasalazine (BCRP substrate). In addition, in vitro drug-drug interaction studies demonstrated a very low risk of vadadustat for drug interactions due to alteration of metabolic enzyme activities, i.e. cytochrome P450 or UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms. No clinical drug-interaction was observed with celecoxib (CYP2C9).

9

MTPC’s Phase 3 Clinical Program of Vadadustat in Japan

On March 12, 2019 and November 9, 2019, we announced positive top-line results from two Phase 3 active-controlled pivotal studies evaluating vadadustat in Japanese subjects with anemia due to CKD (J01 and J03 Studies). These studies were conducted by our development and commercialization collaboration partner in Japan, MTPC. Each study, one in NDD-CKD patients and one in DD-CKD patients, met its primary endpoint. In addition, results from two Phase 3 single-arm studies conducted by MTPC in peritoneal dialysis patients and DD-CKD patients (J02 and J04 Studies) further support vadadustat’s potential in these indications. MTPC submitted a JNDA in the third quarter of 2019 for vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD.

The Phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled correction and conversion study (J01 Study) assessed the efficacy and safety of vadadustat compared to darbepoetin alfa in 304 Japanese NDD-CKD patients with anemia, with a treatment duration of 52 weeks. Data from the planned analysis at 24 weeks were announced in March 2019 and showed that the study met its primary endpoint: The difference in mean hemoglobin (Hb) was -0.26 g/dL (95% CI -0.50, -0.02 g/dL), achieving the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion of -0.75 g/dL. The mean Hb level at week 20 and week 24 were 11.66 g/dL (95% CI 11.49, 11.84 g/dL) for vadadustat-treated subjects compared to 11.93 g/dL (95% CI 11.76, 12.10 g/dL) for darbepoetin alfa-treated subjects. The mean Hb level at week 52 was 11.51 g/dL (95% CI 11.35, 11.67 g/dL) for vadadustat-treated subjects compared to 11.58 g/dL (95% CI 11.43, 11.74 g/dL) for darbepoetin alfa-treated subjects. The incidence of adverse events, or AEs, was 90.1% in the vadadustat-treated group compared to 92.2% in the darbepoetin alfa-treated group. The top three most common AEs reported in vadadustat-treated subjects were nasopharyngitis (24.5%), diarrhea (11.9%), and constipation (9.3%). The incidence of serious adverse events, or SAEs, was 27.8% in the vadadustat-treated group compared to 32.0% in the darbepoetin alfa-treated group; no SAE was considered related to study drug. No deaths were reported in the vadadustat-treated group.

The Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, active-controlled conversion study (J03 Study) assessed the efficacy and safety of vadadustat compared to darbepoetin alfa in 323 Japanese DD-CKD patients with anemia who had been receiving ESA therapy prior to study screening, with a treatment duration of 52 weeks. Data from the planned analysis at 24 weeks were announced in March 2019 and showed that the study met its primary endpoint: The difference in mean Hb was -0.05 g/dL (95% CI -0.26, 0.17 g/dL), achieving the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion of -0.75 g/dL. The mean Hb level at week 20 and week 24 at 10.61 g/dL (95% CI 10.45, 10.76 g/dL) for vadadustat-treated subjects compared to 10.65 g/dL (95% CI 10.50, 10.80 g/dL) for darbepoetin alfa-treated subjects. The mean Hb level at week 52 was 10.39 g/dL (95% CI 10.24, 10.54 g/dL) for vadadustat-treated subjects compared to 10.62 g/dL (95% CI 10.48, 10.76 g/dL) for darbepoetin alfa-treated subjects. The incidence of AEs was 95.1% in the vadadustat-treated group compared to 98.1% in the darbepoetin alfa-treated group. The top three most common AEs reported in vadadustat-treated subjects were nasopharyngitis (45.7%), diarrhea (15.4%), and shunt stenosis (14.2%). The incidence of SAEs was 25.3% in the vadadustat-treated group compared to 27.3% in the darbepoetin alfa-treated group; no SAE was considered related to study drug. There were two deaths reported in the vadadustat-treated group and one death in the darbepoetin alfa-treated group and all three were assessed as not related to either vadadustat or darbepoetin alfa.

Vadadustat Phase 1 and Phase 2 Studies

To date, we have completed twenty-four Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies of vadadustat. Findings from three Phase 2 studies demonstrated that vadadustat administered daily raised and/or maintained hemoglobin levels within a target range and improved markers of iron mobilization to support erythropoiesis in CKD patients. The range of doses used in these Phase 2 studies had been previously shown, in Phase 1 studies of healthy volunteers, to stimulate endogenous EPO production while avoiding supraphysiologic EPO levels. The results from one completed Phase 1 and two Phase 2 of these studies are summarized below.

Phase 1 Study in Normal Healthy Volunteers (CI-0002)

We completed a Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics response, and pharmacokinetics of vadadustat administered for 10 days to healthy male volunteers. Dose responsive increases in reticulocytes, or immature RBCs, and hemoglobin levels were demonstrated in the study. Mean serum EPO levels increased by 36%, 48%, and 89% over baseline, at 8 to 16 hours after dosing in the vadadustat 500 mg/day, 700 mg/day, and 900 mg/day dosing groups, respectively, and returned to baseline by 24 hours after dosing. The incidence of AEs was generally similar between the combined vadadustat dosing groups, which was 76.5%, and the placebo group, which was 78%. Gastrointestinal AEs occurred in 26.5% of subjects in the vadadustat groups and in no subjects on placebo, of which mild to moderate diarrhea was the most frequent AE (24%), with evidence of a dose-related effect. No SAEs or deaths were reported in this study.

10

Phase 2b Study in Non-Dialysis CKD Subjects (CI-0007)

We completed a multi-center Phase 2b study of vadadustat in NDD-CKD patients with anemia. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of vadadustat over 20 weeks of dosing in 210 patients (138 vadadustat and 72 placebo) with CKD Stages 3 to 5. Patients were enrolled into one of three groups: (1) injectable ESA naïve with hemoglobin ≤10.5 g/dL, (2) previously treated with injectable ESA with hemoglobin ≤10.5 g/dL, or (3) actively treated with injectable ESA with hemoglobin ≥9.5 and ≤12.0 g/dL, and were randomized at a ratio of 2 to 1 to once daily vadadustat or placebo. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with either a mean hemoglobin of ≥11.0 g/dL or an increase in hemoglobin by ≥1.2 g/dL from baseline. A protocol-defined dose adjustment algorithm was used to achieve the primary endpoint and to minimize hemoglobin excursions ≥13 g/dL.

The average age of patients was 66 years; 78% of patients had diabetes mellitus; and the mean estimated GFR was 25 mL/min/1.73m². 54.9% of vadadustat treated patients compared to 10.3% of placebo treated patients met the primary endpoint (p=0.0001). Only 4.3% of patients in the vadadustat group had any hemoglobin excursion ≥13.0 g/dL. Between Groups 1 and 2 (the two correction cohorts; ESA-naïve and ESA previously treated), mean Hb increased significantly in the vadadustat group from pre-dose average to end-of-study average (Week 19/20). In Group 3 (conversion cohorts; ESA actively treated), placebo treated patients experienced a decline in the mean hemoglobin within the first two weeks, whereas patients randomized to vadadustat maintained a stable hemoglobin throughout the study.

Increases in hemoglobin in the vadadustat group were preceded by an increase in reticulocytes and accompanied by an increase in total iron binding capacity and a decrease in serum hepcidin and ferritin. There was no difference between the vadadustat and placebo groups in vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, levels during the study.

A similar percentage of patients experienced an AE in the vadadustat and placebo treatment groups (vadadustat 74.6% vs. placebo 73.6%); however, the frequency of certain AEs - diarrhea, nausea, hypertension and hyperkalemia - was greater in the vadadustat arm compared to placebo. In the vadadustat arm, a higher number of patients reported SAEs of acute and chronic renal failure compared to placebo (9.4% vs. 2.8%, respectively); however, none was considered drug-related by the investigator. The percentage of patients who had an SAE resulting in dialysis initiation, considered to be a more objective measure of the severity of renal disease, was comparable between vadadustat and placebo groups (8.0% versus 9.7%, respectively) and the number of patients who discontinued from the study due to AEs of worsening CKD requiring dialysis was also comparable between the vadadustat (4.3%) and placebo (5.6%) groups.  One subject with multiple co-morbidities and concomitant medications, including chlorthalidone, had an SAE of liver function test, or LFT, abnormal, considered a case of drug-induced liver injury meeting the biochemical criteria of Hy’s Law, which was assessed as probably related to vadadustat. This subject made a complete recovery after vadadustat was discontinued. There were three deaths in vadadustat-treated patients of which two cardiovascular deaths were considered to be unrelated to vadadustat and one death was attributed to myocardial ischemic and considered by the investigator to be possibly related to vadadustat; no autopsy was performed. There were no deaths in the placebo group.

In summary, vadadustat achieved the desired outcomes of raising and maintaining hemoglobin and increasing iron mobilization, while minimizing hemoglobin excursions ≥13 g/dL. Pergola et al published the results of this study in Kidney International 2016.

Phase 2 Study in Dialysis-Dependent CKD Patients (CI-0011)

We completed a multi-center, open-label, 16-week study to assess the hemoglobin response, safety, and tolerability of vadadustat in DD-CKD patients. The study enrolled 94 hemodialysis patients with baseline hemoglobin levels of 9-12 g/dL, who were maintained on injectable ESAs prior to study entry. Patients were converted from injectable ESA to vadadustat, and assigned to one of three dose cohorts: 300 mg once daily; 450 mg once daily; or 450 mg three-times weekly. For each dose cohort, the average hemoglobin level at study entry was compared to the average hemoglobin level at weeks 7 and 8, and to the average hemoglobin level at weeks 15 and 16. To evaluate hemoglobin response to each of the dose regimens, during the first eight weeks of this study, patients were to remain on the prescribed starting dose, or decreased if necessary to control hemoglobin in the target range. Beginning at week 8, the dose of vadadustat could be increased or decreased to maintain hemoglobin levels as needed. Intravenous iron use was allowed.

The underlying demographics and profiles of these CKD patients were well-balanced across the three cohorts, and reflective of the United States DD-CKD population as reported in the literature. Average age was 58 years, with an average time on dialysis of 4.6 years. The most common cause of end-stage renal disease was diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension. Baseline hemoglobin levels were similar at 10.4-10.6 g/dL in all three cohorts and the serum ferritin levels indicated that the patients were iron replete at study entry and throughout the study.

11

For patients in all three dosing cohorts (converted from ESA) who completed the study, the primary endpoint of maintaining stable mean hemoglobin levels over 16 weeks was achieved. In the sensitivity analysis using last observation carried forward to account for early discontinuations, mean Hb levels remained stable in the 300 mg daily dose cohort and modest declines were observed in the 450 mg daily and 450 mg three-times weekly dose cohorts. Post-hoc analyses indicated that baseline pre-conversion ESA dose was inversely associated with mean change in hemoglobin. Consistent with previous studies, all three starting dose regimens suggested an improvement in iron mobilization, as reflected by increases in total iron binding capacity and serum iron, and decreases in serum ferritin and hepcidin levels. Only one subject in the 300 mg once daily cohort had a single hemoglobin excursion to 13.1 g/dL.

These data support further development of vadadustat daily dosing to assess its long-term safety and efficacy in patients on hemodialysis. These data also support further investigation of three times weekly dosing of vadadustat.

Adverse events were balanced across the three cohorts with 83% of patients with at least one AE. There were no discernible trends in the frequency of AEs or SAEs by dose cohort. The most frequently reported AEs were nausea and diarrhea, 11.7% and 10.6%, respectively, with no apparent dose relationship. The majority of AEs were mild or moderate in severity. SAEs were reported in 13 patients, or 13.8%, including two patients with acute myocardial infarction considered not related to vadadustat by the investigator. No SAEs were reported as related to vadadustat and no deaths occurred during the study. Haase et al published the results of this study in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2018.

Commercialization

We are in the process of preparing for a potential commercial launch of vadadustat in Japan, the United States and certain other markets. Our ability to launch vadadustat in the United States is dependent on the successful outcome of our global Phase 3 program, the successful filing and defense of an NDA, and approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities.  

We plan to commercialize vadadustat, subject to FDA approval, in the United States with our well-established, nephrology-focused commercial organization, while leveraging our collaboration with Otsuka and its U.S. nephrology commercial organization. We also granted Otsuka exclusive rights to commercialize vadadustat in Europe, China and certain other markets, subject to marketing approvals. In Japan and certain other countries in Asia, we granted MTPC exclusive rights to commercialize vadadustat, subject to marketing approvals. In addition, we granted Vifor Pharma an exclusive license to sell vadadustat to FKC and Third Party Dialysis Organizations, which combined manage up to approximately 60% of the dialysis patients in the United States, which would be effective upon FDA approval of vadadustat, vadadustat’s reimbursement under a bundled reimbursement model or that vadadustat will be reimbursed using the TDAPA, and a milestone payment by Vifor Pharma. During the term of the license agreement, Vifor Pharma is not permitted to sell any HIF product that competes with vadadustat in the United States to FKC or its affiliates or to any Third Party Dialysis Organization, and we may not directly supply vadadustat to FKC or any other affiliate of FMCNA or any Third Party Dialysis Organization. For more information about our license, collaboration and strategic agreements relating to vadadustat, see Part I, Item 1. Business – License, Collaboration and Other Strategic Agreements – Vadadustat.

Our Commercial Product: Auryxia

Overview

Auryxia (ferric citrate) is a non-calcium, non-chewable, orally-administered tablet that was approved for marketing by the FDA in September 2014 as a phosphate binder for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication and was commercially launched in the United States shortly thereafter. In November 2017, Auryxia received marketing approval from the FDA for a second indication, the IDA Indication, and was commercially launched for this indication in the United States shortly thereafter.

In January 2014, our Japanese sublicensee, JT, received approval from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to market ferric citrate hydrate in Japan under the trade name Riona as an oral treatment for the improvement of hyperphosphatemia in patients with CKD, including DD-CKD and NDD-CKD, and was commercially launched in Japan shortly thereafter. In July 2019, JT, and its subsidiary, Torii, reported positive top-line results from a pivotal Phase 3 comparative study evaluating Riona for the treatment of IDA in adult patients in Japan. Upon successful completion of its Phase 3 program, JT and Torii stated that they expect to file an application for approval of IDA as an additional indication for Riona in Japan.

In September 2015, we received approval to market ferric citrate in the European Union under the tradename Fexeric. Pursuant to the sunset clause under EU law, the European Commission’s approval of Fexeric in the EU was contingent on, among other things, our commencing marketing of Fexeric within three years; although we successfully negotiated an extension to December 23, 2019, we did not commence marketing Fexeric by such date and therefore the Fexeric approval in the EU has ceased to be valid.

12

We have licensed and sublicensed certain intellectual property rights covering Auryxia from Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion. For more information regarding our intellectual property rights to Auryxia and our license agreement with Panion see Part I, Item 1. Business – Intellectual Property – Auryxia and Part I, Item 1. Business - License, Collaboration and Other Strategic Agreements – License Agreement with Panion & BF Biotech, Inc. We have received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the FDA requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg iron per tablet), with the first having been received on October 31, 2018. We have filed certain complaints for patent infringement relating to such ANDAs, and have entered into a settlement and license agreement with one such ANDA filer. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to the ANDAs, lawsuits and settlement.

Market Opportunity

Hyperphosphatemia

Hyperphosphatemia is a metabolic disorder characterized by elevated serum phosphorus levels. Phosphorus is a vital element required for most cellular processes and, in individuals with normal kidney function, excess dietary phosphorus is removed by the kidneys and excreted in urine. In adults with functioning kidneys, normal serum phosphorus levels are 2.5 to 4.5 mg/dL. In adults with DD-CKD, elevated phosphorus levels, or hyperphosphatemia, can be associated with adverse effects, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease, bone disease and death.

Phosphate binders are the only interventions marketed for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia. According to the USRDS 2019 Annual Data Report, there are approximately 524,000 adult patients in the United States with DD-CKD in 2017, of which approximately 87% were treated with a phosphate binder. Phosphate binders need to be taken with meals and snacks, and it is not uncommon for DD-CKD patients to be prescribed as many as 12 or more phosphate binder pills per day, among other medications. Patients taking phosphate binders also experience gastrointestinal tolerability issues. As a result of the pill burden and tolerability issues associated phosphate binders, prescribed phosphate binders are often intolerable for many patients, leading to lack of treatment adherence and compliance.

In addition, in 2017 approximately 35% of patients treated with a phosphate binder were treated solely with a calcium-based binder, which can lead to side effects such as increased cardiovascular risk, hypercalcemia and gastrointestinal-related adverse events. Due to the risks associated with calcium-based binders, in 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes, or KDIGO, recommended that clinicians limit the use of calcium-based binders.

Sevelamer and lanthanum-based phosphate binders are other alternatives. Lanthanum is a rare earth element and is minimally absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. Lower level tissue deposition, particularly in bone and liver, has been observed in animals, however, the long-term, potentially harmful, effects due to the accumulation of lanthanum in these tissues have not been clearly determined.

Aluminum-type phosphate binders were widely used in the past. However, the systemic absorption of aluminum from these agents and the potential toxicity associated with their use no longer make this type of binder a viable long-term treatment option.

Iron Deficiency Anemia

Anemia is a condition characterized by abnormally low levels of hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is contained within RBCs and carries oxygen to other parts of the body. If there are too few RBCs or if hemoglobin levels are low, the cells in the body will not get enough oxygen. IDA is a common form of anemia that is caused by patients not having enough iron to manufacture healthy RBCs. Although anyone can develop IDA, IDA is particularly common in patients with NDD-CKD. IDA is associated with fatigue, lethargy, decrease quality of life, cardiovascular complications, hospitalizations and increased mortality.

We estimate that there are more than 500,000 adult patients in the United States with NDD-CKD diagnosed with IDA. Currently, there are two forms of iron therapy used to treat IDA: oral iron supplements and iron delivered via intravenous infusion, or IV iron. Oral iron is currently the first-line iron replacement therapy for most physicians; however, oral iron supplements are poorly absorbed by many patients, which may adversely impact their effectiveness, and are associated with certain side effects, such as constipation, diarrhea and cramping, that may adversely affect patient compliance. IV iron is viewed as an effective treatment; however, like other intravenous medicines, it is logistically difficult to administer in an office setting, where NDD-CKD patients are more often treated.

Commercialization

We market Auryxia in the United States through our well-established, nephrology-focused sales force and commercial organization.

13

Auryxia, as an oral drug, is covered by Medicare only under Part D. We have gained broad access for Auryxia in the United States in both Medicare Part D and commercial channels. Auryxia is currently covered for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication in nine of the ten largest Medicare Part D plans, which provide coverage for approximately 35.8 million people, and the ten largest commercial plans and pharmacy benefit managers in the United States, which provide coverage for approximately 131.0 million people. In September 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, decided that Auryxia would not be covered by Medicare for the IDA Indication. While this decision does not impact CMS coverage of the Hyperphosphatemia Indication, it requires all Auryxia prescriptions for Medicare patients to undergo a prior authorization to ensure their use in the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. On October 15, 2019, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against CMS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services challenging CMS’s decision that Auryxia would no longer be covered by Medicare for the IDA Indication and CMS’s related decision that imposed a prior authorization requirement for Auryxia in the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information.

JT, and its subsidiary, Torii, market Riona in Japan. We receive tiered double-digit royalties from JT and Torii based on their sales in Japan.

Manufacturing and Supply

Overview

We neither own nor operate, and currently have no plans to own or operate, any manufacturing or distribution facilities. We currently rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to produce all of our preclinical and clinical material and commercial supply and third-party distributors to distribute Auryxia. We expect to continue to rely on either existing or alternative distributors and CMOs to distribute our products and supply our ongoing and planned preclinical and clinical studies and for commercial production.

We have established relationships with several CMOs under which the CMOs manufacture preclinical and clinical supplies of vadadustat drug substance and drug product and clinical and commercial supply of Auryxia drug substance and drug product. All clinical and commercial supplies are manufactured under current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, which is a regulatory standard for the production of pharmaceuticals that will be used in humans.

Vadadustat

We currently have redundant supply arrangements in place for the preclinical and clinical supply of vadadustat. We have entered into supply agreements with Esteve Química, S.A. and Patheon Inc. for the manufacture of vadadustat drug substance and drug product, respectively, for commercial use. We intend to put additional supply arrangements in place for commercial manufacturing of vadadustat. We plan to mitigate potential commercial supply risks for vadadustat, if any, through inventory management and redundant manufacturing arrangements for both drug substance and drug product; however, the timing of such arrangements is uncertain and may occur following the launch of vadadustat, if approved.

Vadadustat is a small molecule. The synthesis of vadadustat is reliable and reproducible from starting materials available from multiple sources at commercially relevant scale using no unusual manufacturing equipment. Vadadustat can be formulated into compressed tablets using proprietary processes. As with any supply program, obtaining raw materials and finished drug product of the required quality and quantity cannot be guaranteed and we cannot ensure that we will be successful in this endeavor.

Auryxia

We have established CMO relationships for the supply of Auryxia to help ensure that we will have sufficient material for ongoing commercial sales and clinical trials. The drug substance for Auryxia is supplied by Siegfried Evionnaz SA (two sites) and BioVectra Inc. (one site), pursuant to supply agreements with pricing structured on a per-kilogram basis. Auryxia drug product is supplied by Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC (Thermo Fisher) (three sites) pursuant to a Master Manufacturing Service Agreement with per-bottle pricing structured on a tiered basis, with the price reduced as the product volume increases. These agreements require that we satisfy certain minimum purchase requirements, but we are not obligated to use them as our sole suppliers. For more information about our manufacturing agreements for Auryxia, see Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Our CMOs have other clients and may have other priorities that could affect their ability to perform the work satisfactorily and/or on a timely basis. Both of these occurrences would be beyond our control.

14

The active pharmaceutical ingredient of Auryxia, ferric citrate, is a small molecule. The synthesis of ferric citrate is reliable and reproducible from starting materials available from multiple sources at commercially relevant scale. Ferric citrate can be formulated into compressed tablets using proprietary manufacturing processes. As with any supply program, obtaining raw materials and finished drug product of the required quality and quantity cannot be guaranteed, and we cannot ensure that we will be successful in this endeavor.

We utilize third parties for the commercial distribution of Auryxia, including wholesale distributors and certain specialty pharmacy providers. We have also engaged Cardinal Health as the exclusive third-party logistics distribution agent for commercial sales of Auryxia.

