ATAI Life Sciences N.V. - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

Commission File Number: 001-40493

ATAI Life Sciences N.V.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

+49 89 2153 9035

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 Section 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 the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the 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, as of June 30, 2022, the last business day of the Registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $411.1 million. Solely for purposes of this disclosure, common shares held by executive officers, directors and certain shareholder of the Registrant as of such date have been excluded because such holders may be deemed to be affiliates.

As of March 15, 2023, the registrant had 166,010,476 common shares, par value €0.10 per share, outstanding.

ATAI Life Sciences N.V.

FORM 10-K

Table of Contents

i

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (the “Form 10-K") contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements contained in this Form 10-K other than statements of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including without limitiation statements regarding our future operating results and financial position; the success, cost, and timing of development of our product candidates, including the progress of preclinical studies and clinical trials and related milestones; the commercialization of our current product candidates and any other product candidates we may identify and pursue, if approved, including our ability to successfully build a specialty sales force and commercial infrastructure to market our current product candidates and any other product candidates we may identify and pursue; the timing of and our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals; our business strategy and plans, including the benefits of our corporate restructuring; potential acquisitions, partnerships and other strategic arrangements; the sufficiency of our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments to fund our operations; available funding under the Hercules Capital, Inc. loan facility; and the plans and objectives of management for future operations and capital expenditures. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” “potentially,” “preliminary,” “likely,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions described under "Summary Risk Factors" below, “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Part II and elsewhere in this Form 10‑K.

Any forward-looking statements made herein speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K, and you should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, performance, or achievements reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or will occur. Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Form 10-K or to conform these statements to actual results or revised expectations.

GENERAL

Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this Form 10-K to “we,” “us,” “our,” “atai” or the “Company” refer to ATAI Life Sciences N.V. and its consolidated subsidiaries. References to “Form 10-K” and “Annual Report” herein refer to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022.

Corporate Reorganization

We were incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Netherlands as Adripa Holding B.V. on September 10, 2020 to become a holding company for ATAI Life Sciences AG. On January 11, 2021, our name was changed to ATAI Life Sciences B.V. In April 2021, all of the outstanding shares in ATAI Life Sciences AG were contributed and transferred to ATAI Life Sciences B.V. in a capital increase in exchange for newly issued common shares of ATAI Life Sciences B.V. and, as a result, ATAI Life Sciences AG became a wholly owned subsidiary of ATAI Life Sciences B.V. and the former shareholders of ATAI Life Sciences AG became the shareholders of ATAI Life Sciences B.V. In connection with such exchange, the common share in ATAI Life Sciences B.V. held by Apeiron Investment Group Ltd. was cancelled (ingetrokken). On June 7, 2021, the existing issued shares of ATAI Life Sciences B.V. were split applying a ratio of 1.6 to one, and the nominal value was reduced to €0.10. Prior to our initial public offering ("IPO") on June 22, 2021, we converted the legal form of ATAI Life Sciences B.V. into a public company with limited liability and our name into ATAI Life Sciences N.V.

1

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those summarized below. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the headings “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In these circumstances, the market price of our common shares could decline. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

2

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company aiming to transform the treatment of mental health disorders. We were founded in 2018 in response to the significant unmet need and lack of innovation in the mental health treatment landscape, as well as the emergence of therapies that previously may have been overlooked or underused.

We have a bold and ambitious vision: to heal mental health disorders so that everyone, everywhere can live a more fulfilled life.

Mental health disorders such as depression, substance use disorder, or SUD, and anxiety, which are among our initial focus indications, are highly prevalent and estimated to affect more than one billion people globally. In addition, the total costs of mental health disorders are significant and expected to increase substantially. Between 2009 and 2019, spending on mental health care in the United States increased by more than 50%, reaching $225 billion, and a Lancet Commission report estimates the global economic cost will reach $16 trillion by 2030. While current treatments, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or SNRIs, are well established and effective for certain patients, a significant percentage of patients either respond inadequately or relapse, translating to a significant unmet patient need.

Our Model and Strategy

We have a team of experienced drug discoverers, developers and innovators working to heal mental health disorders. We operate a decentralized model to enable scalable drug or technological development at our atai companies. Our atai companies drive development of programs that we have either acquired a controlling or significant interest in or created de novo. We believe that this model provides our development teams the support and incentives to rapidly advance their programs in a cost-efficient manner. To continue to grow our business and to aid in the development of our various programs, we intend to continue to incubate, acquire and invest in companies that share our goal of advancing transformative treatments for patients that suffer from mental health disorders.