License, Collaboration and Other Strategic Agreements

Vadadustat

U.S. Collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

On December 18, 2016, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Otsuka, or the Otsuka U.S. Agreement, pursuant to which we agreed to co-exclusively collaborate with Otsuka with respect to the development and commercialization of vadadustat in the United States, subject to the approval of vadadustat by the FDA. We continue to lead the ongoing global Phase 3 development program for vadadustat. We and Otsuka will co-commercialize vadadustat in the United States, subject to the approval of vadadustat by the FDA.

Under the terms of the Otsuka U.S. Agreement, Otsuka paid us an upfront payment of $125.0 million and we expect Otsuka to provide additional funding of $266.8 million or more, depending on the actual costs incurred, toward the vadadustat global Phase 3 development program. Due to the costs incurred in completing the activities under the current global development plan exceeding a certain threshold in the second quarter of 2019, we elected to require Otsuka to increase the aggregate percentage of current global development costs it funds under the Otsuka U.S. Agreement and the Otsuka International Agreement, as defined below, from 52.5% to 80%, or the Otsuka Funding Option. The additional funding expected to result from having exercised the Otsuka Funding Option, or the Additional Funding, is fully creditable against future payments due to us under the arrangement, provided that future payments due to us may not be reduced by more than 50% in any calendar year and any remaining creditable amount above 50% in any calendar year will be applied to subsequent future payments until fully credited. We are eligible to receive from Otsuka up to $190.0 million in development and regulatory milestones and up to $575.0 million in specified commercial milestones.

The Otsuka U.S. Agreement establishes a profit share for the commercialization of vadadustat in the United States. The parties will equally share all net sales of vadadustat in the United States, if approved, and generally each party will bear half of all costs in the United States, including medical affairs, commercialization and manufacturing costs.

Under the Otsuka U.S. Agreement, we and Otsuka will jointly conduct, and will have equal responsibility for, all medical affairs and commercialization activities pursuant to plans agreed by the parties. We will remain responsible for manufacturing vadadustat. Additionally, the parties agreed not to promote, market or sell any competing product in the territory covered by the agreement.

International Collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

On April 25, 2017, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Otsuka, or the Otsuka International Agreement, pursuant to which we granted Otsuka an exclusive license for the development and commercialization of vadadustat in certain territory outside the United States. The territory covered by the Otsuka International Agreement includes the European Union, Russia, China, Australia, Canada, the Middle East and certain other countries, or the Otsuka International Territory, but excludes Latin America and previously licensed jurisdictions. Under the Otsuka International Agreement, Otsuka is responsible for certain development activities and commercializing vadadustat in the Otsuka International Territory, while we lead the ongoing global Phase 3 development program. Otsuka will fund a significant percentage of the costs of such global development program regardless of the total actual costs ultimately incurred. We and Otsuka have final decision-making authority with respect to certain matters. Additionally, the parties agreed not to promote, market or sell any competing product in the territory covered by the agreement.

15

Under the terms of the Otsuka International Agreement, we expect Otsuka to pay us at least $287.2 million, comprised of $73.0 million that was paid upon execution of the Otsuka International Agreement and $214.2 million or more, depending on actual costs incurred, of development funding. In addition, we are eligible to receive from Otsuka up to $132.0 million in development and regulatory milestones and up to $525.0 million in commercial milestones. Otsuka also agreed to make tiered, escalating royalty payments ranging from low double digits up to thirty percent of net sales of vadadustat within the Otsuka International Territory. In limited circumstances, upper tier royalties may be subject to reduction if the supply price charged by us to Otsuka for vadadustat exceeds certain agreed upon thresholds, and royalty payments may also be reduced if a generic product is launched, on a country-by-country basis. Otsuka may elect to conduct additional studies of vadadustat in the European Union, subject to our right to delay such studies based on our objectives outside the Otsuka International Territory. Otsuka will pay a percentage of the costs of any such studies, and we will pay its portion of the costs in the form of a credit against future amounts due to us under the Otsuka International Agreement.

Collaboration with Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation

On December 11, 2015, we entered into a collaboration agreement with MTPC, or the MTPC Agreement, providing MTPC with exclusive development and commercialization rights to vadadustat in Japan and certain other Asian countries, or the MTPC Territory. In addition, we will supply vadadustat for both clinical and commercial use in the MTPC Territory, subject to MTPC’s option to manufacture commercial drug product in the MTPC Territory. We plan to enter into a supply agreement with MTPC for the commercial supply of vadadustat prior to commercial launch.

We and MTPC agreed that, instead of including Japanese patients in our global Phase 3 program for vadadustat, MTPC would be the sponsor of a Phase 3 program for vadadustat in Japan. MTPC reported top-line data for the two Phase 3 pivotal trials and data from the two supportive Phase 3 studies in March 2019 and 52-week data for the two Phase 3 pivotal trials in November 2019. In July 2019, MTPC submitted a Japanese New Drug Application, or JNDA, to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan for manufacturing and marketing approval of vadadustat, as a treatment for anemia due to CKD.

Under the terms of the MTPC Agreement, MTPC will make payments to us of up to $245.0 million in the aggregate based on the achievement of certain development, regulatory and sales milestones, as well as tiered double-digit royalty payments of up to 20% on sales of vadadustat in the MTPC Territory, subject to reduction upon launch of a generic product on a country-by-country basis. MTPC is responsible for the costs of the Phase 3 program for vadadustat in Japan and will make no additional funding payments for our global Phase 3 program for vadadustat. Additionally, the development costs of approximately $20.5 million for our Phase 2 studies in Japan were reimbursed to us by MTPC.

In addition, in September 2017 we agreed to provide MTPC with an option to use data from our global Phase 3 vadadustat program to obtain regulatory approval for vadadustat in Japan. If exercised, MTPC would make payments to us of up to $25.0 million.

Vifor Pharma License Agreement

On May 12, 2017, we entered into a License Agreement with Vifor Pharma, or the Vifor Agreement. On April 8, 2019, we entered into an Amended and Restated License Agreement with Vifor Pharma, or the Vifor Amended Agreement, which amends and restates in full the Vifor Agreement, pursuant to which we granted Vifor Pharma an exclusive license to sell vadadustat to FKC, an affiliate of Fresenius Medical Care North America, and to Third Party Dialysis Organizations, in the United States, which would be effective upon the approval of vadadustat for DD-CKD patients by the FDA, inclusion of vadadustat in a bundled reimbursement model or that vadadustat will be reimbursed using the TDAPA, and payment by Vifor Pharma of a $25 million milestone upon the occurrence of these two events. The Vifor Agreement is structured as a profit share arrangement between us and Vifor Pharma in which we will receive a majority of the profit from Vifor Pharma’s sales of vadadustat to FKC and to Third Party Dialysis Organizations in the United States. We will share the milestone payment and the revenue from the profit share with Otsuka pursuant to the Otsuka U.S. Agreement. We retain all rights to commercialize vadadustat for use in the NDD-CKD market and in other dialysis organizations in the United States, which will be done in collaboration with Otsuka if vadadustat is approved by the FDA.

Prior and subject to FDA approval of vadadustat, we and Vifor Pharma plan to enter into a commercial supply agreement for vadadustat pursuant to which we would supply all of Vifor Pharma’s commercial requirements for vadadustat in the United States. In addition, pursuant to the Vifor Agreement, Vifor Pharma will enter into supply agreements that govern the terms pursuant to which Vifor Pharma would supply vadadustat to FKC and Third Party Dialysis Organizations for use in patients at its dialysis centers, subject to FDA approval; however, FKC and the Third Party Dialysis Organizations are not obligated to utilize vadadustat in its clinics. During the term of the Vifor Agreement, Vifor Pharma will not sell to FKC, its affiliates, or Third Party Dialysis Organizations any HIF product that competes with vadadustat in the United States, and we may not directly supply vadadustat to FKC or any other affiliate of FMCNA or any Third Party Dialysis Organization.

16

Janssen Pharmaceutica NV Research and License Agreement

On February 9, 2017, we entered into a Research and License Agreement, the Janssen Agreement, pursuant to which Janssen granted us an exclusive license under certain intellectual property rights to develop and commercialize worldwide certain HIF-PH-targeted compounds.

Under the terms of the Janssen Agreement, Janssen granted us a license for a three-year research term to conduct research on Janssen’s HIF compound portfolio, which research term is now expired. During the research term, we could designate one or more compounds as candidates for development and commercialization. Once a compound was designated for development and commercialization, we were to be solely responsible for the development and commercialization of the compound worldwide at our own cost and expense.

Under the terms of the Janssen Agreement, we paid an upfront payment of $1.0 million in cash to Janssen and issued a warrant to purchase 509,611 shares of our common stock, the fair value of which was approximately $3.4 million. In addition, Janssen could be eligible to receive up to an aggregate of $16.5 million from us in specified development milestone payments on a product-by-product basis. Janssen will also be eligible to receive up to $215.0 million from us in specified commercial milestones as well as tiered, escalating royalties ranging from a low to mid-single digit percentage of net sales, on a product-by-product basis and subject to reduction upon expiration of patent rights or the launch of a generic product in the territory.

Janssen also has a right of first offer to engage in exclusive negotiations with us to develop and commercialize certain products developed by us containing compounds for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Auryxia

License Agreement with Panion & BF Biotech, Inc.

Prior to the Merger, Keryx entered into a license agreement, or the Panion License Agreement, which was amended from time to time, with Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion, under which Keryx in-licensed the exclusive worldwide rights, excluding certain Asian-Pacific countries, or the Licensor Territory, for the development and commercialization of ferric citrate.

On April 17, 2019, we and Panion entered into a second amended and restated license agreement, or the Panion Amended License Agreement, which amends and restates in full the Panion License Agreement, effective as of April 17, 2019. The Panion Amended License Agreement provides Keryx with an exclusive license under Panion-owned know-how and patents covering the rights to sublicense, develop, make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export ferric citrate worldwide, excluding the Licensor Territory. The Panion Amended License Agreement also provides Panion with an exclusive license under Keryx-owned patents covering the rights to sublicense (with our written consent), develop, make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and export ferric citrate in certain countries in the Licensor Territory. Consistent with the Panion License Agreement, under the Panion Amended License Agreement, Panion is eligible to receive from us or any sublicensee royalty payments based on a mid-single digit percentage of sales of ferric citrate in our licensed territories. We are eligible to receive from Panion or any sublicensee royalty payments based on a mid-single digit percentage of net sales of ferric citrate in Panion’s licensed territories.

The Panion Amended License Agreement terminates upon the expiration of each of our and Panion’s obligations to pay royalties thereunder. In addition, we may terminate the Panion Amended License Agreement (i) in its entirety or (ii) with respect to one or more countries in our licensed territory, in either case upon 90 days’ notice. We and Panion also each have the right to terminate the Panion Amended License Agreement upon the occurrence of a material breach of the Panion Amended License Agreement by the other party, subject to certain cure provisions, or certain insolvency events. The Panion Amended License Agreement also provides that, on a country-by-country basis, until the second anniversary of the expiration of our or Panion’s obligation, as applicable, to pay royalties in a country in which such party has ferric citrate for sale on the date of such expiration, neither the other party nor its affiliates will, directly or indirectly, sell, distribute or otherwise commercialize or supply or cause to supply ferric citrate to a third party for sale or distribution in such country. In addition, the Panion Amended License Agreement provides that each of us and Panion has the right, but not the obligation, to conduct litigation against any infringer of certain patent rights under the Panion Amended License Agreement in certain territories.

During the year-ended December 31, 2019, Panion earned $10.2 million in royalty payments relating to the sales of Auryxia in the United States and JT and Torii net sales of Riona in Japan, as we are required to pay a low double-digit percent of sublicense income to Panion under the terms of the license agreement, excluding any income under the JT and Torii sublicense.

17

Sublicense Agreement with Japan Tobacco Inc. and Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

In September 2007, Keryx entered into a Sublicense Agreement with JT and Torii, under which JT and Torii obtained the exclusive sublicense rights for the development and commercialization of ferric citrate in Japan. Effective June 8, 2009, Keryx entered into an Amended and Restated Sublicense Agreement, which was amended in June 2013, or the Revised Agreement, with JT and Torii.

In January 2014, JT and Torii received manufacturing and marketing approval of ferric citrate from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ferric citrate, which launched in May 2014 and is being marketed in Japan by Torii under the brand name Riona, is indicated as an oral treatment for the improvement of hyperphosphatemia in patients with CKD, including NDD-CKD and DD-CKD. JT and Torii are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical program evaluating Riona for the treatment of IDA in adult patients in Japan. JT and Torii have stated that, upon successful completion of its Phase 3 program, they expect to file an application for approval of IDA as an additional indication for Riona in Japan. Under the terms of the Revised Agreement with JT and Torii, we are eligible to receive royalty payments based on a tiered double-digit percentage of net sales of Riona in Japan escalating up to the mid-teens, subject to certain reductions upon expiration or termination of the Panion Amended License Agreement, and may also receive up to an additional $55.0 million upon the achievement of certain annual net sales milestones. In accordance with our revenue recognition policy, royalty revenues are recognized in the quarter that JT and Torii provide their written report and related information to us regarding sales of Riona, which generally will be one quarter following the quarter in which the underlying sales by JT and Torii occurred. We recorded $5.9 million in license revenue related to royalties earned on net sales of Riona in Japan during the twelve months ended December 31, 2019. We record the associated mid-single digit percentage of net sales royalty expense due to Panion, the licensor of ferric citrate, in the same period as the royalty revenue from JT and Torii is recorded.

The sublicense under the Revised Agreement terminates upon the expiration of all underlying patent rights. Also, JT and Torii may terminate the Revised Agreement with or without cause upon at least six months prior written notice to us. Additionally, either party may terminate the Revised Agreement for cause upon 60 days’ prior written notice after the breach of any uncured material provision of the Revised Agreement, or after certain insolvency events.

Intellectual Property

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our products, product candidates and our discovery programs, processes and know-how are important to our business. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we may benefit from a variety of statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe and other countries that provide periods of non-patent-based exclusivity for qualifying molecules. See “—Regulatory Matters.”  

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection of our current products as well as current and future product candidates, methods of their use and the methods used to develop and manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products depends on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities. We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates, discovery programs and processes. Even once patents successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability, inventorship, or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held not infringed or unenforceable. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued from applications filed in the United States are effective for 20 years from the earliest filing date of a United States non-provisional application or an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period, however, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest international filing date. Patent term recapture for loss of term as a result of the regulatory review period is available in some foreign jurisdictions. In the United States, a patent’s term may also be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier‑filed patent.

18

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries can diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our drugs and technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of the patent applications that we may file or license from third parties will result in the issuance of any patents. The issued patents that we own or license or may receive or acquire in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize similar drugs or duplicate our technology, business model or strategy without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a drug we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our drugs can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. The patent positions for Auryxia and vadadustat are summarized below.

Vadadustat Patent Portfolio

We hold 11 issued patents covering the composition of matter, polymorph, method of treating anemia, and pharmaceutical compositions of vadadustat in the United States and additional patents issued or pending in many other major jurisdictions worldwide, including Europe, Japan, China, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Israel and India. The expected expiration dates for these patents are between 2027 and 2034 plus any extensions or adjustments of term available under national law.

We also hold patents and patent applications directed to processes for manufacturing vadadustat, dosing regimens, formulations, and various other aspects relating to the treatment of anemia using vadadustat that are expected to expire between 2032 and 2040 exclusive of possible patent term extensions or adjustments.

We have ongoing opposition and invalidity proceedings relating to vadadustat. See Part II, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to these matters.

Auryxia Patent Portfolio

Pursuant to Keryx’s license with Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion, we have the exclusive rights under a series of patents and patent applications to commercialize Auryxia worldwide, excluding certain Asian-Pacific countries. These patents and patent applications include claims directed to compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, methods of treatment, as well as methods for the manufacture of Auryxia.

Keryx’s patent rights include 15 issued U.S. patents listed in the Orange Book covering the composition of matter, method of treating hyperphosphatemia, and pharmaceutical compositions of Auryxia. The expected expiration dates for these patents are between 2020 and 2030 plus any additional patent term extensions that may be available.  

Pursuant to the sublicense with our Japanese partner, Japan Tobacco Inc., or JT, and its subsidiary, Torii Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Torii, we have exclusively sublicensed certain Japanese patent rights to JT and Torii. These sublicensed rights include several Japanese patents and pending patent applications with composition of matter claims and methods of use claims covering Riona, the trade name under which JT and Torii market ferric citrate in Japan. The expected expiration dates for these patents and pending patent applications are between 2022 and 2027. To date, to our knowledge, no contested proceedings or third-party claims have been lodged against any of these Japanese patents.

We have received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding ANDAs submitted to the FDA requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg iron per tablet), have filed certain complaints for patent infringement relating to such ANDAs, and have entered into a settlement and license agreement with one such ANDA filer. We also have an ongoing appeal regarding an opposition proceeding against a European patent covering Auryxia. See Part II, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to these matters.

19

Other Intellectual Property Rights

We depend upon trademarks, trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological advances to develop and maintain our competitive position. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we require our employees, scientific advisors, consultants and collaborators, upon commencement of a relationship with us, to execute confidentiality agreements and, in the case of parties other than our research and development collaborators, to agree to assign their inventions to us. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed in connection with their relationship with us. These agreements may not, however, provide protection for our trade secrets in the event of unauthorized disclosure of such information.

In addition to patent protection, we may utilize orphan drug regulations, pediatric exclusivity or other provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, as amended, or FDCA, such as new chemical entity exclusivity or new formulation exclusivity, to provide market exclusivity for a drug candidate. In the United States, the FDA has the authority to grant additional data protection for approved drugs where the sponsor conducts specified testing in pediatric or adolescent populations. If granted, this pediatric exclusivity may provide an additional six months which are added to the term of data protection as well as to the term of a relevant patent, to the extent these protections have not already expired. We may also seek to utilize market exclusivities in other territories. We cannot assure that our drug products or any drug candidates we may acquire or in-license, will obtain such orphan drug designation, pediatric exclusivity, new chemical entity exclusivity or any other market exclusivity in the United States, European Union or any other territory, or that we will be the first to receive the respective regulatory approval for such drugs so as to be eligible for any market exclusivity protection.

Know-How

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment provisions in the confidentiality agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment provisions, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed by our employees. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach.

To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

The Hatch-Waxman Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are usually not required to conduct, or submit results of, nonclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to make certain certifications to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a Section viii statement, certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain or carve out any language regarding the patented method-of-use, rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent.

20

If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months from receiving the Paragraph IV certification, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant. Also, the ANDA will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains an active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which time the FDA cannot accept any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, are associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes such changes.

An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period.

On August 23, 2018, Keryx submitted a Citizen Petition requesting, inter alia, that FDA recognize that Auryxia is eligible for five years of NCE exclusivity based on its novel active ingredient and for three years exclusivity for the IDA Indication.  On January 19, 2019, FDA responded that Auryxia is eligible for a three-year exclusivity period for the IDA Indication, which expires on November 6, 2020.  FDA, however, denied the NCE exclusivity based on its determination that Auryxia contains a previously-approved active moiety (ferric cation). FDA’s decision on the Citizen Petition is subject to further review both within FDA and in the courts. On February 21, 2019, Akebia filed a Petition for Reconsideration of FDA’s decision on the NCE determination for Auryxia.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents or their agents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension for delays caused by FDA regulatory review. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase which is the time between IND submission and NDA submission, and all of the review phase, which is the time between NDA submission and approval, up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years.

We have filed applications under the patent term extension provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 156 for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,299,298, 8,093,423, 7,767,851, 5,753,706, and 8,338,642 each of which covers Auryxia for delays caused by FDA regulatory review. If granted, we can utilize the patent term extension on one of these patents, however, we cannot assure you that we can obtain any extension of the term of these patents. Upon expiration of these patents, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval may potentially offer products with the same composition and/or method of use as our product, so long as the competitors do not infringe any other patents that we may own or license.

For patents that might expire before a determination regarding patent term extension, the patent owner or its agent may request an interim patent term extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the USPTO must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. We have filed for and received interim patent term extension in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 156(e)(2) for U.S. Patent No. 5,753,706, which currently has an expiration date of February 3, 2021.

In addition, certain jurisdictions outside of the U.S., including Japan, have provisions that provide for patent term extension. In October 2014, following the regulatory approval of Riona in Japan, the Japan Patent office granted the patent term extensions filed by our sublicensee, JT, for Japanese Patents Nos. 4964585 and 4173553. As a result of the extension of patent term, Japanese Patents Nos. 4964585 and 4173553 will expire in November 2025 and November 2022, respectively.  

21

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are highly competitive. Our competitors include pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies, as well as universities and public and private research institutions. In addition, companies that are active in different but related fields represent substantial competition for us. Many of our competitors have significantly greater capital resources, larger research and development staffs and facilities and greater experience in drug development, regulation, manufacturing and marketing than we do. These organizations also compete with us to recruit qualified personnel, attract partners for joint ventures or other collaborations, and license technologies that are competitive with ours. To compete successfully in this industry, we must identify novel and unique drugs or methods of treatment and then complete the development of those drugs as treatments in advance of our competitors.

Vadadustat

If vadadustat is approved and launched commercially, competing branded drugs may include EPOGEN^® (epoetin alfa) and Aranesp^® (darbepoetin alfa), both commercialized by Amgen, Procrit^® (epoetin alfa) and Eprex^® (epoetin alfa), commercialized by Johnson & Johnson in the United States and Europe, respectively, and Mircera^® (methoxy PEG-epoetin beta), commercialized by Vifor Pharma in the United States and Roche Holding Ltd. outside the United States. We may also face competition from potential new anemia therapies. There are several other HIF-PHI product candidates in various stages of active development for anemia indications that may be in direct competition with vadadustat if and when they are approved and launched commercially. These candidates are being developed by such companies as FibroGen, Japan Tobacco International, GlaxoSmithKline plc and Bayer HealthCare AG. FibroGen, together with its collaboration partners, Astellas Pharma Inc. and AstraZeneca PLC, is currently in global Phase 3 clinical development of its product candidate, roxadustat. The product has launched for DD-CKD in Japan and both DD-CKD and NDD-CKD in China. FibroGen announced that the FDA has completed its filing review of its NDA for roxadustat for both DD-CKD and NDD-CKD and set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of December 20, 2020. They have stated they expect Astellas to file a marketing authorization application in the EU, or MAA, for both indications in the second quarter of 2020. GlaxoSmithKline plc is currently in global Phase 3 clinical development of its product candidate, daprodustat. Japan Tobacco International and Bayer HealthCare AG are currently in Phase 3 clinical development of their product candidates in Japan. GlaxoSmithKline plc and Japan Tobacco International have submitted NDAs for their product candidates for the treatment of renal anemia in Japan. In addition, certain companies are developing potential new therapies for renal-related diseases that could potentially reduce injectable ESA utilization and thus limit the market potential for vadadustat if they are approved and launched commercially. Other new therapies are in development for the treatment of conditions inclusive of renal anemia that may impact the market for anemia-targeted treatment.

A biosimilar is a biologic product that is approved based on demonstrating that it is highly similar to an existing, FDA-approved branded biologic product. The patents for the existing, branded biologic product must expire in a given market before biosimilars may enter that market without risk of being sued for patent infringement. In addition, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the existing, branded product was approved under a Biologics License Application, or BLA. The patents for epoetin alfa, an injectable ESA, expired in 2004 in the European Union, and the remaining patents expired between 2012 and 2016 in the United States. Because injectable ESAs are biologic products, the introduction of biosimilars into the injectable ESA market in the United States will constitute additional competition for vadadustat if we are able to obtain approval for and commercially launch our product. Several biosimilar versions of injectable ESAs are available for sale in the European Union. In the United States, Pfizer’s biosimilar version of injectable ESAs, Retacrit^® (epoetin alfa-epbx), was approved by the FDA in May 2018 and launched in November 2018 by Vifor Pharma.

Auryxia

Hyperphosphatemia Competition

Auryxia  competes in the Hyperphosphatemia Indication in the United States with other FDA-approved phosphate binders such as Renagel^® (sevelamer hydrochloride) and Renvela^® (sevelamer carbonate), both marketed by Genzyme Corporation (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sanofi), PhosLo^® and Phoslyra^® (calcium acetate), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, Fosrenol^® (lanthanum carbonate), marketed by Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc, and Velphoro^® (sucroferric oxyhydroxide), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, as well as over-the-counter calcium carbonate products such as TUMS^® and metal-based options such as aluminum, lanthanum and magnesium. Many of the phosphate binders listed above are now also available in generic forms. In addition, other phosphate binders are in various phases of development, including OPKO Health Inc.’s Alpharen™ Tablets (fermagate tablets) and Ardelyx, Inc’s tenapanor, that may impact the market for Auryxia.

22

Iron Deficiency Anemia Competition

Auryxia competes in the IDA Indication in the United States with over-the-counter oral iron, other prescription oral iron formulations, including ferrous sulfate, ferrous gluconate, ferrous fumerate, and polysaccharide iron complex, and IV iron formulations, including Feraheme^® (ferumoxytol injection), Venofer^® (iron sucrose injection), Ferrlicit^® (sodium ferric gluconate complex in sucrose injection), Injectafer^® (ferric carboxymaltose injection), and Triferic^® (ferric pyrophosphate citrate).  

In addition, other new therapies are available for the treatment of IDA that may impact the market for Auryxia, such as Shield Therapeutics’ ferric maltol, which is currently approved in Europe as Ferracru^® for IDA and more recently in the United States as Accrufer^®.

Government Regulation and Product Approvals

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, sales, pricing, reimbursement, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory requirements, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Review and Approval of Drug Products in the United States

In the United States, the FDA approves and regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. The failure to comply with applicable requirements under the FDCA and other applicable laws at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

23

Preclinical Studies

Before an applicant begins testing a compound with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated drug or drug product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the product candidate for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, and long-term toxicity studies, will likely continue after the IND is submitted through the time of the NDA submission.

The IND and IRB Processes

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human patients under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research patients provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved drug to be shipped through interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational drug to humans. Such authorization must be obtained prior to interstate shipment and administration of any new drug that is not the subject of an approved NDA. As a required component of the IND application, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments. In addition, the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research patients will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, or thereafter, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold or require that the sponsor amend the clinical protocol to include additional safety measurements. In this case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin (or resume if the clinical trial had been ongoing at the time a clinical hold was imposed).

Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed, while other protocols may do so. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, an investigation may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the investigation may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the investigation can proceed.  Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, nonclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval.  These requirements to protect the rights, welfare, and safety of patients are also stipulated in applicable ICH guidance.

In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct a continuing review and reapprove the trial at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study patients. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

24

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee, or DMC. DMCs may be charged with monitoring efficacy, safety, and/or study conduct. A DMC provides a recommendation for whether or not a clinical trial should move forward at designated check points based on available data from the trial. A recommendation by a DMC to suspend or terminate development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on its website.  

Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug for Treatment Use

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new drug products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational drugs for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the drug under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere with initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product candidate or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product candidate.

On December 13, 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, established (and the 2017 Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act later amended) a requirement that sponsors of one or more investigational drugs for the treatment of a serious disease(s) or condition(s) make publicly available their policy for evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access for individual patients. Although these requirements were rolled out over time, they have now come into full effect.  This provision requires drug and biologic companies to make publicly available their policies for expanded access for individual patient access to products intended for serious diseases. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 study; or 15 days after the drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy. 

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

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in four sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

25

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials conducted under the IND must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and, more frequently, if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The FDA or the sponsor or the data monitoring committee may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act or FDASIA, in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The legislation requires the FDA to meet with drug sponsors by no later than the end-of-Phase 1 meeting for serious or life-threatening diseases and by no later than ninety days after the FDA’s receipt of the study plan.  The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

Submission of an NDA to the FDA

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product candidate for one or more indications.  Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2020 is $2,942,965 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2020 is $325,424. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for product candidates with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of an NDA within 60 days of its receipt and strives to inform the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review.  This is known as the filing decision. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date of filing, and most applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months of filing.  A product that has been designated as a breakthrough therapy may also be eligible for review within six months if supported by clinical data at the time of submission of the NDA. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

26

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, finished drug product manufacturing, control testing laboratories, as well as packaging and labeling facilities. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.  The applicant of the NDA may also have their records, processes, procedures, training, and other aspects reviewed during an inspection.  The FDA must implement a protocol to expedite review of responses to inspection reports pertaining to certain drug applications, including applications for drugs in a shortage or drugs for which approval is dependent on remediation of conditions identified in the inspection report.

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks.

Finally, the FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review

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

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, in 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Improvement Act. This law established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.  

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s review clock goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months. For new chemical entities, or NCEs, the review clock starts after the NDA is filed with a total clock of twelve and eight months, respectively.

27

Priority Review Vouchers

A PRV is a voucher that the FDA issues to a sponsor of a rare pediatric disease or tropical disease product application at the time of the marketing application approval. Vouchers are transferrable to other sponsors that may apply it to their NDAs or BLAs. A PRV entitles the holder to designate a single human drug application submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act as qualifying for a priority review. An FDA priority review may expedite the review process of a marketing application reducing the review time from ten months after formal acceptance of the file to six months after formal acceptance of the file. Applying the PRV to a marketing application does not ensure the FDA’s approval of the marketing application and all requirements supporting the safety and efficacy of the product must be met.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, analyses, or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application.  This may include the requirement to conduct another clinical study or studies.  If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Post-Approval Requirements and Commitments

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, conditions of NDA approval may include sponsor agreement to PMR or PMC studies, which are designed to further assess drug safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.  These may include additional studies, registries, data collection, analyses, and/or information.

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

28

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a product candidate’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the product candidate is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or in a manner that is inconsistent with the product’s prescribing information. In the United States, healthcare professionals are generally permitted to prescribe drugs for such uses not described in the drug’s labeling, known as off-label uses, because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose rigorous restrictions on manufacturers’ communications, prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. It may be permissible, under very specific conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, truthful and non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. In addition, companies may also promote information that it consistent with the prescribing information and have the ability to proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA.  However, if a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products and drug samples are subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, and its implementing regulations, as well as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCA, which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the federal level and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states. The PDMA, its implementing regulations and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples, and the DSCA imposes requirements to ensure accountability in distribution and to identify and remove counterfeit and other illegitimate products from the market.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, bioequivalence, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD.

29

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, the strength of the drug and the conditions of use of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to an RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.” Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity, or NCE, is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval. The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three-year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five-year NCE exclusivity, an award of three-year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

The FDA must establish a priority review track for certain generic drugs, requiring the FDA to review a drug application within eight months for a drug that has three or fewer approved drugs listed in the Orange Book and is no longer protected by any patent or regulatory exclusivities, or is on the FDA’s drug shortage list. The new legislation also authorizes FDA to expedite review of ‘‘competitor generic therapies’’ or drugs with inadequate generic competition, including holding meetings with or providing advice to the drug sponsor prior to submission of the application.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the applicant is not seeking approval).

30

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.  

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product is effective in the pediatric population studied, rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. With regard to patents, the six-month pediatric exclusivity period will not attach to any patents for which an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant submitted a paragraph IV patent certification, unless the NDA sponsor or patent owner first obtains a court determination that the patent is valid and infringed by the proposed product.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Review and Approval of Drug Products Outside the United States

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Clinical Trial Approval in the European Union

Requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union including GCP are set forth in the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, or the Clinical Trials Directive, and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC, or the GCP Directive. Pursuant to the Clinical Trials Directive and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC, as amended, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the EU member states. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of each EU member state in which a study is planned to be conducted. To this end, a clinical trial application, or CTA, is submitted to the local competent authority in each country (or member state) where the clinical trial is being conducted, which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier, or IMPD, and further supporting information prescribed by Clinical Trials Directive and the GCP Directive and other applicable guidance documents.  These documents may be amended and/or updated by the EC at any time. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application in that country.

31

In April 2014, the European Union passed the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or the new Clinical Trials Regulation, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the European Union, the new EU clinical trials legislation was passed as a regulation that is directly applicable in all EU member states. All clinical trials performed in the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive until the new Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable. According to the current plans of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, the new Clinical Trials Regulation is expected to become applicable in 2020. The Clinical Trials Directive will, however, still apply three years from the date of entry into application of the new Clinical Trials Regulation to (i) clinical trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year after the entry into application if the sponsor opts for old system.

The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trial in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the EU portal; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures that will spare sponsors from submitting broadly identical information separately to various bodies and different member states; a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts (Part I is assessed jointly by all member states concerned, and Part II is assessed separately by each member state concerned); strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications; and the involvement of the ethics committees in the assessment procedure in accordance with the national law of the member state concerned but within the overall timelines defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

As in the United States, there are similar requirements in the European Union for posting clinical trial information online, and in other countries as well.

PRIME Designation in the European Union

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme, to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIME scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated agency contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, are appointed early in the PRIME scheme, facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s committee level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Marketing Authorization

To obtain marketing approval of a product under EU regulatory systems, an applicant must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA, either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states. The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional.

Under the centralized procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP, established at the EMA is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

32

The decentralized procedure is available to applicants who wish to market a product in various EU member states where such product has not received marketing approval in any EU member state before. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other, or concerned, member states of an assessment of an application performed by one member state designated by the applicant, known as the reference member state. Under this procedure, an applicant submits an application based on identical dossiers and related materials, including a draft summary of product characteristics, and draft labeling and package leaflet, to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment report and drafts of the related materials within 210 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report and related materials, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

If a member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

Within this framework, manufacturers may seek approval of hybrid medicinal products under Article 10(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC. Hybrid applications rely, in part, on information and data from a reference product and new data from appropriate pre-clinical tests and clinical trials. Such applications are necessary when the proposed product does not meet the strict definition of a generic medicinal product, or bioavailability studies cannot be used to demonstrate bioequivalence, or there are changes in the active substance(s), therapeutic indications, strength, pharmaceutical form or route of administration of the generic product compared to the reference medicinal product. In such cases the results of tests and trials must be consistent with the data content standards required in the Annex to the Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC.

Hybrid medicinal product applications have automatic access to the centralized procedure when the reference product was authorized for marketing via that procedure. Where the reference product was authorized via the decentralized procedure, a hybrid application may be accepted for consideration under the centralized procedure if the applicant shows that the medicinal product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or the granting of a community authorization for the medicinal product is in the interest of patients at the community level.

A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006, or Pediatric Regulation, provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the marketing authorization is obtained in all member states of the European Union and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension. For orphan-designated medicinal products, the 10-year period of market exclusivity is extended to 12 years.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals in the European Union

A marketing authorization is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the relevant EU member state. To that end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the relevant competent authority of the EU member state with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the relevant competent authority of the EU member state decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any marketing authorization that is not followed by the marketing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in the case of the centralized procedure) or on the market of the EU member state which delivered the marketing authorization within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

Regulatory Data Exclusivity in the European Union

In the European Union, innovative medicinal products authorized in the European Union on the basis of a full marketing authorization application (as opposed to an application for marketing authorization that relies on data available in the marketing authorization dossier for another, previously approved, medicinal product) are entitled to eight years of data exclusivity. During this period, applicants for authorization of generics of these innovative products cannot rely on data contained in the marketing authorization dossier submitted for the innovative medicinal product. Innovative medicinal products are also entitled to ten years’ market

33

exclusivity. During this ten-year period no generic of this medicinal product can be placed on the EU market. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Prior to submitting a marketing authorization application in the European Union, applicants must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA approved PIP covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product‑specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are set forth in the Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine for children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine for children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP. If an applicant obtains a marketing authorization in all EU member states, or a marketing authorization granted in the Centralized Procedure by the European Commission, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of the Supplementary Protection Certificate.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. Under the withdrawal agreement, there is a transitional period until December 31, 2020 (extendable up to two years). Discussions between the United Kingdom and the EU have so far mainly focused on finalizing withdrawal issues and transition agreements but have been extremely difficult to date. To date, only an outline of a trade agreement has been reached. Much remains open, but the Prime Minister has indicated that the United Kingdom will not seek to extend the transitional period beyond the end of 2020. If no trade agreement has been reached before the end of the transitional period, there may be significant market and economic disruption. The Prime Minister has also indicated that the United Kingdom will not accept high regulatory alignment with the European Union.

Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime that applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

General Data Protection Regulation

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates when required, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater.  The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR.  Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

34

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product candidate could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

For example, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the current administration, or Administration, have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs.  For example, on May 11, 2018, the Administration issued a plan to lower drug prices.  Under this blueprint for action, the Administration indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, will: take steps to end the gaming of regulatory and patent processes by drug makers to unfairly protect monopolies; advance biosimilars and generics to boost price competition; evaluate the inclusion of prices in drug makers’ advertisements to enhance price competition; speed access to and lower the cost of new drugs by clarifying policies for sharing information between insurers and drug makers; avoid excessive pricing by relying more on value-based pricing by expanding outcome-based payments in Medicare and Medicaid; work to give Part D plan sponsors more negotiation power with drug makers; examine which Medicare Part B drugs could be negotiated for a lower price by Part D plans, and improving the design of the Part B Competitive Acquisition Program; update Medicare’s drug-pricing dashboard to increase transparency; prohibit Part D contracts that include “gag rules” that prevent pharmacists from informing patients when they could pay less out-of-pocket by not using insurance; and require that Part D plan members be provided with an annual statement of plan payments, out-of-pocket spending, and drug price increases. In addition, on December 23, 2019, the Administration published a proposed rulemaking that, if finalized, would allow states or certain other non-federal government entities to submit importation program proposals to FDA for review and approval. Applicants would be required to demonstrate their importation plans pose no additional risk to public health and safety and will result in significant cost savings for consumers.  At the same time, FDA issued draft guidance that would allow manufacturers to import their own FDA-approved drugs that are authorized for sale in other countries (multi-market approved products).

At the state level, individual states are 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. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.  It is expected 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.

35

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians, teaching hospitals and other healthcare providers, patient privacy laws and regulations, and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

36

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines, such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals, known as the PhRMA Code. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Healthcare Reform

A primary trend in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare.

In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential drug candidates are:

37

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year that started in 2013 and will stay in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by the President on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.”  The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, is no longer effective in 2019.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the individual mandate will cause 13 million fewer Americans to be insured by 2027 and premiums in insurance markets may rise.  Additionally, on January 22, 2018, the President signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, 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, amended the ACA, 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”. Congress will likely consider other legislation to replace elements of the ACA during the next Congressional session.

In addition, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The current administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 30, 2018 the same judge issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal. The current administration recently represented to the Court of Appeals considering this judgment that it does not oppose the lower court’s ruling.  On July 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in this case.  On December 18, 2019, that court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is unconstitutional and it remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the severability question and additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Administration has also taken executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA.  Since January 2017, the President has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. Further, on June 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued were owed to them. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

Laws Relating to Foreign Trade

We are subject to various federal and foreign laws that govern our international business practices. These laws include the FCPA which prohibits U.S. companies and their representatives from paying, offering to pay, promising, or authorizing the payment of anything of value to any foreign government official, government staff member, political party, or political candidate for the purposes of obtaining or retaining business, or to otherwise obtain favorable treatment or influence a person working in an official capacity. In many countries, the health care professionals we regularly interact with may meet the FCPA’s definition of a foreign government official. Additionally, interactions with or on the part of our partners, collaborators, contract research organizations, vendors or other agents may also implicate the FCPA. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately

38

and fairly reflect their transactions and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents unique challenges in the pharmaceutical industry because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments made by pharmaceutical companies to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Our international operations could also be subject to compliance with national laws of other countries, such as the United Kingdom Bribery Act. of 2010, or U.K. Bribery Act. The U.K. Bribery Act applies to any company “carrying on business” in the United Kingdom, irrespective of where the offending conduct occurs. The U.K. Bribery Act applies to bribery activities both in the public and private sector and prohibits the provision of an “advantage” intended to induce or reward “improper performance” of the recipient’s function. The failure by a company to prevent third parties from providing a bribe on its behalf could also constitute an offense. Penalties under the U.K. Bribery Act include potentially unlimited fines for companies and criminal sanctions for corporate officers under certain circumstances.

There are local antibribery and anticorruption laws in countries where we are conducting clinical trials, such as Brazil and Russia, and many of these also carry the risk of significant financial or criminal penalties. Our clinical trial operations could also result in enforcement actions by U.S., U.K., or other governmental authorities. There are also trade laws within the United States and in other regions that regulate the sale, purchase, import, export, reexport, transfer and shipment of goods, currency, products, materials, services and technology. Violations of these laws can lead to serious consequences, including substantial fines.

Other Regulations

We are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. We may incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations now or in the future.

Employees

As of December 31, 2019, we had 360 employees, 358 of whom were full-time. None of our employees is represented by any collective bargaining unit. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees.

Available Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 245 First Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142. Our telephone number is (617) 871-2098. Our website address is www.akebia.com. The information on our website or that may be accessed by links on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. We make available, free of charge and through our website, our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to any such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

39

Item 1A. Risk Factors

We face a variety of risks and uncertainties in our business. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also become important factors that affect our business. If any of the following risks occurs, our business, financial statements and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses and cannot guarantee when, if ever, we will become profitable or attain positive cash flows.

Investment in pharmaceutical product development and commercialization is highly speculative because it entails upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to gain marketing approval or that an approved product will not be commercially viable. Since our inception, we have devoted most of our resources to research and development, including our preclinical and clinical development activities and, following the merger, or the Merger, whereby Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, became a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, commercialization. We have financed our operations primarily through sales of equity securities, our strategic collaborations and, following the Merger, product revenues and debt. Prior to the Merger, we had no products approved for commercial sale and had not generated any revenue from the sale of products. We are not currently profitable and have incurred net losses each year since our inception, including net losses of $279.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $794.1 million. We cannot guarantee when, if ever, we will become profitable. Our ability to generate product revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on our success in many areas, including the following:

40

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures, and our financial position will depend, in part, on our product revenue from Auryxia and, if approved, vadadustat, and our ability to obtain additional funding. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses if and as we:

We also could be forced to expend significant resources in our legal proceedings, as described under Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings, or any other such legal proceedings brought by or against us in the future.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development and commercialization, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. In any particular quarter, the progress of our clinical development and our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and are able to commercialize vadadustat, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market, if approved, any other product candidates as well as any costs relating to continued commercialization and post-marketing requirements for Auryxia, vadadustat and any other products or product candidates that may receive marketing approval, including those that may be in-licensed or acquired. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or other regulatory authorities, or if we otherwise believe it is necessary, to change our manufacturing processes or assays, to amend or replace our study protocols, to repeat any of our clinical trials, to perform studies in addition to, different from or larger than those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates. Even if our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercialization. In addition, our ability to generate revenue would be negatively affected if the size of our addressable patient population is not as significant as we estimate, an indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the patient population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice, coverage or reimbursement, or payor or treatment guidelines. Even though we generate product revenue from Auryxia and may generate revenues from the sale of products and any product candidates that may be approved in the future, including those that may be in-licensed or acquired, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to become and remain profitable, and we may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

41

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals. A failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2019, our cash and cash equivalents and available for sale securities were $147.7 million. We expect to continue to expend substantial amounts for the foreseeable future continuing the commercialization of Auryxia and developing and commercializing vadadustat, if approved, and any other products or product candidates, including those that may be in-licensed or acquired. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, potentially obtaining marketing approvals and having our products manufactured, as well as marketing and selling products approved for sale, if any. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise, including as a result of our decision to include certain elements in our development programs. Because the outcome of our current and anticipated clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amount of funding necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

42

Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a larger company following the Merger and as a public company, including any additional infrastructure and resources necessary to support the transition from our prior status as an emerging growth company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

We expect our cash resources and the receipt of a $15.0 million regulatory milestone from MTPC, assuming approval of vadadustat in Japan, to fund our current operating plan well into 2021. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Furthermore, our development milestones may not be achieved, we may not receive the anticipated funding from our collaboration partners, and we may not secure other sources of financing. If and until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenues, we expect to finance future cash needs through public or private equity or debt transactions, payments from our collaborators, royalty transactions, strategic transactions, or a combination of these approaches. Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic objectives.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management’s attention away from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize Auryxia, vadadustat and any other products or product candidates. Also, additional funds may not be available to us in sufficient amounts or on acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts when needed or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of Auryxia, vadadustat and any other products or product candidates. Any of these events could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Our obligations in connection with the Loan Agreement with Pharmakon could adversely affect our financial condition and restrict our operations.

We entered into a loan agreement, or the Loan Agreement, with Pharmakon, pursuant to which term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $100.0 million, or the Term Loans, were made available to us in two tranches.  The first tranche of $80 million closed on November 25, 2019, and we have the option to draw down the second tranche of $20.0 million on or before December 31, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary conditions. See Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 – Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for additional information regarding our obligations under the Loan Agreement. Our Loan Agreement with Pharmakon contains affirmative and negative covenants applicable to us and our subsidiaries, including maintaining, on an annual basis, a minimum liquidity threshold starting in 2021, and on a quarterly basis, a minimum net sales threshold for Auryxia starting in the fourth quarter of 2020. Failure to maintain compliance with these covenants could result in an event of default under the Loan Agreement.