This model enables a modular approach to capturing value as we advance therapies through commercialization. While our primary goal is to pursue commercialization of products independently, we also intend to continue opportunistically establishing collaborations and/or divest atai companies entirely based on several factors, including, without limitation, the strategic rationale and financial return potential. The model is designed to maximize the value of each drug that we successfully develop and generate returns for shareholders through these value-capturing strategies.

An example of a value-capturing event includes geography-specific collaboration agreements, such as the “Otsuka Agreement”, pursuant to which one of our atai companies, Perception Neurosciences, received a $20.0 million upfront payment and Otsuka was granted exclusive rights to develop and commercialize arketamine, known as PCN-101, in Japan.

Our Programs

We have built a diversified pipeline of drug and discovery development programs, including psychedelic and nonpsychedelic compounds. Psychedelics are emerging as novel breakthrough therapies for mental health disorders, such as depression and, with growing scientific support, recent regulatory advancements and increasing patient and physician acceptance. There is a growing body of clinical evidence that supports the potential efficacy and safety profile of psychedelics, which may have potential therapeutic benefits, such as a rapid onset of effect and sustained efficacy after a short-course of administration. Our pipeline also includes nonpsychedelic compounds. We believe these programs, which include new molecular entities as well as variants of known compounds with unique pharmacology, have the potential to address unmet needs in mental health disorders.

These programs vary across stage of development, indication and mechanism of action, which we believe will improve the commercial potential and risk profile of our pipeline in the aggregate. We also prioritize the development of compounds and compound classes that have shown potential for efficacy and safety in prior clinical trials or observational studies.

Our Enabling Technologies and Drug Discovery Platforms

We are developing enabling technologies that have the potential to support the programs in our pipeline. We currently have enabling technologies housed at our atai companies, including Introspect Digital Therapeutics, as well as IntelGenx Technologies, a strategic investment of ours. While many of these technologies remain in early stage development, we are currently investigating the IntelGenx Technologies’ oral thin film ("OTF") drug delivery system in a Phase 1 clinical trial as a novel formulation of Viridia's VLS-01.

In addition, we also conduct early-stage drug discovery through our discovery platform companies. Expanding intellectual property has been essential to our strategy since inception, with key investments made to unlock NCEs. We have made substantial progress in our drug

3

discovery efforts to date, synthesizing and screening approximately 700 compounds and identifying novel scaffolds that display potential in targeting mental health disorders.

Our Ownership in COMPASS

COMPASS Pathways plc (“COMPASS”) is developing its investigational COMP360 psilocybin therapy, which comprises administration of COMP360 with psychological support from specially trained therapists, with an initial focus on treatment-resistant depression (“TRD”). COMPASS is currently conducting a Phase 3 pivotal program composed of two pivotal trials, each of which will have a long-term follow-up component. Topline pivotal data for the first and second trials are expected in the summer of 2024 and mid-2025, respectively.

As of December 31, 2022, we beneficially owned 9,565,774 shares representing a 22.4% equity interest in COMPASS. Certain of our founding investors were also seed investors and/or founders of COMPASS. Our interest in the product candidates of COMPASS is limited to the potential appreciation of our equity interest.

Our Key Clinical Programs

Our pipeline currently consists of therapeutic candidates across multiple neuropsychiatric indications including depression, cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia ("CIAS"), anxiety, opioid use disorders ("OUD"), and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). We believe there may be additional indications with potential for treatment using psychedelic therapeutics, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and eating disorders, each of which we believe represent areas of unmet medical need. The table below summarizes the status of our product candidate portfolio as of the date of this Form 10-K.

Note: DMT = N,N-dimethyltryptamine; MDMA = 3,4-Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine

The following details our lead clinical programs, including related prior evidence in humans based on third-party clinical trials or studies, recent advancements, and upcoming milestones, as applicable.

RL-007 (Recognify Life Sciences)

4

It is estimated that schizophrenia affects over 21 million people globally and approximately 2.4 million people in the United States. Approximately 300,000 new cases are diagnosed each year in the United States. Nearly every schizophrenia patient is affected by CIAS, limiting both social and non-social cognitive functions.

While antipsychotics are most commonly used to treat the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia, they fail to address the cognitive and negative symptoms of this condition. Moreover, there are no drugs approved for the specific treatment of CIAS.

Non-Clinical

RL-007 has been shown to be active in a broad range of non-clinical models, consistently exhibiting pro-cognitive, anxiolytic, antinociceptive and anticonvulsant effects.