In the event there is an acceleration of our and certain of our subsidiaries’ liabilities under the Loan Agreement as a result of an event of default, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to repay the liabilities or to make any accelerated payments, and Pharmakon could seek to enforce security interests in the collateral securing the Loan Agreement and Keryx’s guarantee of the Term Loans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Loan Agreement permits voluntary prepayment at any time in whole or in part, subject to prepayment premiums and make-whole premiums prior to certain dates. Upon a change of control, mandatory prepayment provisions require us to prepay the principal amount outstanding, the applicable prepayment premium and make-whole premium and accrued and unpaid interest. In addition, our obligations in connection with the Loan Agreement could have additional significant adverse consequences, including, among other things:

Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

43

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our product and product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

We expect to finance our cash needs through product revenues, public or private equity or debt transactions, payments from our collaborators, royalty transactions, strategic transactions, or a combination of these approaches. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of our common stockholders will be diluted, our fixed payment obligations may increase, any such securities may have rights senior to those of our common stock, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that would restrict our operations and potentially impair our competitiveness, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, make capital expenditures, declare dividends, acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights, and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through royalty transactions, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our portfolio and future revenue streams, and enter into agreements that would restrict our operations and strategic flexibility. If we raise additional funds through strategic transactions with third parties, we may have to do so at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable. In connection with any such strategic transactions, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our product and product candidates, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts for Auryxia, vadadustat, or any other products or product candidates that we develop or acquire, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We may engage in strategic transactions to acquire assets, businesses, or rights to products, product candidates or technologies or form collaborations or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt, or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may engage in additional strategic transactions to expand and diversify our portfolio, including through the acquisition of assets, businesses, or rights to products, product candidates or technologies or through strategic alliances or collaborations, similar to the Merger and our collaboration and license arrangements. We may not identify suitable strategic transactions, or complete such transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, or at all. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential opportunities that are never completed or we may incorrectly judge the value or worth of such opportunities. Even if we successfully execute a strategic transaction, we may not be able to realize the anticipated benefits of such transaction, may incur additional debt or assume unknown or contingent liabilities in connection therewith, and may experience losses related to our investments in such transactions. Integration of an acquired company or assets into our existing business may not be successful and may disrupt ongoing operations, require the hiring of additional personnel and the implementation of additional internal systems and infrastructure, and require management resources that would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. Even if we are able to achieve the long-term benefits of a strategic transaction, our expenses and short-term costs may increase materially and adversely affect our liquidity. Any of the foregoing could have a detrimental effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, future transactions may entail numerous operational, financial and legal risks, including:

If we are unable to successfully manage any transaction in which we may engage, our ability to develop new products and continue to expand and diversify our portfolio may be limited.

44

Risks Related to our Merger with Keryx

We may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of our merger with Keryx, those benefits may take longer to realize than expected, and we may encounter significant integration difficulties and liabilities, which may have a material adverse effect on our business and financial position.

On December 12, 2018, we completed the Merger. There can be no assurance that we will realize the full benefit of the anticipated synergies and cost savings relating to the Merger or that these benefits will be realized within the expected time frames or at all. Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the Merger will depend, to a large extent, on our ability to continue to integrate our business and Keryx’s business and realize anticipated growth opportunities and synergies. If we are unable to successfully integrate the businesses, or integrate them in a timely fashion, we may face material adverse effects including, but not limited to (i) diversion of the attention of management and key personnel and potential disruption of our ongoing business, (ii) the loss of employees, (iii) challenges of managing a larger company, including challenges of conforming standards, controls, procedures and accounting and other policies and compensation structures, (iv) difficulties in achieving anticipated cost savings, (v) declines in our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, (vi) a decline in the market price of our common stock, and (vii) potential liabilities, adverse consequences, increased expenses or other problems associated with our company following completion of the Merger. Many of these factors are outside of our control, and any one of them could result in increased costs, decreased expected revenues and further diversion of management time and energy, which could materially impact our business, financial statements and prospects.

In addition, following the Merger, we have become responsible for Keryx’s liabilities and obligations, including with respect to legal, financial, regulatory and compliance matters, including certain post-approval regulatory requirements with respect to Auryxia and obligations under collaboration, license, supply and manufacturing agreements. These obligations will result in additional cost and investment by us and, if we have underestimated the amount of these costs and investments or if we fail to satisfy any such obligations, we may not realize the anticipated benefits of the transaction. Also, due to the Merger and ongoing integration, we may forego or delay pursuit of other opportunities that may have proven to have greater commercial potential.

Further, it is possible that there may be unknown, contingent or other liabilities or problems that may arise in the future, the existence and/or magnitude of which we were previously unaware. Any such liabilities or problems could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Lawsuits have been filed challenging the Merger and additional lawsuits may be filed in the future. Any monetary damages, or other adverse judgment could have a material adverse effect on us.

There is an ongoing putative class action lawsuit filed by purported Keryx shareholders challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger.  In addition, a stockholder of Keryx filed a complaint against Keryx pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which sought inspection of various Keryx books and records, purportedly to investigate “possible wrongdoing,” in connection with Keryx’s negotiation and approval of the Merger, as well as the independence of former members of Keryx’s Board of Directors (some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors). See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to the lawsuits. Additional lawsuits arising out of the Merger may be filed in the future. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits, including but not limited to, costs associated with the indemnification of Keryx and Akebia directors and officers, and the lawsuits, regardless of outcome, could have a negative effect on our reputation, stock price and results of operations. In addition, monetary damages or other adverse judgment would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial position.

Our financial statements include goodwill and other intangible assets as a result of the Merger. These assets could become impaired in the future under certain conditions.

The Merger added approximately $384.7 million of goodwill and definite lived intangible assets to our financial statements as of December 12, 2018. Our definite lived intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, we are required annually, or more frequently upon certain indicators of impairment, to review our estimates and assumptions underlying the fair value of our goodwill and our definite lived intangible assets when indicators of impairment are present. Conditions that could indicate impairment and necessitate such a review include, but are not limited to, Auryxia’s commercial performance, our inability to execute on our strategic initiatives, and the deterioration of our market capitalization such that it is significantly below our net book value. To the extent we conclude that goodwill and/or definite lived intangible assets have become impaired, we may be required to incur material write-offs relating to such impairment and any such write-offs could have a material impact on our future operating results and financial position.

45

Risks Related to Commercialization

Our ability to successfully commercialize our product, Auryxia, our late-stage product candidate, vadadustat, if approved, and any other product or product candidate, including our ability to achieve their widespread market acceptance, is critical to the success of our business.

Our ability to generate significant product revenue will depend almost entirely on our ability to execute on our commercialization plans, the level of market adoption for, and the availability of and continued use of our product, Auryxia, and, if approved, our late-stage product candidate, vadadustat, by physicians, hospitals, dialysis clinics, wholesalers, patients, and/or healthcare payors, including government payors, consumers, managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit managers, and pharmacies. If we are not successful in commercializing Auryxia and vadadustat, if approved, including achieving and maintaining an adequate level of market adoption, our profitability and our future business prospects will be adversely impacted. Market acceptance of Auryxia and any other product or product candidate that may be approved, including vadadustat, depends on a number of other factors, including:

Market acceptance is critical to our ability to generate significant product revenue. In addition, any product or product candidate, if approved and commercialized, may achieve only limited market acceptance or none at all. If any of our approved products is not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect, we may not be able to generate product revenue and our business would suffer.

Generic competitors are seeking approval of generic versions of Auryxia and the market entry of one or more generic competitors would limit Auryxia sales and have an adverse impact on our business and results of operation.

Although composition and use of Auryxia are currently claimed by 15 issued patents that are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book, we cannot assure that we will be successful in defending against third parties attempting to invalidate or design around our patents or assert that our patents are invalid or otherwise unenforceable or not infringed, or in competing against third parties introducing generic equivalents of Auryxia or any of our future products.

46

The Hatch-Waxman Act allows applicants seeking to market a generic equivalent of a drug that relies, in whole or in part, on the FDA’s prior approval of a patented brand name drug, to provide notice to the holder of the New Drug Application, or NDA, for the brand name drug of its application, called a Paragraph IV certification notice, if the applicant is seeking to market its product prior to the expiration of the patents with claims directed to the brand name drug. After the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of the prescriptions written for a product may be filled with the generic version, resulting in a loss in sales of the branded product. We have received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the FDA requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg iron per tablet), have filed certain complaints for patent infringement relating to such ANDAs, and have entered into a settlement and license agreement with one such ANDA filer. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to the ANDAs, lawsuits and settlements. Generic competition for Auryxia or any of our future products could have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, litigation to enforce or defend intellectual property rights is complex, costly and involves significant management time. If our Orange Book listed patents are successfully challenged by a third party and a generic version of Auryxia is approved and launched, revenue from Auryxia could decline significantly, which would have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

If we are unable to maintain sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or to enter into additional agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products or product candidates, if approved.

In order to market Auryxia, we intend to continue to invest in sales and marketing, which will require substantial effort and significant management and financial resources. We will need to devote significant effort, in particular, to recruiting individuals with experience in the sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Competition for personnel with these skills is significant.

There are risks involved with maintaining our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, including the following:

If we are unable to maintain our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and our arrangements with third parties with respect to sales, marketing and distribution, or we are unsuccessful in entering into additional arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute or are unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us, we will not be successful in commercializing Auryxia, vadadustat, or any other product or product candidates.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products or product candidates, if approved, which could make it difficult for us to sell any approved products profitably.

Market acceptance and sales of any approved products depends significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third party payors and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures. Government authorities, third party payors, and pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, decide which drugs they will cover, as well as establish formularies or implement other mechanisms to manage utilization of products and determine reimbursement levels. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor or PBM may depend upon a number of factors, including the determination that use of a product is:

47

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. In the United States, there are multiple government and private third-party payors with varying coverage and reimbursement levels for pharmaceutical products, and the timing of commencement of reimbursement by a government payor is dependent on the assignment of codes via the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, which codes are assigned on a quarterly basis. Within Medicare, for oral drugs dispensed by pharmacies and also administered in facilities, coverage and reimbursement may vary depending on the setting. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, local Medicare administrative contractors, Medicare Part D plans and/or PBMs operating on behalf of Medicare Part D plans, may have some responsibility for determining the medical necessity of such drugs, and therefore coverage, for different patients. Different reimbursement methodologies may apply, and CMS may have some discretion in interpreting their application in certain settings.

As an oral drug, Auryxia is covered by Medicare only under Part D. In September 2018, CMS communicated to Medicare Part D sponsors that CMS does not consider Auryxia to be covered under Part D when it is used solely for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in patients with CKD not on dialysis, or the IDA Indication. CMS does, however, consider Auryxia to be a covered Part D drug when it is used for its other FDA-approved indication, the control of serum phosphorus levels in CKD patients on dialysis, or the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. As a result, Part D sponsors require a prior authorization for all Auryxia prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries to ensure that Auryxia is being used for the Part D covered indication. On October 15, 2019, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against CMS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, challenging CMS’s decision that Auryxia would no longer be covered by Medicare for the IDA Indication and CMS’s related decision that imposed the prior authorization requirement for Auryxia in the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. On February 4, 2020, the court denied our request for a preliminary injunction. We filed an expedited appeal with the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit challenging the district court’s denial of our motion for a preliminary injunction.  The appeal is currently pending. If we are unsuccessful in our efforts to obtain Part D coverage for the IDA Indication, our ability to commercialize Auryxia for this indication will continue to be adversely impacted. While we believe that the vast majority of the Part D prescriptions written for Auryxia today are for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication and therefore will continue to be covered by Part D plans with prior authorization, the prior authorization requirement and the CMS decision have  had and may continue to have an adverse impact on market acceptance of Auryxia, sales of Auryxia for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication and the IDA Indication, respectively, and ultimately on the timing and number of prescriptions and Auryxia product revenue, and may influence physicians’ prescribing decisions. Sales of Auryxia for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication and the IDA Indication have been negatively impacted, and may continue to be negatively affected, as a result of the CMS decision. Even if we are successful in overturning the CMS decision, the negative impact that the original decision had on the growth of sales of Auryxia for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication and the IDA Indication will continue, although less significantly than if the CMS decision is not overturned. We cannot predict the future impact of the CMS determination or prior authorization changes on our operations and they could have a material adverse effect on our revenue and results of operations going forward.

Medicaid reimbursement of drugs will also vary by state. Private third-party payor reimbursement policies may also vary and may or may not be consistent with Medicare reimbursement methodologies. Manufacturers of outpatient prescription drugs may be required to provide discounts or rebates under government healthcare programs or to certain third-party payors in order to obtain coverage of such products.

Additionally, we may be required to enter into contracts with third party payors and/or PBMs offering rebates or discounts on our products in order to obtain favorable formulary status. We may not be able to agree upon commercially reasonable terms with such third party payors or PBMs, or provide data sufficient to obtain favorable coverage and reimbursement for many reasons, including that we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines. In addition, third party payors, PBMs and other entities that purchase our products may impose restrictions on our ability to raise prices for our products over time without incurring additional costs. We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for our product or any of our potential future products. Even if we obtain coverage for any approved product, third party payors may not establish adequate reimbursement amounts which may reduce the demand for our product and prompt us to have to reduce pricing for the product. If reimbursement is not available or is limited, we may not be able to commercialize certain of our products.

If we are unable to obtain or maintain contracts with key distribution partners, our business could be materially harmed.

As disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, we had four distributors, Fresenius Medical Care Rx, McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and Amerisource Bergen Drug Corporation, that, in the aggregate, accounted for a significant percentage of our gross accounts receivable as of December 31, 2019. If we are not able to maintain our contracts with these key distributors on favorable terms, on a timely basis or at all, or if there is any adverse change in one or more of these distributors’ business practices or financial condition, or such distributors’ end users’ prescribing practices or clinical protocols, it would adversely impact the market opportunity for Auryxia, our product revenues and operating results.

48

Further, if vadadustat is approved and included in the fixed reimbursement model for a bundle of dialysis services, or the bundle, we would be required to enter into contracts to supply vadadustat to specific dialysis providers, instead of through distributors, which we believe could be challenging. The dialysis market is unique and is dominated by two providers: DaVita, Inc., or DaVita, and Fresenius Medical Care, or Fresenius, which account for a vast majority of the dialysis population in the United States. In May 2017, we entered into a license agreement, which was amended and restated in April 2019, pursuant to which we granted Vifor (International) Ltd., or Vifor Pharma, an exclusive license to sell vadadustat to Fresenius Kidney Care Group LLC, or FKC, and certain third party dialysis organizations, or the Third Party Dialysis Organizations, approved by us, in the United States. The license would be effective upon the following: FDA approval of vadadustat for anemia due to CKD in adult patients with the dialysis-dependent CKD, the earlier of CMS’s determination that vadadustat will be reimbursed using the Transitional Drug Add-On Payment Adjustment, or the TDAPA, and inclusion in a bundled reimbursement model, and a milestone payment by Vifor Pharma. Under this amended license agreement with Vifor Pharma, or the Vifor Agreement, FKC and the Third Party Dialysis Organizations are not obligated to utilize vadadustat in its clinics. In addition, even if FKC and the Third Party Dialysis Organizations choose to utilize vadadustat in their clinics in the United States, they are not restricted from utilizing other therapies for anemia due to CKD. The Vifor Agreement restricts us from directly supplying vadadustat to FKC or any other affiliate of Fresenius Medical Care North America and the Third Party Dialysis Organizations. The Vifor Agreement does not restrict us from entering into supply agreements with other dialysis clinics, such as DaVita; however, these dialysis clinics may choose not to contract with us for vadadustat or they may choose to contract with us for a limited supply of vadadustat. If vadadustat is approved and we are not able to maintain the Vifor Agreement or enter into a supply agreement with DaVita, our business may be materially harmed.

Although we currently believe it is likely that vadadustat, if approved, will be reimbursed using the TDAPA followed by reimbursement via the bundled reimbursement model, if vadadustat is neither reimbursed under the TDAPA nor the bundled reimbursement model, then the Vifor Agreement will not become effective, and patients would access vadadustat through contracts we negotiate with third party payors for reimbursement of vadadustat, which would be subject to the risks and uncertainties described above. Additionally, if there are updates to the TDAPA rule that decrease the basis for reimbursement or eligibility criteria during the transition period or if the TDAPA is eliminated, then our profitability may be adversely affected.

In addition, we may be unable to sell vadadustat, if approved, to dialysis providers on a profitable basis if CMS significantly reduces the level of reimbursement for dialysis services and providers choose to use alternative therapies or look to negotiate their contracts with us. Our profitability may also be affected if our costs of production increase faster than increases in reimbursement levels. Adequate coverage and reimbursement of our products by government and private insurance plans are central to patient and provider acceptance of any products for which we receive marketing approval.

The successful commercialization of Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products or product candidates, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which third party payors and government authorities establish adequate reimbursement levels and pricing policies.

Third party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting both coverage and reimbursement levels for new drugs. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much reimbursement third party payors will provide for newly approved drugs which, in turn, will put downward pressure on the pricing of drugs. Cost control initiatives may decrease coverage and payment levels for any drug and, in turn, the price that we will be able to charge and/or the volume of our sales. Certain third party payors require prior authorization for, or even refuse to provide, reimbursement for Auryxia, and others may do so in the future with respect to Auryxia, vadadustat and any of our other products or product candidates. In addition, certain third party payors require some form of prior authorization for the administration of ESAs for the treatment of anemia due to CKD within the non-dialysis patient population, and a similar prior authorization may be applicable to the HIF-PHI class for the treatment of anemia due to CKD within the non-dialysis patient population. Our business would be materially adversely affected if we are not able to receive approval for reimbursement from third party payors on a broad, timely or satisfactory basis; if reimbursement is subject to overly broad or restrictive prior authorization requirements; or if reimbursement is not maintained at satisfactory levels or becomes subject to prior authorization. We are unable to predict all changes to the coverage or reimbursement methodologies that will be applied by private or government payors.

In addition, in some countries, including member states of the European Union, or EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take a significant amount of time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices, and in certain instances render commercialization in certain markets infeasible or disadvantageous from a financial perspective. In some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product and/or our product candidates to other available products in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third party payors or government authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, the commercial launch of our product and/or product candidates could be delayed, possibly for lengthy periods of time, we or our collaborators may not launch at all in a particular country, we may not be able to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, and there could be a material adverse effect on our business.

49

Recently, there has been considerable public and government scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing and proposals to address the perceived high cost of pharmaceuticals. There have also been several recent state legislative efforts to address drug costs, which generally have focused on increasing transparency around drug costs or limiting drug prices or price increases. Adoption of new legislation at the federal or state level could affect demand for, or pricing of, our product candidates, if approved, and could diminish our ability to establish what we believe is a fair price for our products, ultimately diminishing our revenue for our products if they are approved.  

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before, or more successfully than, we do.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the development and commercialization of our product and product candidates. Our objective is to continue to commercialize Auryxia and develop and commercialize new products with superior efficacy, convenience, tolerability and/or safety. In many cases, any approved products that we commercialize will compete with existing, market-leading products.  

Auryxia is competing in the hyperphosphatemia market in the United States with other FDA-approved phosphate binders such as Renagel^® (sevelamer hydrochloride) and Renvela^® (sevelamer carbonate), both marketed by Genzyme Corporation (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sanofi), PhosLo^® and Phoslyra^® (calcium acetate), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, Fosrenol^® (lanthanum carbonate), marketed by Shire Pharmaceuticals Group plc, and Velphoro^® (sucroferric oxyhydroxide), marketed by Fresenius Medical Care North America, as well as over-the-counter calcium carbonate products such as TUMS^® and metal-based options such as aluminum, lanthanum and magnesium. Most of the phosphate binders listed above are now also available in generic forms. In addition, other agents are in development, including OPKO Health Inc.’s Alpharen^™ Tablets (fermagate tablets) and Ardelyx, Inc.’s tenapanor, that may impact the market for Auryxia.

Auryxia is competing in the IDA market in the United States with over-the-counter oral iron, ferrous sulfate, other prescription oral iron formulations, including ferrous gluconate, ferrous fumerate, and polysaccharide iron complex, and IV iron formulations, including Feraheme^® (ferumoxytol injection), Venofer^® (iron sucrose injection), Ferrlicit^® (sodium ferric gluconate complex in sucrose injection), Injectafer^® (ferric carboxymaltose injection), and Triferic^® (ferric pyrophosphate citrate).  

In addition, other new therapies for the treatment of IDA may impact the market for Auryxia, such as Shield Therapeutics’ Feraccru^® (ferric maltol), which is available in Europe for IDA and Accrufer^® (ferric maltol), which is approved in the United States for IDA.

Furthermore, Auryxia’s commercial opportunities may be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and market products that are less expensive, more effective or safer than Auryxia. Other companies have product candidates in various stages of pre-clinical or clinical development to treat diseases and complications of the diseases for which we are marketing Auryxia.

If vadadustat is approved and launched commercially, competing drugs may include EPOGEN^® (epoetin alfa) and Aranesp^® (darbepoetin alfa), both commercialized by Amgen, Procrit^® (epoetin alfa) and Eprex^® (epoetin alfa), commercialized by Johnson & Johnson in the United States and Europe, respectively, and Mircera^® (methoxy PEG-epoetin beta), commercialized by Vifor Pharma in the United States and Roche Holding Ltd. outside the United States. We may also face competition from potential new anemia therapies. There are several other HIF-PHI product candidates in various stages of development for anemia indications that may be in direct competition with vadadustat, if and when they are approved and launched commercially. These candidates are being developed by such companies as FibroGen, Japan Tobacco International, GlaxoSmithKline plc and Bayer HealthCare AG. FibroGen, together with its collaboration partners, Astellas Pharma Inc. and AstraZeneca PLC, is currently in global Phase 3 clinical development of its product candidate, roxadustat. The product has launched for the treatment of anemia of CKD in patients on dialysis, or DD-CKD, in Japan and both DD-CKD and for the treatment of anemia of CKD in patients not on dialysis, or NDD-CKD, in China. FibroGen announced that the FDA has completed its filing review of its NDA for roxadustat for both DD-CKD and NDD-CKD and set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of December 20, 2020. They have stated they expect Astellas to file a marketing authorization application in the European Union, or MAA, for both indications in the second quarter of 2020. GlaxoSmithKline plc is currently in global Phase 3 clinical development of its product candidate, daprodustat. Japan Tobacco International and Bayer HealthCare AG are currently in Phase 3 clinical development of their product candidates in Japan. GlaxoSmithKline plc and Japan Tobacco International have submitted NDAs for their product candidates for the treatment of renal anemia in Japan. In addition, certain companies are developing potential new therapies for renal-related diseases that could potentially reduce injectable ESA utilization and thus limit the market potential for vadadustat if they are approved and launched commercially. Other new therapies are in development for the treatment of conditions inclusive of renal anemia that may impact the market for anemia-targeted treatment.

50

A biosimilar is a biologic product that is approved based on demonstrating that it is highly similar to an existing, FDA-approved branded biologic product. The patents for the existing, branded biologic product must expire in a given market before biosimilars may enter that market without risk of being sued for patent infringement. In addition, an application for a biosimilar product cannot be approved by the FDA until 12 years after the existing, branded product was approved under a Biologics License Application, or BLA. The patents for epoetin alfa, an injectable ESA, expired in 2004 in the EU, and the remaining patents expired between 2012 and 2016 in the United States. Because injectable ESAs are biologic products, the introduction of biosimilars into the injectable ESA market in the United States will constitute additional competition for vadadustat if we are able to obtain approval for and commercially launch our product. Several biosimilar versions of injectable ESAs are available for sale in the EU. In the United States, Pfizer’s biosimilar version of injectable ESAs, Retacrit^® (epoetin alfa-epbx), was approved by the FDA in May 2018 and launched in November 2018.

Many of our potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining marketing approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. Large and established companies such as Amgen and Roche, among others, compete in the market for drug products to treat kidney disease. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials, obtaining marketing approvals, manufacturing such products on a broad scale and marketing approved products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and have collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we are developing obsolete. Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or marketing approval, or discovering, developing and commercializing competitive products, before, or more effectively than, we do. If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.  

The commercialization of Riona in Japan and our current and potential future efforts with respect to the development and commercialization of our products and product candidates outside of the United States subject us to a variety of risks associated with international operations, which could materially adversely affect our business.

Our Japanese sublicensee, Japan Tobacco, Inc., or JT, and its subsidiary, Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Torii, commercialize Riona, the trade name for ferric citrate hydrate in Japan, as an oral treatment for the improvement of hyperphosphatemia in patients with CKD, including DD-CKD and NDD-CKD in Japan. We also granted Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, exclusive rights to commercialize vadadustat in Europe, China and certain other markets, subject to marketing approvals. In Japan and certain other countries in Asia, we granted Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC, exclusive rights to commercialize vadadustat, subject to marketing approvals. We are also conducting our global Phase 3 development with respect to vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD, and MTPC is carrying out development efforts for vadadustat in Japan. In July 2019, MTPC submitted a Japanese New Drug Application, or JNDA, to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan for manufacturing and marketing approval of vadadustat, as a treatment for anemia due to CKD. As a result of these and other activities, we are or may become subject to additional risks in developing and commercializing our product and product candidates outside the United States, including:

51

Any of these factors may, individually or as a group, have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. As and if we continue to expand our commercialization efforts, we may encounter new risks.

Risks Related to the Clinical Development of Vadadustat and our Other Product Candidates

In addition to Auryxia, we will continue to depend heavily on the success of our product candidate, vadadustat, which is currently in Phase 3 development. Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. We will incur additional costs in connection with, and may experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of vadadustat and any other product candidates.

The risk of failure in drug development is high. We currently have only one commercial product, Auryxia, and one product candidate, vadadustat, in clinical development, and we depend heavily on the successful commercialization of Auryxia and the successful clinical development, marketing approval and commercialization of vadadustat, which may never occur. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical trials are expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take several years to complete, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Further, the results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates. It is impossible to predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive marketing approval.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive or maintain marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates. Our clinical trials may take longer to complete than currently anticipated, or may be delayed, suspended, required to be repeated, prematurely terminated or may not successfully demonstrate safety and/or efficacy for a variety of other reasons, such as:

52

If we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other studies, if the results of those trials and studies are not positive or are only modestly positive, or if there are concerns with the profile due to efficacy or safety, or if any of the factors listed above occur, the following may occur:  

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in preclinical and clinical development or receiving the requisite marketing approvals. Our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be restructured or may not be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do. This could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

53

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical studies, which could delay or prevent clinical studies of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical studies depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates. Patients may be unwilling to participate in our clinical studies because of concerns about adverse events observed with the current standard of care, competitor products and/or other investigational agents, in each case for the same indications and/or similar patient populations. In addition, patients currently receiving treatment with the current standard of care or a competitor product may be reluctant to participate in a clinical trial with an investigational drug. Finally, competition for clinical trial sites may limit our access to patients appropriate for studies of vadadustat and any other product candidates. As a result, the timeline for recruiting patients and conducting studies may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our development of our product candidates, or termination of the clinical studies altogether.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical studies in a timely manner. Patient enrollment is affected by many factors, including:

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical studies if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical studies required by regulatory agencies. If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical studies as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical studies, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not be able to conduct clinical trials in some jurisdictions outside of the United States.

We and our collaboration partners currently expect to seek marketing approval of vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in markets outside the United States, including the EU, and our collaboration partner, MTPC, submitted a JNDA for vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in July 2019 in Japan. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical study in any country outside of the United States is subject to numerous additional risks unique to conducting business in jurisdictions outside the United States, including:  

Data obtained from studies conducted in the United States may not be accepted by the EMA, the PMDA and other regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Also, certain jurisdictions require data from studies conducted in their country in order to obtain approval in that country. For example, in Japan, MTPC conducted a Phase 3 program of vadadustat, which is separate from our global Phase 3 program of vadadustat.

54

If we or our collaboration partners have difficulty conducting our clinical studies in jurisdictions outside the United States as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical studies, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Positive results from preclinical and clinical studies are not necessarily predictive of the results of any future clinical studies.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in preclinical studies may not be predictive of similar results in humans during clinical trials, successful results from early or small clinical trials may not be replicated in later and larger clinical trials, and successful interim results from ongoing clinical studies may not be indicative of results obtained when those studies are completed. For example, our encouraging preclinical and clinical results for vadadustat thus far do not ensure that the results of any future clinical trials will demonstrate similar results. Our global Phase 3 development program for vadadustat has enrolled a larger number of patients and will treat patients for longer periods than our prior trials, which will result in a greater likelihood that adverse events may be observed. Due to these and other differences between our global Phase 3 development program for vadadustat and our prior trials, our positive results from preclinical and clinical studies may not be replicated in our global Phase 3 development program for vadadustat. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early stage development, and we may face similar setbacks. If the results of our ongoing or future clinical trials for vadadustat or any other product candidates are inconclusive with respect to efficacy, if we do not meet our clinical endpoints with statistical significance, or if there are safety concerns or adverse events, we may be prevented from or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for vadadustat or any other product candidates.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, acquire, discover, develop and commercialize additional products or product candidates, which could impair our ability to grow.

Although we continue to focus a substantial amount of our efforts on the commercialization of Auryxia and the development and potential commercialization of vadadustat, a key element of our long-term growth strategy is to acquire, develop and/or market additional products and product candidates. Research programs to identify product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources, regardless of whether product candidates are ultimately identified. Our research and development programs may initially show promise, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development or commercialization for many reasons, including the following:

If any of these events occurs, we may be forced to abandon our research and development efforts for one or more of our programs, or we may not be able to identify, discover, develop or commercialize additional product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities.

55

Because our internal research capabilities are limited, we may be dependent upon other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic scientists, and other researchers to sell or license products or technology to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select, and acquire promising product candidates and products. The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate or an approved product is lengthy and complex. Other companies, including some with substantially greater financial, marketing and sales resources, may compete with us for the license or acquisition of a product candidate or an approved product. We have limited resources to identify and execute the acquisition or in-licensing of third party products, businesses, and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure.

Moreover, we may devote resources to potential acquisitions or in-licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts, including, for example, with respect to the Merger. Any product candidate that we acquire may require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive clinical testing and approval by the FDA, the EMA, the PMDA or other regulatory authorities, or post-approval testing or other requirements if approved. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure typical of pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that any products that we develop or approved products that we acquire will be manufactured profitably, achieve market acceptance or not require substantial post-marketing clinical trials.

Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our product candidates or to acquire or develop suitable potential product candidates or approved products, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates or other programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products and product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that delay or limit their commercial potential, or in the case of our product candidates, prevent their marketing approval.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product or product candidates or competing commercial products or product candidates in development that utilize a common mechanism of action could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, could result in a more restrictive label or the delay, denial or withdrawal of marketing approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, and could lead to potential product liability claims. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.

If we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by Auryxia, vadadustat, or any other products or product candidates, either before or after receipt of marketing approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining marketing approval and, ultimately, market acceptance of Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products or product candidates, could substantially increase our costs, and could significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products and product candidates and generate revenues.

The patient populations treated with Auryxia and the patients in our clinical studies for vadadustat have CKD, a serious disease that increases the risk of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and stroke and, ultimately, may cause kidney failure. Many patients with CKD are elderly with comorbidities making them susceptible to significant health risks. Therefore, the likelihood of these patients having adverse events, including serious adverse events, while participating in our studies is high.

In our Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies of vadadustat, adverse events were reported. For example, in our Phase 2b study of vadadustat in non-dialysis patients with anemia due to CKD, one subject with multiple co-morbidities and concomitant medications, including chlorthalidone, had a serious adverse event of liver function test abnormal, considered a case of drug induced liver injury meeting the biochemical criteria of Hy’s Law, which was assessed as probably related to vadadustat. Serious adverse events considered related to vadadustat and any other product candidates could have a material adverse effect on the development of such product candidates and our business as a whole. Our understanding of adverse events in prior clinical trials of our product candidates may change as we gather more information, and additional unexpected adverse events may be observed in future clinical trials.

56

The most commonly reported adverse reactions in the clinical trials that supported the approval of Auryxia for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication in the United States included diarrhea (21%), discolored feces (19%), nausea (11%), constipation (8%), vomiting (7%), and cough (6%). Gastrointestinal adverse reactions were the most common reason for discontinuing Auryxia (14%) in clinical trials for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. The most commonly reported adverse reactions in the clinical trials that supported the approval of Auryxia in the United States for the IDA Indication included discolored feces (22%), diarrhea (21%), constipation (18%), nausea (10%), abdominal pain (5%) and hyperkalemia (5%). Diarrhea was the most common reason for discontinuing Auryxia (2.6%) in clinical trials for the IDA Indication.

Furthermore, any post-marketing clinical trials conducted, if successful, may expand the patient populations treated with Auryxia, or any other products we acquire or for which we receive marketing approval, within or outside of their current indications or patient populations, which could result in the identification of previously unknown side effects, increased frequency or severity of known side effects, or detection of unexpected safety signals.  In addition, as Auryxia and any other products are commercialized, they will be used in larger patient populations and in less rigorously controlled environments than in clinical studies. As a result, regulatory authorities, healthcare practitioners, third party payors or patients may perceive or conclude that the use of Auryxia or any other products are associated with serious adverse effects, undermining our commercialization efforts.

Further, if we or others identify previously unknown side effects, if known side effects are more frequent or severe than in the past, if we or others detect unexpected safety signals for our products or product candidates, including Auryxia, vadadustat, or any product or product candidate perceived to be similar to Auryxia, vadadustat, or any other products or product candidates, or if any of the foregoing are perceived to have occurred, either before or after receipt of marketing approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of the above occurrences could delay or prevent us from achieving or maintaining marketing approval, harm or prevent sales of Auryxia or, if approved, vadadustat or other product candidates, increase our expenses and impair or prevent our ability to successfully commercialize Auryxia, vadadustat or any other products or product candidates

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

We may be delayed in obtaining, or be unable to obtain, marketing approval or reimbursement for vadadustat or any other product candidate in certain countries outside of the United States.

Regulatory authorities outside of the United States will require compliance with numerous and varying requirements. The approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and may involve requirements for additional testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, a drug product must be approved for reimbursement before it can be marketed or sold in that country. In some cases, the prices that we intend to charge for our products are also subject to approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory or reimbursement authorities outside the United States, and approval by one regulatory or reimbursement authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by the FDA or any other regulatory or reimbursement authorities. However, the failure to obtain approval or reimbursement in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval or reimbursement in another jurisdiction. The marketing approval process in countries outside of the United States may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval and, in some cases, additional risks. We may not obtain such regulatory or reimbursement approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive the necessary approvals to commercialize our product candidates in any market. Also, favorable pricing in certain countries depends on a number of factors, some of which are outside of our control.

57

Additionally, on June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. Under the withdrawal agreement, there is a transitional period until December 31, 2020 (extendable up to two years). Discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Union have so far mainly focused on finalizing withdrawal issues and transition agreements but have been extremely difficult to date. To date, only an outline of a trade agreement has been reached. Much remains open, but the Prime Minister has indicated that the United Kingdom will not seek to extend the transitional period beyond the end of 2020. If no trade agreement has been reached before the end of the transitional period, there may be significant market and economic disruption. The Prime Minister has also indicated that the United Kingdom will not accept high regulatory alignment with the European Union.

Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime that applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or the EU for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Products approved for marketing are subject to extensive post-marketing regulatory requirements and could be subject to post-marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, or product candidates, when and if any of them is approved.

Marketing approvals may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or other conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing studies and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product, including REMS, or registries or observational studies. For example, in connection with the FDA approvals of Auryxia, we initially committed to the FDA to conduct certain post-approval pediatric studies of Auryxia under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA. With regard to our Hyperphosphatemia Indication, we committed to completing the post-approval pediatric study and submitting a final report to the FDA by December 31, 2019. With regard to our IDA Indication, we committed to completing the post-approval pediatric study and submitting a final report to the FDA by January 2023. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to complete these studies and submit the final reports in a timely manner. For example, with regard to the Hyperphosphatemia Indication, we did not complete and submit the post-marketing requirement pediatric clinical study report by December 31, 2019, and we received a notification of noncompliance with PREA. We are requesting an extension of this deadline. If we are unable to complete these studies successfully, we will need to inform the FDA, have further discussions, and if the FDA finds that we failed to comply with pediatric study requirements, it could initiate proceedings to seize or enjoin the sale of Auryxia, which would have a material adverse impact on our ability to commercialize Auryxia and our ability to generate revenues from Auryxia. In addition, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for Auryxia, and any other product for which we receive regulatory approval, will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Moreover, the FDA and other regulatory 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. The FDA and other regulatory authorities impose stringent restrictions on companies’ communications regarding use of their products, and if we promote our products beyond their approved indications or inconsistent with the approved label, we may be subject to enforcement actions or prosecution arising from such activities. Violations of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FD&C Act, relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse and other laws, as well as state consumer protection laws, insurance fraud laws, third party payor actions, shareholder actions and other lawsuits.

Post-approval discovery of previously unknown problems with an approved product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency or relating to manufacturing operations or processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

58

Non-compliance with FDA, the EMA, the PMDA and other regulatory authorities’ requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance can also result in significant financial penalties.

The FDA’s policies and those of other regulatory authorities may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulations that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or in other jurisdictions. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would materially adversely affect our business.

Even if we obtain favorable clinical results in our Phase 3 studies, we may not be able to obtain marketing approval for, or successfully commercialize, vadadustat, or we may experience significant delays in doing so, any of which would materially harm our business.

The clinical trials of our product candidates are, and the manufacturing and marketing of our product candidates will be, subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by numerous governmental authorities in the United States, and in other countries where we and our collaborators intend to test and, if approved, market any product candidates. Before obtaining marketing approval for the commercial sale of any product candidate, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that the product candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication. This process can take many years and marketing approval may never be achieved. Of the large number of drugs in development in the United States and in other jurisdictions, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA’s and other jurisdictions’ marketing approval processes and are commercialized. Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite capital to continue to fund our development programs, we may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize vadadustat or any other product candidates.

We and Otsuka, our collaboration partner, are not permitted to market vadadustat in the United States until we receive approval from the FDA, in the EU until we receive approval from the EMA, or in any other jurisdiction until the requisite approval from regulatory authorities in such jurisdiction is received. MTPC, our collaboration partner in Asia, will not be permitted to market vadadustat in Japan without approval from the PMDA or in any other jurisdiction until the requisite approval from regulatory authorities in such jurisdiction is received. As a condition to receiving marketing approval for vadadustat, we must complete Phase 3 studies and any additional preclinical or clinical studies required by the FDA, the EMA, the PMDA or other regulatory authorities. Vadadustat may not be successful in clinical trials or receive marketing approval. Further, vadadustat may not receive marketing approval even if it is successful in clinical trials.

Obtaining marketing approval in the United States and other jurisdictions is a complex, lengthy, expensive and uncertain process that typically takes many years and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical studies, the regulatory agencies may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain marketing approval. Furthermore, approval of a drug does not ensure successful commercialization. For example, on September 23, 2015, the European Commission, or EC, approved Fexeric for the control of hyperphosphatemia, in adult patients with CKD. Pursuant to the sunset clause under EU law, the EC’s approval of Fexeric in the EU was contingent on, among other things, our commencing marketing of Fexeric within three years; although we successfully negotiated an extension to December 23, 2019, we did not commence marketing Fexeric by such date and therefore the Fexeric approval in the EU has ceased to be valid.

59

If the results of our global Phase 3 studies for vadadustat are positive, we plan to file for regulatory approval in the United States and other regions. In February 2020, we entered into a letter agreement, or the Letter Agreement, with Vifor Pharma relating to Vifor Pharma’s agreement with a third party to purchase a Priority Review Voucher issued by the FDA, or the PRV, subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, or the PRV Purchase. Although a PRV entitles the holder to priority review of an NDA or a Biologics License Application for a new drug, which reduces the target FDA review time to six months after official acceptance of the submission, the utilization of a PRV does not ensure a faster review or faster approval compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures, and in any event does not assure ultimate approval by FDA. Furthermore, even if utilization of the PRV enables a faster approval of vadadustat, it may not result in faster commercialization of vadadustat. For more information on risks related to commercialization of vadadustat, see “Risks Related to Commercialization”. In addition, pursuant to the Letter Agreement, we will pay Vifor Pharma $10.0 million within fifteen business days after the closing of the PRV Purchase. Vifor Pharma is obligated to retain all rights to, and maintain the validity of, the PRV until we and Vifor Pharma (a) enter into a definitive agreement setting forth the financial and other terms by which Vifor Pharma will assign the PRV to us for use with our planned NDA for vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in both dialysis-dependent and non-dialysis dependent patients, or (b) make a mutual decision to sell the PRV and share the proceeds based on certain terms. We may not come to terms with Vifor Pharma on assigning the PRV to us, and even if we do, we and Vifor Pharma may decide not to use the PRV for vadadustat and, instead, resell it.  In the event of resale of the PRV at a price lower than the purchase price, our share of the proceeds from the resale would be lower than our $10.0 million contribution.

In addition, the safety concerns associated with the current standard of care for the indications for which we are seeking marketing approval for our product candidates may affect the FDA’s, the EMA’s, the PMDA’s or other regulatory authorities’ review of the safety results of our compounds in development. Further, the policies or regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval, may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. It is possible that vadadustat and any other product candidates will never obtain marketing approval. The FDA may delay, limit or deny approval of vadadustat or any other product candidates for many reasons including, among others:

60

In addition, similar reasons may cause the EMA or the PMDA or other regulatory authorities to delay, limit or deny approval of vadadustat or any other product candidate outside the United States.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval, or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Government Regulation and Compliance

We are subject to a complex regulatory scheme that requires significant resources to ensure compliance. Failure to comply with applicable laws could subject us to government scrutiny or government enforcement, potentially resulting in costly investigations and/or fines or sanctions, or impacting our relationships with key regulatory agencies such as the FDA, SEC or the EMA.

A variety of laws apply to us or may otherwise restrict our activities, including the following:

Compliance with these and other applicable laws and regulations requires us to expend significant resources. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may subject us to government investigations, enforcement actions by regulatory authorities, penalties, damages, fines, the restructuring of our operations, or the imposition of a clinical hold, any of which could materially adversely affect our business and would result in increased costs and diversion of management attention and could delay or prevent the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

61

We will incur significant liability if it is determined that we are promoting any “off-label” use of Auryxia or any other product we may develop, acquire or in-license or if it is determined that any of our activities violates the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

Physicians are permitted to prescribe drug products for uses that differ from those approved by the FDA or other applicable regulatory agencies. Although the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not regulate a physician’s choice of treatments, the FDA and other regulatory agencies do restrict manufacturer communications regarding unapproved uses of an approved drug. Companies are not permitted to promote drugs for unapproved uses or in a manner that is inconsistent with the FDA-approved labeling. There are also restrictions about making comparative or superiority claims based on safety or efficacy that are not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we may not promote Auryxia in the United States for use in any indications other than the Hyperphosphatemia Indication and the IDA Indication, and all promotional claims must be consistent with the FDA-approved labeling for Auryxia. Promoting a drug off-label is a violation of the FD&C Act and can give rise to liability under the federal False Claims Act, as well as under additional federal and state laws and insurance statutes. The FDA, the Department of Justice and other regulatory and enforcement authorities enforce laws and regulations prohibiting promotion of off-label uses and the promotion of products for which marketing approval has not been obtained, as well as the false advertising or misleading promotion of drugs. In addition, laws and regulations govern the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples, including the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1976 and the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, which regulate the distribution and tracing of prescription drugs and prescription drug samples at the U.S. federal level and set minimum standards for the regulation of drug distributors by the states. A company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses or to have otherwise engaged in false or misleading promotion or improper distribution of drugs will be subject to significant liability, potentially including civil and administrative remedies as well as criminal sanctions.

Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. In addition, under some relatively recent guidance from the FDA, companies may also promote information that is consistent with the prescribing information and proactively speak to formulary committee members of payors regarding data for an unapproved drug or unapproved uses of an approved drug. We intend to engage in these discussions and communicate with healthcare providers, payors and other constituencies in compliance with all applicable laws, regulatory guidance and industry best practices. Although we believe we have put in place a robust compliance program and processes designed to ensure that all such activities are performed in a legal and compliant manner, Auryxia is our first commercial product so our implementation of our compliance program in connection with commercialization activities is still relatively new.

In addition, if a company’s activities are determined to have violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, this can also give rise to liability under the federal False Claims Act and such violations can result in significant fines, criminal and civil remedies, and exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid.  There is increased government focus on relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians, pharmacies (especially specialty pharmacies), and other sources of referrals. Common industry activities, such as speaker programs, insurance assistance and support, relationships with foundations providing copayment assistance, and relationships with patient organizations and patients are receiving increased governmental attention.  If any of our relationships or activities is determined to violate applicable federal and state anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, or other laws or regulations, the company and/or company executives, employees, and other representatives could be subject to significant fines and criminal sanctions, imprisonment, and potential exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid.

Recent efforts to pursue regulatory reform may limit the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, and that could negatively impact our business.