Although the precise molecular target and mechanism of action for RL-007 has not been elucidated, studies with co-delivered antagonists suggest that RL-007 modulates both inhibitory and excitatory neuronal signaling through the γ-aminobutyric acid GABAB and α4β2 nicotinic receptor complexes. In addition, a microdialysis study has demonstrated that the oral administration of an intermediate (10 mg/kg) but not high (100 mg/kg) dose of RL-007 to rats results in increased extracellular concentrations of GABA in the ventral hippocampus (a brain structure understood to play an important role in memory).

In contrast to other compounds that increase extracellular concentrations of GABA or that are agonists of GABAB receptors, RL-007 does not appear to induce the classic GABA side effects such as sedation (in animal models), suggesting the involvement of additional pharmacological mechanisms.

Studies in several species have demonstrated that RL-007 can reverse the effects of scopolamine, a muscarinic antagonist that induces temporary cognitive impairment, and can also improve performance in complex memory tasks in aged animals, bringing their performance to a comparable level as young animals. For example, in an in vivo model in normal and scopolamine challenged dogs, RL-007 demonstrated enhanced effects on cognition. In the figure below, investigators observed enhanced learning and memory with an inverted U-shaped dose response.

5

Phase 1 Scopolamine Challenge

A third-party Phase 1 study enrolled 23 healthy volunteers to evaluate the effect of RL-007 on the scopolamine cognition model in healthy volunteers. RL-007 was administered ter in die, or three times a day (“TID”) for one day and then co-administration with scopolamine on Day 2 to induce a temporary cognitive impairment. RL-007 was well tolerated. A statistically and clinically significant reversal of the scopolamine-induced cognitive impairment was observed with the 30 mg TID dose. Additionally, marked changes in quantitative encephalogram (qEEG) were found at all doses tested. Notably, and consistent with non-clinical evidence, the dose response was inverted U-shaped, with the most significant changes observed at the 30mg dose-level.

Phase 2 Study in Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (DPNP)

A third-party conducted a Phase 2 study that enrolled 181 patients with DPNP in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. While unsuccessful in demonstrating a clinically meaningful effect on pain scores with RL-007, as part of this trial, cognitive function was assessed using a standard computerized cognitive test battery, Cogstate, which assessed cognitive abilities such as attention, concentration, verbal learning and memory, working memory and global cognitive functioning. In the cohort receiving RL-007 at the lower dose (40 mg TID for one week, then 80 mg TID for three weeks), significant improvement in immediate and delayed word recall was observed compared with placebo, suggesting that RL-007 may be associated with cognitive enhancement. In addition, investigators observed subjects in the lowest dose cohort (40/80 mg) exhibited an improvement in verbal learning (Cohen’s d = 0.31) and memory (Cohen’s d = 0.36), underscoring the effects on cognition and inverted-U dose response observed in prior clinical and non-clinical studies.

6

Phase 2a Study in CIAS

Recognify initiated a Phase 2a proof-of-mechanism study in the United States for RL-007 in 32 CIAS patients. The study was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of RL-007, as well as effects on clinical activity endpoints, including a subset of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) to assess cognition. In December 2021, we announced positive clinical data from the Phase 2a study of RL-007 in CIAS patients. RL-007 was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful pro-cognitive profile consistent with previous Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of this compound.

In the figure below, we show the results on a subset of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) demonstrating a inverted-U response on the key cognitive endpoints of HVLT, symbol coding and category fluency. On symbol coding at the 20mg dose, a Cohen’s d of 0.79 was observed. The MCCB is recognized by the FDA as an approvable endpoint for measuring cognitive function in CIAS.

The totality of the results observed in this Phase 2a study supported the progression of RL-007 in clinical development to further demonstrate the pro-cognitive benefit of RL-007 in CIAS.

GRX-917 (deuterated Etifoxine -GABA Therapeutics)

7

There are several types of anxiety disorders, including GAD, social anxiety disorder and panic disorder, which are distinct but share common symptoms.

Anxiety disorders are generally treated with medication, psychotherapy or both. First line pharmacotherapy often involves use of antidepressants, including SSRI/SNRIs. SSRI/SNRIs work by increasing levels of serotonin in the brain, but they typically have a slow onset of action, requiring treatment for four to six weeks before significant therapeutic benefits are observed, and maximal benefits often requiring up to twelve weeks of treatment. SSRIs also have a number of side effects, including sexual dysfunction, insomnia and gastrointestinal disturbances.