Recently, there have been several executive actions taken, including the issuance of a number of executive orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. On January 30, 2017, an executive order, applicable to all executive agencies including the FDA, was issued that requires that for each notice of proposed rulemaking or final regulation to be issued in fiscal year 2017, the agency shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law. These requirements are referred to as the “two-for-one” provisions. This executive order includes a budget neutrality provision that requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater than zero, except in limited circumstances. For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the executive order requires agencies to identify regulations to offset any incremental cost of a new regulation. Interim guidance issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget on February 2, 2017, indicates that the “two-for-one” provisions may apply not only to agency regulations, but also to significant agency guidance documents. It is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

62

Compliance with privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates when required, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to sponsors with clinical trial sites in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial patients and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data patients and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.  

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, complying with the GDPR’s requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the EU. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information from our clinical trials, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, numerous other federal and state laws, including 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. For example, the CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, which creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households.  Failure to comply with these laws, as well as local laws outside of the U.S. in countries where we are conducting clinical trials, regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors are subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which, in the event of a violation, could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of Auryxia and any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute Auryxia and any other products or product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by federal and state governments and by governments in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

63

Because of the breadth of these U.S. laws, and their non-U.S. equivalents, and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent healthcare reforms have strengthened these laws. For example, the Health Care Reform Act, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate the law. The Health Care Reform Act also amended the False Claims Act, such that violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute are now deemed violations of the False Claims Act.

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines, such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals, known as the PhRMA Code. Additionally, some state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involve substantial costs. One of the potential areas for governmental scrutiny involves federal and state requirements for pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit accurate price reports to the government. Because our processes for calculating applicable government prices and the judgments involved in making these calculations involve subjective decisions and complex methodologies, these calculations are subject to risk of errors and differing interpretations. In addition, they are subject to review and challenge by the applicable governmental agencies, or potential qui tam complaints, and it is possible that such reviews could result in changes, recalculations, or defense costs that may have adverse legal or financial consequences. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government funded healthcare programs.

64

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 for any products that are approved in the United States or foreign jurisdictions.

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 prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell Auryxia and any other products or product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any FDA approved product, such as Auryxia.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for Auryxia and any other approved products. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or, collectively, the ACA. Among the provisions of the ACA of potential importance to our business including, without limitation, our ability to commercialize and the prices we obtain for Auryxia and may obtain for any of our product candidates that are approved for sale, are the following:

In addition, other legislative changes and regulatory have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year which will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional congressional action is taken, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. In addition, other legislative and regulatory changes have been proposed, but not yet adopted. For example, in July 2019, HHS proposed regulatory changes in kidney health policy and reimbursement. Any new legislative or regulatory changes may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for Auryxia or any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which Auryxia and any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

65

We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

With the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, will become effective in 2019. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the individual mandate will cause an estimated 13 million fewer Americans to be insured in 2027 and premiums in insurance markets may rise. Additionally, on January 22, 2018, the President signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, 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, amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. Further, each chamber of the U.S. Congress has put forth multiple bills designed to repeal or repeal and replace portions of the ACA. Although none of these measures has been enacted by Congress to date, Congress may consider other legislation to repeal and replace elements of the ACA.

The current administration has also taken executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA.  Since January 2017, the President has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third party payors who argued that such payments were owed to them. The effects of this gap in reimbursement on third party payors, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

Further, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA and, therefore, because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The current administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 30, 2018 the same judge issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal. The current administration has recently represented to the court of appeals considering this judgment that it does not oppose the lower court’s ruling.  On July 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in this case. In those arguments, the current administration argued in support of upholding the lower court decision. However, in a subsequent filing, the U.S. Department of Justice contended that the ACA should be invalidated only in the states that are suing, rather than all states. On December 18, 2019, that court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is unconstitutional and it remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the severability question and additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States, and members of U.S. Congress and the current administration have stated that they will address such costs through new legislative and administrative measures. To date, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the current administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Including 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.

66

Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the current administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, on May 11, 2018, the current administration issued a plan to lower drug prices. Under this blueprint for action, the current administration indicated that HHS will take steps to end the gaming of regulatory and patent processes by drug makers to unfairly protect monopolies, advance biosimilars and generics to boost price competition, evaluate the inclusion of prices in drug makers’ ads to enhance price competition, speed access to and lower the cost of new drugs by clarifying policies for sharing information between insurers and drug makers, avoid excessive pricing by relying more on value-based pricing by expanding outcome-based payments in Medicare and Medicaid, work to give Medicare Part D plan sponsors more negotiation power with drug makers, examine which Medicare Part B drug prices could be negotiated by Medicare Part D plans, improve the design of the Medicare Part B Competitive Acquisition Program, update Medicare’s drug-pricing dashboard to increase transparency, prohibit Medicare Part D contracts that include “gag rules” that prevent pharmacists from informing patients when they could pay less out-of-pocket by not using insurance, and require that Medicare Part D plan members be provided with an annual statement of plan payments, out-of-pocket spending, and drug price increases. In addition, on December 23, 2019, the current administration published a proposed rulemaking that, if finalized, would allow states or certain other non-federal government entities to submit importation program proposals to FDA for review and approval. Applicants would be required to demonstrate their importation plans pose no additional risk to public health and safety and will result in significant cost savings for consumers.  At the same time, FDA issued draft guidance that would allow manufacturers to import their own FDA-approved drugs that are authorized for sale in other countries (multi-market approved products).

At the state level, individual states are 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, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products or put pressure on our product pricing. 

It is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and foreign governments will continue to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation. 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 Auryxia and any product candidates for which we receive marketing approval or additional pricing pressures. We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect:

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

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

67

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

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

Risks Related to our Reliance on Third Parties

If the licensor of certain intellectual property relating to Auryxia terminates, modifies or threatens to terminate existing contracts or relationships with us, our business may be materially harmed.

We do not own the rights to our product, Auryxia. We have licensed and sublicensed the rights, patent or otherwise, to Auryxia from a third party, Panion, who in turn licenses certain rights to Auryxia from one of the inventors of Auryxia. The license agreement with Panion, or the Panion License Agreement, requires us to meet development milestones and imposes development and commercialization due diligence requirements on us. In addition, under the license agreement, we must pay royalties based on a mid-single digit percentage of net sales of product resulting from the licensed technologies, including Auryxia, and pay the patent filing, prosecution and maintenance costs related to the license. If we do not meet our obligations in a timely manner, or if we otherwise breach the terms of our license agreement, Panion could terminate the agreement, and we would lose the rights to Auryxia. For example, following announcement of the Merger, Panion notified Keryx in writing that Panion would terminate the license agreement on November 21, 2018 if Keryx did not cure the breach alleged by Panion, specifically, that Keryx failed to use commercially reasonable best efforts to commercialize Auryxia outside the United States. Keryx disagreed with Panion’s claims, and the parties entered discussions to resolve this dispute. On October 24, 2018, prior to the consummation of the Merger, we, Keryx and  Panion entered into a letter agreement, or the Panion Letter Agreement, pursuant to which Panion agreed to rescind any and all prior termination threats or notices relating to the license agreement and waived its rights to terminate the license agreement based on any breach by us of our obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize Auryxia outside the United States until the parties execute an amendment to the license agreement, in accordance with the terms of the Panion Letter Agreement, following consummation of the Merger. On April 17, 2019, we and Panion entered into an amendment and restatement of the Panion License Agreement, or the Panion Amended License Agreement, which reflects certain revisions consistent with the terms of the Panion Letter Agreement.  See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information regarding the Panion Amended License Agreement. Even though we entered into the Panion Amended License Agreement, there are no assurances that Panion will not allege other breaches of the Panion Amended License Agreement or otherwise attempt to terminate the Panion Amended License Agreement in the future.

In addition, if Panion breaches its agreement with the inventor from whom it licenses rights to Auryxia, Panion could lose its license, which could impair or delay our ability to develop and commercialize Auryxia.

From time to time, we may have disagreements with Panion, or Panion may have disagreements with the inventor from whom it licenses rights to Auryxia, regarding the terms of the agreements or ownership of proprietary rights, which could impact the commercialization of Auryxia, could require or result in litigation or arbitration, which would be time-consuming and expensive, could lead to the termination of the Panion Amended License Agreement, or force us to negotiate a revised or new license agreement on terms less favorable than the original. In addition, in the event that the owners and/or licensors of the rights we license were to enter into bankruptcy or similar proceedings, we could potentially lose our rights to Auryxia or our rights could otherwise be adversely affected, which could prevent us from continuing to commercialize Auryxia.

68

We rely on third parties to conduct preclinical and clinical studies for our product and product candidates. If they do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to optimize the commercialization of Auryxia or obtain marketing approval for or commercialize vadadustat or any other product candidates, and our business could be substantially harmed.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct preclinical and clinical trials. We are currently relying, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our current and future preclinical studies and our clinical trials, including our global Phase 3 development program for vadadustat. The third parties on whom we rely may fail to perform effectively, or terminate their engagement with us, for a number of reasons, including the following:

Any of these events could cause our preclinical and clinical trials, including post-approval clinical trials, to be extended, delayed, suspended, required to be repeated or terminated, or we may receive untitled warning letters or be the subject of an enforcement action which could result in our failing to obtain marketing approval of vadadustat or any other product candidates on a timely basis, or at all, or fail to maintain marketing approval of Auryxia or any other approved products, any of which would adversely affect our business operations. In addition, if the third parties on whom we rely fail to perform effectively or terminate their engagement with us, we may need to enter into alternative arrangements, which could delay, perhaps significantly, the continued optimization of the commercialization of Auryxia and the development and commercialization of vadadustat and any other product candidates.

Even though we do not directly control the third parties on whom we rely to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials and therefore cannot guarantee the satisfactory and timely performance of their obligations to us, we are nevertheless responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements, including GXP requirements, and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties, including CROs, will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we or any of our CROs, their subcontractors, or clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GXP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable or insufficient, our clinical trials could be put on hold, and/or the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with drug product that meets certain specifications and is manufactured under applicable cGMP regulations. These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality assurance, and the satisfactory maintenance of records and documentation.

We also rely on third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, resulting in additional costs and depriving us of potential product revenue. In addition, we are using an active comparator in our PRO₂TECT and INNO₂VATE clinical programs for vadadustat. If our distributors are unable to obtain sufficient supply of the active comparator for any reason, or supply active comparator to clinical trial sites in a timely manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated.

We rely on third parties to conduct all aspects of our product manufacturing. The loss of these manufacturers, their failure to supply us on a timely basis, or their failure to successfully carry out their contractual duties or comply with regulatory requirements could cause delays in our current and future capacity and substantially harm our business.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities and do not expect to independently manufacture any product or product candidates. We currently rely on third party manufacturers to produce all of our commercial, clinical and preclinical material supply. We expect to continue to rely on existing or alternative third-party manufacturers to supply our ongoing and planned preclinical and clinical trials and for commercial production. Our reliance on third party manufacturers increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product and product candidates or the ability to obtain such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.  

69

We currently have two suppliers of Auryxia’s drug substance, one of them with two approved sites, and one supplier with three approved sites for the supply of Auryxia drug product. If any of our suppliers were to limit or terminate production, or otherwise fail to meet the quality or delivery requirements needed to supply Auryxia at adequate levels, we could experience losses of revenue that could materially and adversely impact our results of operations. We have entered into supply agreements with Esteve Química, S.A. and Patheon Inc. for the manufacture of vadadustat drug substance and drug product, respectively, for commercial use. While we intend to put additional supply arrangements in place for commercial manufacturing of vadadustat, we may be unsuccessful in doing so or achieving sufficient redundancy due to a number of factors, including that we may not be able to negotiate binding agreements at commercially reasonable terms. For example, a contract manufacturer may require a substantial financial commitment, including a commitment to fund the purchase of a new facility or equipment. If we are unsuccessful in implementing redundant supply arrangements for commercial quantities of vadadustat, if our commercial supply arrangements for Auryxia or vadadustat are terminated, or if any of our third party manufacturers is unable to fulfill the terms of their agreements with us, are subject to regulatory review, or cease their operations for any reason, it could result in delays to our marketing approval for vadadustat and risk that we would not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates and products for clinical trials and commercialization. Even if we are ultimately successful in entering into redundant supply arrangements for commercial manufacturing of vadadustat, the timing of such additional arrangements is uncertain.

If any of our third party manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, including a misappropriation of our proprietary information, or if they terminate their engagements with us, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into agreements with other third party manufacturers, which we may not be able to do on favorable or reasonable terms, if at all. In some cases, there may be a limited number of qualified replacement manufacturers, or the technical skills, or equipment required to manufacture a product or product candidate may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party or a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third party manufacture Auryxia or our product candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to continue to commercialize or satisfy patient demand for Auryxia or any other product candidate for which we receive marketing approval, or develop and receive marketing approval for our product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

The facilities and processes used by our third party manufacturers to manufacture Auryxia may be inspected by the FDA and other regulatory authorities at any time, and the facilities and processes used by our third party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates will be inspected by the FDA, the EMA, PMDA and other regulatory authorities prior to or after we submit our marketing application. We do not control the manufacturing processes of, and are completely dependent on, our third party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements for manufacture of certain starting materials, drug substance and finished drug product. If our third party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and regulatory requirements, we will not be able to maintain marketing approval for Auryxia or secure and/or maintain marketing approval for our product candidates. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our third party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities do not approve the facilities being used to manufacture our product candidates, or if they withdraw any approval of the facilities being used to manufacture Auryxia or any other product candidates for which we receive marketing approval, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to continue commercializing Auryxia or develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Moreover, the failure of our third party manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of Auryxia or our product candidates operating restrictions or criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect the supply of Auryxia or our product candidates. Also, if our starting materials, drug substance or drug product are damaged or lost while in our third party manufacturers’ control, it may impact our ability to supply our products or product candidates and we may incur significant financial harm. In addition, Auryxia and our product candidates may compete with other products and product candidates for access to third party manufacturing facilities. A third party manufacturer may also encounter delays brought on by sudden internal resource constraints, labor disputes, or shifting regulatory protocols. Certain of these third party manufacturing facilities may be contractually prohibited from manufacturing our product candidates or products, due to exclusivity provisions in agreements with our competitors. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and are capable of manufacturing Auryxia and our product candidates for us.

Our current and anticipated future dependence on third parties for the manufacture of Auryxia and our product candidates may adversely affect our ability to continue to commercialize Auryxia or any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis and any future profit margins.

70

Third party manufacturers may be unable to manufacture our product and product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, which would delay or prevent us from commercializing approved products and developing our product candidates.

As a result of the large quantity of materials required for Auryxia production and the large quantities of Auryxia tablets that are required for our commercial success, the continued commercial viability of Auryxia depends on adequate supply of starting materials that meet quality, quantity and cost standards and the ability of our contract manufacturers to continually produce drug substance and finished drug product on a commercial scale. Failure to achieve and maintain these levels of supply can jeopardize and prevent the successful continued commercialization of Auryxia. Moreover, issues that may arise in any scale-up and technology transfer of Auryxia and continued commercial scale manufacture of Auryxia may lead to significant delays in our development and commercial timelines and negatively impact our financial performance. For example, a production-related issue resulted in an interruption in the supply of Auryxia in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. This supply interruption negatively impacted Keryx’s revenues in 2016. Although this supply interruption was resolved and actions designed to prevent future interruptions in the supply of Auryxia have been taken, any future supply interruptions for Auryxia or any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval would negatively and materially impact our reputation and financial condition.

In addition, in order to complete our development of and commercialize, if approved, vadadustat and any other product candidates, we will need to work with third party manufacturers to manufacture them in large quantities. Our current and future third party manufacturers may be unable to successfully achieve commercial scale production of vadadustat or increase the manufacturing capacity of any other product candidates for the conduct of clinical trials and commercialization in a timely or cost-effective manner, if at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. Any changes in our manufacturing processes as a result of scaling up may result in the need to obtain additional marketing approvals. If our third party manufacturers are unable to achieve commercial scale production or there is a need for additional marketing approvals of vadadustat or any other product candidates, or if there are difficulties in increasing the manufacturing capacity for any other product candidates, the development, marketing approval and commercialization of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, or ongoing commercialization may be unsuccessful, any of which could significantly harm our business.

We do not know whether our third party manufacturers will be able to meet our demand, either because of the nature of our agreements with those third party manufacturers, or, in some cases, our limited experience with those third party manufacturers or our relative importance as a customer to those third party manufacturers. It may be difficult for us to assess their ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our current third party manufacturers have generally met our demand for their products on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to their other customers.

We depend on collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of vadadustat and Auryxia. If our collaborations are not successful or if our collaborators terminate their agreements with us, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of Auryxia and vadadustat, and our business could be materially harmed.

We sublicensed the rights to commercialize Riona to JT and Torii in Japan. We entered into collaboration agreements with Otsuka to develop and commercialize vadadustat in the United States, Europe, China and certain other territories. We also entered into a collaboration agreement with MTPC to develop and commercialize vadadustat in Japan and certain other Asian countries. We may form or seek other strategic alliances, joint ventures, or collaborations, or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our commercialization efforts with respect to Auryxia and our development and commercialization efforts with respect to vadadustat and any other product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.

We may not be able to maintain our collaborations and our collaborations may not be successful due to a number of important factors, including the following:

71

If any of these events occurs, the market potential of our products and product candidates could be reduced, and our business could be materially harmed. We also cannot be certain that, following a collaboration, the benefits of the collaboration will outweigh the potential risks.

We may seek to establish additional collaborations and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

We will require substantial additional cash to fund the continued commercialization of Auryxia and the development and potential commercialization of vadadustat and any other product candidates. We may decide to enter into additional collaborations for the development and commercialization of vadadustat or Auryxia. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.

We may not be successful in entering into additional collaborations as a result of many factors including the following:

If we are unable to enter into additional collaborations, we may have to curtail the commercialization of the product or the development of the product candidate on which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay its development program or other of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further commercialize Auryxia or develop or commercialize our product candidates.

Even if we enter into additional collaboration agreements and strategic partnerships or license our intellectual property, we may not be able to maintain them or they may be unsuccessful, which could delay our timelines or otherwise adversely affect our business.

72

We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic, terrorist attacks, extreme weather events or other natural disasters. 

The occurrence of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic, such as the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), or other widespread health emergency (or concerns over the possibility of such an emergency), terrorist attacks, extreme terrestrial or solar weather events or other natural disasters, could create economic and financial disruptions, and could lead to operational difficulties that could impair our ability to manage our businesses or result in reduced sales or delays in our clinical studies, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results. In particular, the outbreak of COVID-19 may result in closures of CMO facilities on which we rely for the supply of our product and product candidates, which could lead to delays or disruptions in supply. The outbreak of COVID-19 could also result in potential closures of clinical trial sites on which we rely for the completion of our clinical trials. In addition, the spread of COVID-19 may result in quarantines and travel restrictions or disruption impacting our employees’ travel, including the travel of our sales professionals, and causing operational difficulties. Furthermore, healthcare facilities may limit access for non-patients, including our sales professionals, or we may advise our sales professionals to limit their visits to healthcare facilities, which could negatively impact our access to healthcare providers and, ultimately, our sales. At this point, the outbreak of COVID-19 has begun to have indeterminable adverse effects on general commercial activity and the world economy. However, the extent to which COVID-19 may impact our business and operations is uncertain. If we or any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and our financial results.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to adequately protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to use our intellectual property, which could adversely affect our ability to compete in the market.

Our commercial success will depend in part on our ability, and the ability of our licensors, to obtain and maintain patent protection on our drug product and technologies, and to successfully defend these patents against third party challenges. We seek to protect our proprietary products and technology by filing patent applications in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions. The process for obtaining patent protection is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications in a cost effective or timely manner. In addition, we may fail to identify patentable subject matter early enough to obtain patent protection. Further, license agreements with third parties may not allow us to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or the maintenance or enforcement of patents. Such third parties may decide not to enforce such patents or enforce such patents without our involvement. Thus, these patent applications and patents may not under these circumstances, be prosecuted or enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of the company.

Our pending patent applications may not issue as patents and may not issue in all countries in which we develop, manufacture or potentially sell our product(s) or in countries where others develop, manufacture and potentially sell products using our technologies. Moreover, our pending patent applications, if issued as patents, may not provide additional protection for our product.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents has emerged to date. Changes in the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Accordingly, the patents we own or license may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing competing products. Furthermore, others may independently develop similar or alternative drug products or technologies or design around our patented drug product and technologies which may have an adverse effect on our business. If our competitors prepare and file patent applications in the United States that claim technology also claimed by us, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in front of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, to determine priority of invention, which could result in substantial cost, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that any related patent may expire prior to, or remain in existence for only a short period following, commercialization, thus reducing any advantage of the patent. The patents we own or license may be challenged or invalidated or may fail to provide us with any competitive advantage. Since we have licensed or sublicensed many patents from third parties, we may not be able to enforce such licensed patents against third party infringers without the cooperation of the patent owner and the licensor, which may not be forthcoming. In addition, we may not be successful or timely in obtaining any patents for which we submit applications.

Additionally, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States. For example, claims in a patent application directed to methods of treatment of the human body are not patentable or are restricted in many non-U.S. countries. Further, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all major markets. In addition, in jurisdictions outside the United States where we own or license patent rights, we may be unable to prevent unlicensed parties from selling or importing products or technologies derived elsewhere using our proprietary technology.

Generally, the first to file a patent application is entitled to the patent if all other requirements of patentability are met. However, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent was entitled to the patent. Since publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not

73

published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, the laws enacted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, or the Act, which reformed certain patent laws in the United States, introduce procedures that permit competitors to challenge our patents in the USPTO after grant, including inter partes review and post grant review. Similar laws exist outside of the United States. The laws of the European Patent Convention, for example, provide for post-grant opposition procedures that permit competitors to challenge, or oppose, our European patents administratively at the European Patent Office.

In July 2011, a third party filed an opposition to our issued European patents, European Patent No. 2044005, or the ’005 EP Patent, which covers vadadustat. During the oral proceedings, which took place on April 10, 2013, the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office decided to maintain certain claims of the patent directed to a compound chosen from a group of eight compounds, including vadadustat, as well as claims to compositions and methods for treating various diseases including, but not limited to, anemia. Both parties appealed the decision of the Opposition Division. On February 27, 2018, we withdrew the ’005 EP Patent from appeal and filed a divisional patent application to pursue a focused claim set that includes claims for vadadustat, as well as pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treating anemia. We cannot be assured that such claims in the divisional application will be granted by the European Patent Office. If such claims are not granted, or the scope of the claims is significantly narrowed, we may not be able to adequately protect our rights, provide sufficient exclusivity, or preserve our competitive advantage.

We may become involved in addressing patentability objections based on third party submission of references, or we may become involved in defending our patent rights in oppositions, derivation proceedings, reexamination, inter partes review, post grant review, interference proceedings or other patent office proceedings or litigation, in the United States or elsewhere, challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse result in any such 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.

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 on such a basis in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. As a result of such challenges, we may lose exclusivity or freedom-to-operate or patent claims may be narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to prevent third parties from using or commercializing similar or identical products, or limit the duration of the patent protection for our products.

In addition, patents protecting our product candidate might expire before or shortly after such candidate is commercialized. Thus, our patent portfolio may not provide sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

We also rely on trade secrets and know-how to protect our intellectual property where we believe patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. Trade secrets are difficult to protect. While we require our employees, licensees, collaborators and consultants to enter into confidentiality agreements, this may not be sufficient to adequately protect our trade secrets or other proprietary information. In addition, we share ownership and publication rights to data relating to our drug product and technologies with our research collaborators and scientific advisors. If we cannot maintain the confidentiality of this information, our ability to receive patent protection or protect our trade secrets or other proprietary information will be at risk.

The intellectual property and related non-patent exclusivity that we own or have licensed relating to our product, Auryxia, is limited, which could adversely affect our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect the value of Auryxia.

The patent rights and related non-patent exclusivity that we own or have licensed relating to Auryxia are limited in ways that may affect our ability to exclude third parties from competing against us. For example, a third party may design around our owned or licensed composition of matter patent claims or not market a product for methods of use covered by our owned or licensed patents.

Obtaining proof of direct infringement by a competitor for a method of use patent requires us to demonstrate that the competitors make and market a product for the patented use(s). Alternatively, we can prove that our competitors induce or contribute to others in engaging in direct infringement. Proving that a competitor contributes to, or induces, infringement of a patented method by another has additional proof requirements. For example, proving inducement of infringement requires proof of intent by the competitor. If we are required to defend ourselves against claims or to protect our own proprietary rights against others, it could result in substantial costs to us and the distraction of our management. An adverse ruling in any litigation or administrative proceeding could prevent us from marketing and selling Auryxia, increase the risk that a generic or other similar version of Auryxia could enter the market to compete with Auryxia, limit our development and commercialization of Auryxia, or otherwise harm our competitive position and result in additional significant costs. In addition, any successful claim of infringement asserted against us could subject us to monetary damages or injunction, which could prevent us from making or selling Auryxia. We also may be required to obtain licenses to use the relevant technology. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

74

Moreover, physicians may prescribe a competitive identical product for indications other than the one for which the product has been approved, or “off-label” indications, that are covered by the applicable patents. Although such off-label prescriptions may directly infringe or contribute to or induce infringement of method of use patents, such infringement is difficult to prevent.

In addition, any limitations of our patent protection described above may adversely affect the value of our drug product and may inhibit our ability to obtain a collaboration partner at terms acceptable to us, if at all.

In the United States, the FDA has the authority to grant additional regulatory exclusivity protection for approved drugs where the sponsor conducts specified testing in pediatric or adolescent populations. If granted, this pediatric exclusivity may provide an additional six months which are added to the term of any non-patent exclusivity that has been awarded as well as to the regulatory protection related to the term of a relevant patent, to the extent these protections have not already expired.

In addition to patent protection, we may utilize, if granted by the FDA, pediatric exclusivity or other provisions of the FDCA such as new chemical entity, or NCE, exclusivity, or exclusivity for a new use or new formulation, to provide non-patent exclusivity for a drug product. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of a new drug application, or NDA, for an NCE. A drug is an NCE if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which consists of the molecule(s) or ion(s) responsible for the action of the drug substance (but not including those portions of the molecule that cause it to be a salt or ester or which are not bound to the molecule by covalent or similar bonds). During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA that references an NDA product with NCE exclusivity may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application (for example, for new indications, dosages, or strengths of an existing drug). This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. The three-year exclusivity period, unlike five-year exclusivity, does not prevent the submission of a competing ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA. Instead, it only prevents the FDA from granting final approval to such a product until expiration of the exclusivity period. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission (in the case of five-year exclusivity) or the approval (in the case of three-year exclusivity) of a full NDA submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct all of its own studies needed to independently support a finding of safety and effectiveness for the proposed product, or have a full right of reference to all studies not conducted by the applicant.

On August 23, 2018, Keryx submitted a Citizen Petition requesting, inter alia, that FDA recognize that Auryxia is eligible for five years of new chemical entity, or NCE, exclusivity based on its novel active ingredient and for three years exclusivity for the IDA Indication.  On January 19, 2019, FDA responded that Auryxia is eligible for a three-year exclusivity period for the IDA Indication, which expires on November 6, 2020.  FDA, however, denied the NCE exclusivity based on its determination that Auryxia contains a previously-approved active moiety (ferric cation). FDA’s decision on the Citizen Petition is subject to further review both within FDA and in the courts. On February 21, 2019, we filed a Petition for Reconsideration of FDA’s decision on the NCE determination for Auryxia.

The FDA’s determination as to whether to grant NCE exclusivity to Auryxia may also affect the timing of the 30 month stay barring FDA from granting final approval to generic versions of Auryxia. When an ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant. We have received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the FDA, from generic drug manufacturers requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg iron per tablet), have filed certain complaints for patent infringement relating to such ANDAs, and have entered into a settlement and license agreement with one such ANDA filer. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further information relating to the ANDAs, lawsuits and settlement.

In cases where NCE exclusivity has been granted to a new drug product, the 30-month stay triggered by such litigation is extended by the amount of time such that 7.5 years will elapse from the date of approval of the NDA for that product. Without NCE exclusivity, the 30-month stay on FDA final approval of an ANDA runs from the date on which the sponsor of the reference listed drug receives notice of a Paragraph IV certification from the ANDA applicant.

75

We cannot assure that Auryxia or any drug candidates we may acquire or in-license will obtain such pediatric exclusivity, NCE exclusivity or any other market exclusivity in the United States, EU or any other territory, or that we will be the first to receive the respective regulatory approval for such drugs so as to be eligible for any non-patent exclusivity protection. We also cannot assure that Auryxia or any drug candidates we may acquire or in-license will obtain patent term extension.

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

Because we rely on third parties to assist with research, development and manufacture of our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, services agreements, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements, research agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third party contractors, collaborators 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 information becomes known by our competitors, is inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or is disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

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. For example, any academic institution with which we may collaborate will usually expect to be granted rights to publish data arising out of such collaboration. We often grant such rights, provided that we are notified in advance and given the opportunity to delay publication for a limited time period in order for us to secure patent protection of intellectual property rights arising from the collaboration and remove confidential or trade secret information from any such publication. In the future, we may also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development or similar agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties or independent development or disclosure or publication of information by any of our employees, advisors, consultants, third party contractors or collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.

Litigation or third party claims of intellectual property infringement may be costly and time consuming and may delay or harm our drug discovery, development and commercialization efforts.

We may be forced to initiate litigation to enforce our contractual and intellectual property rights, or we may be sued by third parties asserting claims based on contract, tort or intellectual property infringement. In addition, third parties may have or may obtain patents in the future and claim that our product or any other technologies infringe their patents. If we are required to defend against suits brought by third parties, or if we sue third parties to protect our rights, we may be required to pay substantial litigation costs, and our management’s attention may be diverted from operating our business. In addition, any legal action against our licensor or us that seeks damages or an injunction of our commercial activities relating to our product or other technologies could subject us to monetary liability, a temporary or permanent injunction preventing the development, marketing and sale of our product or such technologies, and/or require our licensor or us to obtain a license to continue to use our product or other technologies. We cannot predict whether our licensor or we would prevail in any of these types of actions or that any required license would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by extensive litigation over patent and other intellectual property rights. We have in the past and may in the future become a party to, or be threatened with, future adversarial litigation or other proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our drug candidates. As the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our drug candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.

While our product candidates are in preclinical studies and clinical trials, we believe that the use of our product candidates in these preclinical studies and clinical trials in the United States falls within the scope of the exemptions provided by 35 U.S.C. Section 271(e), which provides that it shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA. As a result of the Merger, our portfolio now includes a commercial product, Auryxia.  Consequently, there is an increased possibility of a patent infringement claim against us. We attempt to ensure that our product candidates and the methods we employ to manufacture them, as well as the methods for their use which we intend to promote, do not infringe other parties’ patents and other proprietary rights. There can be no assurance they do not, however, and competitors or other parties may assert that we infringe their proprietary rights in any event.

76

Third parties may hold or obtain patents or other intellectual property rights and allege in the future that the use of our products or product candidates infringes these patents or intellectual property rights, or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We do not believe that there are any currently issued U.S. patents that will prevent us from commercializing Auryxia or vadadustat; nor do we make any admission that any of such patents are valid, enforceable or infringed. Under U.S. law, a party may be able to patent a discovery of a new way to use a previously known compound, even if such compound itself is patented, provided the newly discovered use is novel and nonobvious. Such a method-of-use patent, however, if valid, only protects the use of a claimed compound for the specified methods claimed in the patent. This type of patent does not prevent persons from using the compound for any previously known use of the compound. Further, this type of patent does not prevent persons from making and marketing the compound for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. We are not aware of any valid U.S. patents issued to FibroGen, or any other person, that claim methods of using any of our product candidates for purposes of inhibiting hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylases, or HIF-PHs, for the treatment of anemia due to CKD. For example, we are aware of certain patents that have been acquired by FibroGen directed to certain heterocyclic carboxamide compounds that are described as inhibitors of prolyl-4-hydroxylase. Those patents, however, are believed to have expired as of December 2014.

FibroGen has also filed other patent applications in the United States and other countries directed to purportedly new methods of using such previously known heterocyclic carboxamide compounds for purposes of treating or affecting specified conditions, and some of these applications have since issued as patents. To the extent any such patents issue or have been issued, we may initiate opposition or other legal proceedings with respect to such patents. We discuss the status of the opposition and/or invalidation proceedings against certain FibroGen patents in Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

There may be other patents of FibroGen or patents of other third parties of which we are currently unaware with claims to compounds, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our drug candidates. Also, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe.

Third parties, including FibroGen, may in the future claim that our product candidates and other technologies infringe upon their patents and may challenge our ability to commercialize vadadustat. Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to continue to commercialize Auryxia or further develop and commercialize vadadustat or any other product candidates. If any third party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our products or product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product or product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or our intended methods of use, including patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block or impair our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. We may also elect to enter into a license in order to settle litigation or in order to resolve disputes prior to litigation. 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 products or product candidates. Should a license to a third party patent become necessary, we cannot predict whether we would be able to obtain a license or, if a license were available, whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. If such a license is necessary and a license under the applicable patent is unavailable on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our products or product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

Further, defense of infringement 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 claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties or redesign our products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

We are currently involved in patent infringement lawsuits and opposition and invalidity proceedings and may in the future be involved in additional lawsuits or administrative proceedings to challenge the patents of our competitors or to protect or enforce our patents, which could be expensive, time consuming, and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or misappropriate our trade secrets or confidential information. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement or misappropriation claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to prevent infringement of our patents or misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours 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, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and held not infringed and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

In addition, there may be a challenge or dispute regarding inventorship or ownership of patents or applications currently identified as being owned by or licensed to us. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and

77

would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications.

Various administrative proceedings are also available for challenging patents, including interference, reexamination, inter partes review, and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. An unfavorable outcome in any current or future proceeding in which we are challenging third party patents could require us to cease using the patented technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful, participation in interference or other administrative proceedings before the USPTO or a foreign patent office may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

For example, we are currently involved in patent infringement lawsuits against several generic companies in the federal district courts.  In addition, we are currently involved in opposition or invalidation proceedings in the European Patent Office, the Japan Patent Office, the Canadian Federal Court and the United Kingdom Patents Court. These proceedings may be ongoing for a number of years and may involve substantial expense and diversion of employee resources from our business. In addition, we may become involved in additional opposition proceedings or other legal or administrative proceedings in the future. For more information, see the other risk factors under “Risks Related to our Intellectual Property” and Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

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 foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and governmental patent agencies in other jurisdictions also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment (such as annuities) and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse in many cases can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance 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 a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees, and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

We have received confidential and proprietary information from potential collaborators, prospective licensees and other third parties. In addition, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. 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 these third parties or our employees’ former employers. We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. We may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Consequently, the breadth of our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. As a result, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other countries. Competitors may use our technologies in countries where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may infringe our patents in territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as in the

78

United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain countries. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property, particularly those relating to pharmaceutical and biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in countries outside of the United States could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Risks Related to our Business and Industry

If we fail to attract, keep and motivate senior management and key personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop vadadustat and commercialize Auryxia.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, medical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel is critical to our success. We are also highly dependent on our executives, certain members of our senior management and certain members of our commercial organization. The loss of the services of our executives, senior managers or other key employees, including employees in our commercial organization, could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executives, senior managers and other key employees may be difficult 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 successfully develop, gain marketing approval of and commercialize products. We may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the intense competition among numerous biopharmaceutical companies for similar personnel, particularly in our geographic region.

We also experience competition for the hiring of personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on contractors, consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating and executing our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our contractors, consultants and advisors may become employed by companies other than ours and may have commitments with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to grow and pursue our business strategy will be limited.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on products, research programs and product candidates for specific indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Security breaches and unauthorized use of our IT systems and information, or the IT systems or information in the possession of our collaborators and other third-parties, could damage the integrity of our clinical studies, impact our regulatory filings, compromise our ability to protect our intellectual property, and subject us to regulatory actions that could result in significant fines or other penalties.

We, our collaborators, contractors and other third-parties rely significantly upon information technology, and any failure, inadequacy, interruption or security lapse of that technology, including any cyber security incidents, could harm our ability to operate our business effectively.  In addition, we and our collaborators, contractors and other third parties rely on information technology networks and systems, including the Internet, to process, transmit and store clinical trial data, patient information, and other electronic information, and manage or support a variety of business processes, including operational and financial transactions and records, personal identifying information, payroll data and workforce scheduling information. We purchase some of our information technology from vendors, on whom our systems depend. We rely on commercially available systems, software, tools and monitoring to provide security for the processing, transmission and storage of company and customer information.

79

In the ordinary course of our business, we and our third party contractors maintain personal and other sensitive data on our and their respective networks, including our intellectual property and proprietary or confidential business information relating to our business and that of our clinical trial subjects and business partners. In particular, we rely on CROs and other third parties to store and manage information from our clinical trials. We also rely on third parties to manage patient information for Auryxia. The secure maintenance of this sensitive information is critical to our business and reputation.

Companies and other entities and individuals have been increasingly subject to a wide variety of security incidents, cyber-attacks and other attempts to gain unauthorized access to systems and information. These threats can come from a variety of sources, ranging in sophistication from individual hackers to state-sponsored attacks. Cyber threats may be broadly targeted, or they may be custom-crafted against our information systems or those of our vendors or third party service providers. A security breach, cyber-attack or unauthorized access of our clinical data or other data could damage the integrity of our clinical trials, impact our regulatory filings, cause significant risk to our business, compromise our ability to protect our intellectual property, and subject us to regulatory actions, including under the GDPR and CCPA discussed elsewhere in these risk factors and the privacy or security rules under federal, state, or other local laws outside of the U.S. protecting confidential or personal information, that could be expensive to defend and could result in significant fines or other penalties. Cyber-attacks can include malware, computer viruses, hacking or other unauthorized access or other significant compromise of our computer, communications and related systems. Although we take steps to manage and avoid these risks and to be prepared to respond to attacks, our preventive and any remedial actions may not be successful and no such measures can eliminate the possibility of the systems’ improper functioning or the improper access or disclosure of confidential or personally identifiable information such as in the event of cyber-attacks. Security breaches, whether through physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses, ransomware, impersonation of authorized users, attacks by hackers or other means, can create system disruptions or shutdowns or the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

Likewise, although we believe our collaborators, vendors and service providers, such as our CROs, take steps to manage and avoid information security risks and respond to attacks, we may be vulnerable to attacks against our collaborators, vendors or service providers, and we may not have adequate contractual remedies against such collaborators, vendors and service providers in such event. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees, collaborators, or other contractors to disclose sensitive information or take other actions, including making fraudulent payments or downloading malware, by using “spoofing” and “phishing” emails or other types of attacks.  Our employees may be targeted by such fraudulent activities.  Outside parties may also subject us to distributed denial of services attacks or introduce viruses or other malware through “trojan horse” programs to our users’ computers in order to gain access to our systems and the data stored therein. In the recent past, cyber-attacks have become more prevalent and much harder to detect and defend against and, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently and continuously become more sophisticated, often are not recognized until launched against a target and may be difficult to detect for a long time, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate preventive or detective measures, and we might not immediately detect such incidents and the damage caused by such incidents.

Such attacks, whether successful or unsuccessful, or other compromises with respect to our information security and the measures we implement to prevent, detect and respond to them, could result in our incurring significant costs related to, for example, rebuilding internal systems, defending against litigation, responding to regulatory inquiries or actions, paying damages or fines, or taking other remedial steps with respect to third parties, inadvertent diversion of cash, divert the attention of our management and key information technology resources, disrupt key business operations, harm our reputation and deter business partners from working with us. A compromise with respect to our information security could lead to public exposure of personal information of our clinical trial subjects, Auryxia patients and others, and negative publicity. Publicity about vulnerabilities and attempted or successful incursions could damage the integrity of our studies or delay their completion. If a compromise to our information security were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, any loss of clinical trial data could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts for our product candidates and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data.  In addition, such attacks could compromise our ability to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information from unauthorized access or misappropriation and a loss of, or damage to, our data or marketing applications. Inappropriate public disclosure of confidential or proprietary information could subject us to liability and cause delays in our product research, development and commercialization efforts. We currently do not maintain cybersecurity insurance to protect against losses due to security breaches.

Any failure to maintain proper functionality and security of our internal computer and information systems could result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or marketing applications or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, interrupt our operations, damage our reputation, subject us to liability claims or regulatory penalties, under a variety of federal, state or other applicable privacy laws, such as HIPAA, the GDPR, or state data protection laws including the CCPA, harm our competitive position and delay the further development and commercialization of our products and product candidates, or impact our relationships with Auryxia patients.

80

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate applicable laws, including the following:

We are conducting global clinical trials in countries where corruption is prevalent, and violations of any of these laws by our personnel or by any of our vendors or agents, such as our CROs or CMOs, could have a material adverse impact on our clinical trials and our business and could result in criminal or civil fines and sanctions. We are subject to complex laws that govern our international business practices. These laws include the FCPA, which prohibits U.S. companies and their intermediaries, such as CROs or CMOs, from making improper payments to foreign government officials for the purposes of obtaining or keeping business or to obtain any kind of advantage for the company. The FCPA also requires companies to keep accurate books and records and maintain adequate accounting controls. A number of past and recent FCPA investigations by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have focused on the life sciences sector.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. Some of the countries in which we are conducting clinical trials have a history of corruption, which increases our risks of FCPA violations. In addition, the FCPA presents unique challenges in the pharmaceutical industry because in many countries’ hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign government officials. Certain payments made by pharmaceutical companies, or on their behalf by CROs, to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Additionally, the UK Bribery Act applies to our global activities and prohibits bribery of private individuals as well as public officials. The UK Bribery Act prohibits both the offering and accepting a bribe and imposes strict liability on companies for failing to prevent bribery, unless the company can show that it had “adequate procedures” in place to prevent bribery.  There are also local anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in countries where we are conducting clinical trials, and many of these also carry the risk of significant financial or criminal penalties.

We are also subject to trade control regulations and trade sanctions laws that restrict the movement of certain goods, currency, products, materials, services and technology to, and certain operations in, various countries or with certain persons. Our ability to transfer people and products among certain countries is subject to maintaining required licenses and complying with these laws and regulations.

The internal controls, policies and procedures, and training and compliance programs we have implemented to deter prohibited practices may not be effective in preventing our employees, contractors, consultants, agents or other representatives from violating or circumventing such internal policies or violating applicable laws and regulations. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may impact our clinical trials, result in substantial civil or criminal penalties for us and any such individuals, including imprisonment, suspension or debarment from government contracting, withdrawal of our products, if approved, from the market, or being delisted from The Nasdaq Global Market. In addition, we may incur significant costs in implementing sufficient systems, controls and processes to ensure compliance with the aforementioned laws.

The laws and regulations referenced above may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and third parties, 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. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, or if any such action is instituted against our employees, consultants, vendors or principal investigators, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, curtailment of our operations, disclosure of our confidential information and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

81

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we commercialize Auryxia and advance our product candidates through development and commercialization, we have expanded and may need to further expand our clinical, medical, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. In addition, we may encounter difficulties in managing the expanded operations of a larger and more complex company following the Merger as well as challenges associated with managing an increasingly diversified business.  

We have strategic collaborations for the commercialization of Riona and the development and commercialization of vadadustat. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic collaborators, consultants, vendors, suppliers and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management.

In addition, in connection with the Merger, we have experienced and may to continue to experience significant growth in our employee base for sales, marketing, operational, managerial, financial, human resources, compliance, drug development, quality, regulatory and medical affairs and other areas. This growth has imposed and will continue to impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to recruit, hire, retain, motivate and integrate additional employees, including employees who joined us in connection with the Merger. Also, our management may have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities, including the integration of Keryx’s business with our business.

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize Auryxia and vadadustat or any other product candidate, if approved, and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To manage our recent and anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. In addition, we may need to adjust the size of our workforce as a result of changes to our expectations for our business, which can result in diversion of management attention, disruptions to our business, and related expenses. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company or realizing the anticipated benefits of the Merger.

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the use of our product commercially, and clinical testing of our product candidates, and we will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any additional products in the future. For example, we may be sued if our product or any of our product candidates allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product or product candidate, negligence, strict liability and breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our products and product candidates. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

82

Failure to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop. We currently carry product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our company. Although we maintain product liability insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have insufficient or no coverage. If we have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.  In addition, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost. We also may not be able to obtain additional insurance coverage that will be adequate to cover product liability risks that may arise.  Consequently, a product liability claim may result in losses that could be material to our business.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

Our stock price has been and may continue to be volatile, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our common stock and lawsuits against us and our officers and directors.

Our stock price has been and will likely continue to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. Since our initial public offering in March 2014, the price of our common stock as reported on The Nasdaq Global Market has ranged from a low of $2.99 on November 13, 2019 to a high of $31.00 on June 20, 2014. The market price of shares of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this section, developments related to and results of our clinical studies, developments related to our regulatory submissions, developments related to our ability to commercialize Auryxia and any other approved product candidates, announcements by us or our competitors of significant mergers, acquisitions, licenses, strategic collaborations, joint ventures, collaborations or capital commitments, negative publicity around Auryxia, vadadustat or any other product or  product candidate, the results of competitive clinical trials, products or technologies, regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries, developments or disputes concerning patent applications, issued patents or other proprietary rights, the recruitment or departure of key personnel, the level of expenses related to Auryxia, vadadustat or any other product or product candidate or clinical development programs, actual or anticipated changes in estimates as to financial results, development timelines or recommendations by securities analysts, variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us, changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems, market conditions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, general economic, industry and market conditions and others beyond our control. As a result of this volatility, our shareholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price at which they purchased it.  

In addition, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have frequently been the subject of securities class action and shareholder derivative litigation.  See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for information concerning securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits initiated against Keryx and certain current and former directors and officers of ours and Keryx’s. In addition, we could be the target of other such litigation in the future. Class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, whether successful or not, could result in substantial costs, damage or settlement awards and a diversion of our management’s resources and attention from running our business, which could materially harm our reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

The issuance of additional shares of our common stock or the sale of shares of our common stock by any of our directors, officers or significant shareholders will dilute our shareholders’ ownership interest in Akebia and may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Most of our outstanding common stock can be traded without restriction at any time. As such, sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell such shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock.

83

According to the most recent filings made under Section 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, Baupost Group Securities, L.L.C., or Baupost, beneficially owned approximately 16% of our outstanding common stock, and our former director Muneer Satter, beneficially owned approximately 3% of our outstanding common stock. Subject to certain restrictions, Baupost and Mr. Satter are able to sell their shares of common stock in the public market from time to time without registering them, subject to certain limitations on the timing, amount and method of those sales imposed by Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. In addition, pursuant to our registration rights agreement with Baupost and our Fourth Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights Agreement, as amended, with Mr. Satter, Baupost and Mr. Satter have the right, subject to certain conditions and with certain exceptions, to require us to file registration statements covering the shares common stock they own or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file or in public offerings of our shares of common stock. Following their registration and sale under the applicable registration statement, those shares would become freely tradable. By exercising their registration rights and selling a large number of shares of common stock, Baupost and Mr. Satter could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We have a significant number of shares that are subject to outstanding options, restricted stock units and a warrant, and in the future we may issue additional options, restricted stock units, warrants or other derivative securities convertible into our common stock. The exercise or vesting of any such options, restricted stock units, warrants or other derivative securities, and the subsequent sale of the underlying common stock, could cause a further decline in our stock price. These sales also might make it difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. Also, the Merger was financed by the issuance of shares of our common stock to shareholders of Keryx, comprising approximately 50.6% of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock, calculated based on our fully diluted market capitalization as of the date of signing the Agreement and Plan of Merger relating to the Merger. Keryx shareholders may decide not to hold the shares of our common stock they received in the Merger.  Other Keryx shareholders, such as funds with limitations on the amount of stock they are permitted to hold in individual issuers, may be required to sell the shares of our common stock they received in the Merger.  Such sales of our common stock could result in higher than average trading volume and may cause the market price for our common stock to decline.

In addition, we currently have on file with the SEC a universal shelf registration statement, which allows us to offer and sell certain registered securities, such as common stock, preferred stock, warrants and units, from time to time pursuant to one or more offerings at prices and terms to be determined at the time of sale.

Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock or other securities by our employees or our other shareholders or by us under our universal shelf registration statement, pursuant to at-the-market offerings, or otherwise could dilute our stockholders, lower the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of equity securities.

Insiders and significant stockholders could cause us to take actions that may not be, or refrain from taking actions that may be, in our best interest or in the best interest of all of our stockholders.

As of December 31, 2019, we believe that our directors and executive officers, together with their affiliates, beneficially owned, in the aggregate, approximately 2% of our outstanding common stock. In addition, we have certain significant stockholders, including Baupost, which beneficially owned approximately 16% of our outstanding common stock according to the most recent filings made under Section 13(d) and 13(g) of the Exchange Act. As a result, if certain significant stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs, such as:

This concentration of ownership could harm the market price of our common stock by:

84

Moreover, the interests of these stockholders may conflict with the interests of other stockholders, and we may be required to engage in transactions that may not be agreeable to or in the best interest of us or other stockholders.

We will continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly on and after December 31, 2019 when we ceased to be an “emerging growth company”, we will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the SOX Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have and will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly, especially since, as of December 31, 2019, we are no longer an “emerging growth company” and we therefore may no longer take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to public companies that are “emerging growth companies”.

We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur to continue to operate as a public company, nor can we predict the timing of such costs. These rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

If we are unable to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, is designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us, as and when required, conducted in connection with Section 404 of the SOX Act, or Section 404, or any testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, which became required as of December 31, 2019, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. As a larger company following the Merger, implementing and maintaining effective controls may require more resources, and we may encounter internal control integration difficulties. For example, as of December 31, 2019, management and our independent registered public accounting firm concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective because of a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting relating to our inventory process. No adjustments to our current or prior period financial statements were required as a result of this material weakness. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock. Although we expect to remediate this material weakness in the short term, we may not be successful in our efforts to do so.

We will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to remediate control deficiencies and improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner each year, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Nasdaq Stock Market or other regulatory authorities which would require additional financial and management resources and could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, if we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our business and results of operations could be harmed and investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information.

85

Provisions in our organizational documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders, and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, Amended and Restated By-Laws contain provisions that may have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our Board of Directors is responsible for appointing certain members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our Board of Directors. Among other things, these provisions:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers, changes in control or changes in our management.

In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years has owned, 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Any provision of our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, our Amended and Restated By-Laws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, or Section 382, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income. On December 12, 2018, we completed the Merger, which we believe has resulted in a change in control under Section 382. Future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an additional ownership change under Section 382. As a result, if we generate taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards to offset federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us.  In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.

Furthermore, our ability to utilize our NOLs is conditioned upon our attaining profitability and generating U.S. taxable income. As described above under “—Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital,” we have incurred significant net losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future; thus, we do not know whether or when we will generate the U.S. taxable income necessary to utilize our NOLs. A valuation allowance has been provided for the entire amount of our NOLs.

86

Our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation designates the state or federal courts located in the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that, subject to limited exceptions, the state and federal courts located in the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (2) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, (3) any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or our Amended and Restated By-Laws, or (4) any other action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Under our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, this exclusive forum provision will not apply to claims that are vested in the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or forum other than the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or for which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware does not have subject matter jurisdiction. For instance, the provision would not apply to actions arising under federal securities laws, including suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation described above. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable with respect to, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We are currently subject to putative securities class action litigation and other legal proceedings, which could result in substantial costs and divert management's attention, and we could be subject to additional legal proceedings.

We are currently subject to putative securities class action litigation and other legal proceedings as described in Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings. In addition, securities class action and derivative lawsuits and other legal proceedings are often brought against companies for any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K following a decline in the market price of their securities. In connection with any litigation or other legal proceedings, we could incur substantial costs, and such costs and any related settlements or judgments may not be covered by insurance. We could also suffer an adverse impact on our reputation and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the development and growth of our business. In addition, the terms of our current or future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

None

Our corporate headquarters are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We currently lease approximately 65,167 square feet of office and lab space in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and 27,300 square feet of office space in Boston, Massachusetts. Excluding renewal options, the lease for the Cambridge, Massachusetts office space expires on September 11, 2026, the lease for the Cambridge, Massachusetts lab space expires on November 30, 2021, and the lease for the Boston, Massachusetts office space expires on February 28, 2023. In September 2019, Keryx entered into an agreement to sublease the Boston office space to Foundation Medicine, Inc. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current needs, and that suitable additional alternative spaces will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms for our future growth.

87

Legal Proceedings Relating to Vadadustat

Opposition Proceedings Against Patents Covering Vadadustat

In July 2011, a third party filed an opposition to our issued European Patent No. 2044005, or the ’005 EP Patent, in the European Patent Office, or the EPO. During the oral proceedings, which took place on April 10, 2013, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the ’005 EP Patent. This decision resulted in the maintenance of a claim directed to a compound chosen from a group of eight compounds, including vadadustat, as well as claims to compositions and methods for treating various diseases, including, but not limited to, anemia. Both parties appealed the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO. On February 27, 2018, we withdrew the ’005 EP Patent from appeal and filed a divisional patent application to pursue a focused claim set that includes claims for vadadustat, as well as pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treating anemia.

In September 2018, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited filed an opposition to our issued Indian Patent No. 287720, or the ’720 IN Patent, in the Indian Patent Office.

Opposition and Invalidity Proceedings Against FibroGen, Inc.

We filed an opposition in the EPO against FibroGen, Inc.’s, or FibroGen’s, European Patent No. 1463823, or the ’823 EP Patent on December 5, 2013, and an oral proceeding took place March 8 and 9, 2016. Following the oral proceeding, the Opposition Division of EPO ruled that the patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. FibroGen has appealed that decision. Likewise, we also filed an invalidity proceeding before the Japan Patent Office, or JPO, on June 2, 2014 against certain claims of FibroGen’s Japanese Patent No. 4804131, or the ’131 JP Patent, which is the Japanese counterpart to the ’823 EP Patent, and the JPO issued a preliminary decision finding all of the challenged claims to be invalid. FibroGen subsequently amended the claims and the JPO accepted the amendments. The resulting ’131 JP Patent does not cover vadadustat or any pyridine carboxamide compounds. To date, FibroGen has been unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain a patent in the United States covering the same claim scope as it obtained initially in Europe and Japan in the ’823 EP Patent and ’131 JP Patent. In the event FibroGen were to obtain such a patent in the United States, we may decide to challenge the patent as we have done in Europe and Japan.

On May 13, 2015, May 20, 2015 and July 6, 2015, we filed oppositions to FibroGen’s European Patent Nos. 2322155, or the ’155 EP Patent, 1633333, or the ’333 EP Patent, and 2322153, or the ’153 EP Patent in the EPO, respectively, requesting the patents be revoked in their entirety. These related patents claim, among other things, various compounds that either stabilize HIFα or inhibit a HIF hydroxylase or a HIF prolyl hydroxylase, or HIF-PH, for treating or preventing various conditions, including, among other things, iron deficiency, microcytosis associated with iron deficiency, anemia of chronic disease, anemia wherein the subject has a transferrin saturation of less than 20%, anemia refractory to treatment with exogenously administered erythropoietin and microcytosis in microcytic anemia. Such method of use patents do not prevent persons from using the compound for other uses, including any previously known use of the compound. In particular, these patents do not claim methods of using any of our product candidates for purposes of inhibiting HIF-PH for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease, or CKD. While we do not believe these patents will prevent us from commercializing vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD, we filed these oppositions to provide us and our collaborators with maximum flexibility for developing vadadustat and our pipeline of HIF-PHI compounds.

Oppositions to the ’155 EP Patent and the ’153 EP Patent were also filed in the EPO by Glaxo Group Limited, or Glaxo, and by Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft, and Bayer Animal Health GmbH, or, collectively, Bayer.

With regard to the opposition that we filed in Europe against the ’333 EP Patent, an oral proceeding took place on December 8 and 9, 2016. Following the oral proceeding, the Opposition Division of the EPO ruled that the patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. On December 9, 2016, FibroGen filed a notice to appeal the decision to revoke the ’333 EP Patent.

In oral proceedings held on May 29, 2017, regarding the ’155 EP Patent, the European Opposition Division ruled that the ’155 EP Patent as granted did not meet the requirements for patentability under the European Patent Convention and, therefore, revoked the patent in its entirety. FibroGen filed a notice to appeal the decision to revoke the ’155 EP Patent on May 29, 2017.

Subsequently, in related oral proceedings held on May 31, 2017 and June 1, 2017 for the ’153 EP Patent, the Opposition Division of the EPO maintained the patent after FibroGen significantly narrowed the claims to an indication for which vadadustat is not intended to be developed. We and Glaxo separately filed notices to appeal the decision to maintain the ’153 EP Patent on November 9, 2017. Bayer filed a notice to appeal the decision on November 14, 2017.

88

On April 3, 2019, we filed oppositions to FibroGen’s European Patent Nos. 2289531, or the ’531 EP Patent, and 2298301, or the ’301 EP Patent in the EPO, respectively, requesting the patents be revoked in their entirety.

On May 21, 2018, we filed a Statement of Claim in Canadian Federal Court to challenge the validity of three of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents in Canada: CA 2467689, CA 2468083, and CA 2526496.

On June 22, 2018, we and our collaboration partner in Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, or MTPC, jointly filed a Request for Trial before the JPO to challenge the validity of one of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents in Japan, JP4845728. On July 20, 2018 and August 13, 2018, we and MTPC jointly filed a Request for Trial before the JPO to challenge the validity of two additional FibroGen HIF-related patents in Japan, JP5474872 and JP5474741, respectively. On September 26, 2019, the JPO conducted an invalidation trial for JP5474872 and JP4845728. On November 11, 2019, the JPO conducted an invalidation trial for JP5474741. On February 10, 2020, the JPO issued a pre-notice of a trial decision for JP4845728, which invalidated all claims except two claims in amended form, which we believe will not prevent our collaboration partner MTPC from launching vadadustat for the treatment of anemia due to CKD in Japan.

On December 13, 2018, we and our collaboration partner, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, filed Particulars of Claim in the Patents Court of the United Kingdom, or the UK, to challenge the validity of FibroGen’s six HIF-related patents in the UK: the ’823 EP Patent (UK), the ’333 EP Patent (UK), the ’153 EP Patent (UK), the ’155 EP Patent (UK), European Patent (UK) No. 2,289,531, or the ’531 EP Patent (UK), and European Patent (UK) No. 2,298,301, or the ’301 EP Patent (UK).  In May 2019, Astellas Pharma Inc., or Astellas, the exclusive licensee of FibroGen’s HIF-related patents, sued Akebia and Otsuka for patent infringement in the Patents Court of the UK. In September 2019, we and Otsuka filed an Amended Particulars of Claim to include FibroGen’s European Patent No. 1487472, or the ’472 EP Patent (UK). On February 28, 2020, the parties agreed to dismiss the ’472 EP Patent (UK) from the trial. A trial is currently ongoing.

Legal Proceedings Relating to Auryxia

ANDA Litigation

On October 31, 2018, November 6, 2018, December 24, 2018 and February 4, 2019, Keryx received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDAs, submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, by Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, or Lupin, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, Chemo Research S.L., or Chemo, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., or Mylan, respectively, requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg iron per tablet). On December 13, 2018, Keryx and its licensors, Panion & BF Biotech, Inc., or Panion, and Chen Hsing Hsu, M.D., filed a complaint for patent infringement against Lupin and Lupin Ltd., or the Lupin Defendants, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware District Court, arising from Lupin’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On December 19, 2018, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Teva and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, or the Teva Defendants, in the Delaware District Court arising from Teva’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On February 1, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a complaint for patent infringement against Chemo and Insud Pharma S.A., or the Chemo Defendants, in the Delaware District Court arising from Chemo’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On March 15, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a complaint for patent infringement against Mylan in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia arising from Mylan’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On April 18, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to consolidate these four cases in the Delaware District Court for pretrial proceedings.

On March 29, 2019, April 2, 2019, and April 12, 2019, Keryx received Paragraph IV certification notice letters regarding ANDAs submitted to the FDA by Lupin Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., or Watson, a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Teva, and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., or Par, an Endo International company, or Endo, respectively, requesting approval for generic versions of Auryxia tablets (210 mg iron per tablet). On May 10, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu filed a complaint for patent infringement against Lupin Ltd. in the Delaware District Court arising from Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 10, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Watson and the Teva Defendants, or the Watson Defendants, in the Delaware District Court arising from Watson’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 15, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Watson Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, or the Nevada District Court, from Watson’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 23, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Par in the Delaware District Court arising from Par’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On May 24, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a complaint for patent infringement against Par, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern New York District Court, arising from Par’s ANDA filing with the FDA. On June 4, 2019, Keryx and Panion filed a notice of voluntary dismissal to dismiss the suit in the Nevada District Court in view of the Watson Defendants’ consent to venue of the Delaware District Court. On June 26, 2019, Keryx, Panion and Dr. Hsu notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of additional actions in the Delaware District Court against the Lupin Defendants and the Watson Defendants. On July 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order to consolidate all of our ANDA cases in Delaware District Court for pretrial proceedings. On August 26, 2019, Keryx filed an amended complaint against the Lupin Defendants in the Delaware District Court arising from the Lupin Defendants’ ANDA filings with the FDA. On September 19, 2019, the Delaware District court set a trial date for February 8, 2021.

89

As a result of the timely filing of these lawsuits in accordance with the relevant statute, a 30-month stay of approval will be imposed by the FDA on Lupin’s ANDA, Teva’s ANDA, Chemo’s ANDA, Mylan’s ANDA, Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA, Watson’s ANDA, and Par’s ANDA, which stays are expected to remain in effect until April 2021, May 2021, June 2021, August 2021, September 2021, October 2021, and October 2021, respectively, absent an earlier judgment by the court in each of these lawsuits finding the patents at issue invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. We and the other plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits are seeking, among other relief, an order that the effective date of FDA approval of the ANDA be a date no earlier than the expiration of each of the patents at issue and equitable relief enjoining the Lupin Defendants, the Teva Defendants, the Chemo Defendants, Mylan, and the Watson Defendants from infringing these patents.

On July 22, 2019, Keryx received from Teva a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On July 22, 2019, Keryx received from Watson a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On July 31, 2019, Keryx received from Lupin a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On July 31, 2019, Keryx received from Lupin Ltd. a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On September 17, 2019, Keryx received from Par a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA. On October 16, 2019, Keryx received from Mylan a supplemental Paragraph IV certification notice letter regarding its ANDA.  

On August 2, 2019, Keryx and Panion entered into a settlement and license agreement with Par resolving patent litigation brought by Keryx and Panion in response to Par’s ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Auryxia tablets prior to the expiration of the applicable patents. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Keryx and Panion will grant Par a license to market a generic version of Auryxia in the United States beginning on March 20, 2025 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier under certain circumstances customary for settlement agreements of this nature. Additionally, in accordance with the agreement, the parties will terminate all ongoing litigation between Keryx and Panion and Par regarding Auryxia patents pending in the Delaware District Court and the Southern New York District Court. The settlement and license agreement is confidential and subject to review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. On August 5, 2019, the parties filed a request to stay the litigation pending a review of the settlement and license agreement by these regulatory authorities. On September 6, 2019 and September 9, 2019, the Southern New York District Court and the Delaware District Court, respectively, entered a stipulation and order of dismissal filed by the parties to dismiss the actions against Par.

CMS Litigation

On October 15, 2019, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District Court, against Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alex M. Azar II in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Seema Verma in her official capacity as administrator for CMS challenging CMS’s decision that Auryxia would no longer be covered by Medicare for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia, or IDA, in adult patients with CKD not on dialysis, or the IDA Indication, and CMS’s related decision that imposed a prior authorization requirement for Auryxia in the treatment of adult patients with CKD on dialysis, or the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. On October 29, 2019, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to provide relief while the lawsuit is pending, specifically, to restore coverage for Auryxia when used for the IDA Indication, and to remove the prior authorization requirement for Auryxia when used for the Hyperphosphatemia Indication. In the alternative, we filed a motion for summary judgment with the court asking it to decide the case on the merits now in our favor. On February 4, 2020, the court denied our request for a preliminary injunction. We filed an expedited appeal with the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit challenging the district court’s denial of our motion for a preliminary injunction. The appeal is currently pending.

Shareholder Litigation Relating to Auryxia Supply

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017). Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not made known to the market until Keryx’s August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his complaint, and also moved for class certification.  The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions for judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19, 2019.

90

On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification, granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to further amend his Complaint.  That same day, the Massachusetts District Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.  On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  Plaintiff tendered his appeal brief for filing on December 16, 2019 and tendered a corrected version of such brief on December 30, 2019. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has not yet set a deadline for Defendants’ appeal brief or set an oral argument date for the appeal.

Two stockholder derivative complaints also were filed on December 16, 2016 against Keryx and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and James Oliviero) certain of its former directors (Kevin J. Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers Michael P. Tarnok, Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye Wyche Fowler, Jr. and John P. Butler), some of whom are current directors and officers of ours, in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and one captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Each of these two complaints generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, mismanagement and corporate waste. On June 27, 2017, the Superior Court of Massachusetts granted the parties’ motion to consolidate and stay the derivative litigations, and that stay remains in effect. All of the complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. It is expected that such complaints would be dismissed if the above-mentioned ruling of the Massachusetts District Court entering judgment for the defendants in the case brought under the securities laws stands; however, as discussed above, we are awaiting the outcome of the appeal of that judgment.

We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue vigorously defending against the shareholder lawsuits described in this section. There is no assurance, however, that we will be successful in the defense of these lawsuits, or any associated appeals, or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits in a manner adverse to us, however, could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which a particular lawsuit is resolved.

Other Matters

On June 28, 2018, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, we completed the Merger. In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a director of ours), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action discussed below, the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula’s motion to consolidate the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Consolidated Action. The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged misstatements or omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger. The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an award of lead plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable allowance for attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety on August 2, 2019. Briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss was completed on November 20, 2019, and a decision on the motion to dismiss has not yet been issued.

91

On December 10, 2018, a stockholder of Keryx, Michael J. Donnelly, filed a complaint against Keryx pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Donnelly v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Donnelly Action. The Donnelly Action sought inspection of various Keryx books and records, purportedly to investigate “possible wrongdoing,” in connection with Keryx’s negotiation and approval of the Merger, as well as the independence of former members of Keryx’s Board of Directors, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors. In addition to the production of books and records, the Donnelly Action sought costs and expenses incurred in the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. On January 31, 2019, Keryx answered the complaint in the Donnelly Action. The Delaware Court of Chancery entered a scheduling order to govern the Donnelly Action on March 28, 2019. The trial for the Donnelly Action took place on July 10, 2019. On October 24, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a written decision granting inspection, denying the plaintiff’s request for costs and expenses, and directing the parties to confer on the proper scope of the inspection.

Not applicable.

92

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock is traded on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “AKBA”.

Holders

At March 1, 2020, there were approximately 30 holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of holders of our common stock is greater than this number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers or held by other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain earnings, if any, for use in our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Payment of future dividends, if any, on our common stock will be at the discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including our financial condition, operating results, anticipated cash needs, and plans for expansion.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

Comparative Stock Performance Graph

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or “filed” with the SEC or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, except to the extent that we specifically request that this information be treated as soliciting material or we specifically incorporate it by reference into a filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

93

Set forth below is a graph comparing the total cumulative returns of Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index. The graph assumes $100 was invested on December 31, 2014 in our common stock and each of the indices and that all dividends, if any, are reinvested. The performance shown represents past performance and should not be considered an indication of future performance.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12, Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

94

The selected consolidated financial data set forth below for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 and as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, which are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read these data together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the captions “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” The selected financial data in this section are not intended to replace our consolidated financial statements and related notes and are qualified in their entirety by the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our historical results for any prior period are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in any future period.