Benzodiazepines are also used to treat anxiety and can offer rapid reduction of symptoms, with relief as soon as thirty minutes after administration. However, many patients experience sedative side effects resulting in drowsiness or lethargy, decreased mental sharpness, slurring of speech and decreased coordination. The long-term use of benzodiazepines is associated with the development of tolerance and dependence, making discontinuing such medications challenging for most patients.

Etifoxine & GRX-917 Non-Clinical

Etifoxine and GRX-917 have shown anxiolytic effects in the elevate plus maze (EPM) mouse model. Finasteride, an inhibitor of neurosteroid biosynthesis, was able to fully inhibit the anxiolytic activity of GRX-917 and etifoxine in the EPM model, suggesting that both compounds work via modulation of neurosteroidogenic activity. In humans, the anxiolytic activity of etifoxine hydrochloride is not inhibited in the presence of the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil (Schlichter et al, 2000), supporting the notion that etifoxine’s anxiolytic effects are not driven by the direct activation of the benzodiazepine site of the GABAA receptor.

GRX-917’s half-life in human and rat liver microsomes is increased by 82% compared to etifoxine. In rats, this enhanced in-vitro metabolic stability translated in-vivo to a 1.7-fold increase in maximum concentration (i.e. Cmax) and a 2.5 fold increase in exposure (i.e. AUC) for the GRX-917 compared to etifoxine. Terminal half-life was also increased by 20%. The effect of deuterium substitution on enhancing microsome stability is identical (+82%) in rats and humans, pointing to a similar metabolic pathway. Therefore, GRX-917’s superior rat pharmacokinetic profile is expected to translate to humans.

Phase 1 Safety, Tolerability and PK Study of Etifoxine

In 2020, GABA Therapeutics completed a Phase 1 study of etifoxine to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (via qEEG) of single (100 mg) and multiple doses (100 mg, twice a day (“BID”) for seven days) of oral etifoxine in normal healthy volunteers. The results quantified the PK of etifoxine and served as a benchmark for the single and multiple ascending dose study GRX-917.

Phase 1 Single and Multiple Ascending Dose Study

In June 2021, GABA initiated a Phase 1 single and multiple ascending dose trial of GRX-917. The Phase 1 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple-ascending doses of GRX-917 up to 500mg as single doses and 300mg given every twelve hours for seven days, respectively.

In January 2023, we announced positive final results from the Phase 1 study. GRX-917 was well-tolerated in the single ascending dose and multiple ascending dose cohorts. Additionally, the data confirmed an improved pharmacokinetic profile including longer half-life and increased bioavailability compared to etifoxine. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) data showed dose-dependent increases in frontal beta power, providing evidence of target engagement.

Regulatory Authorities Pharmacovigilance assessments of Etifoxine

An analysis of the safety profile of etifoxine (2000-2012) was completed by the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (“ANSM”) France showed that the profile of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) is globally similar to that expected and there were no new safety data regarding the risks identified in the spontaneous reporting data. In over 14 million prescriptions of Stresam® between 2000 and 2012, there was a low ADR rate of ~ 21 per million treatments. There were only sporadic reports of ADRs relating to abuse, misuse or dependence. Data from this pharmacovigilance study were reviewed by the ANSM and this resulted a confirmation of the favorable risk-benefit assessment subject to the conduct of

8

additional studies. As risk mitigation measures, revisions were made to the label information and a letter was sent to healthcare professionals in 2014.

Further to the ANSM’s study, in 2021 the ANSM initiated a referral towards the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) leading to a review of Stresam’s (etifoxine) benefit-risk based on additional available data including the results of a new study. The review was carried out by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) which concluded that Stresam can continue to be used for the treatment of anxiety disorders, but it must not be used in patients who previously had severe skin reactions or severe liver problems after taking etifoxine.

Third-Party Non-Inferiority Study of Etifoxine vs. Lorazepam

A third-party conducted a study to compare the efficacies of etifoxine (50mg TID) and lorazepam (.5 – 1mg BID) monotherapies in the treatment of adjustment disorder with anxiety over a period of 28 days. The study demonstrated that etifoxine works as rapidly as lorazepam, with etifoxine continuing its effects beyond the treatment period, while lorazepam shows rebound post-treatment.

Viridia Life Sciences: VLS-01 (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine; (“DMT”)) for TRD

We are initially focused on a subtype of MDD, referred to as TRD. TRD is a severe form of MDD, comprising patients who do not respond adequately to two or more pharmacological treatments. Approximately one third of patients with MDD are diagnosed with TRD.

TRD is estimated to affect approximately 100 million people globally. People with TRD are often unable to perform daily tasks, are less productive at work and have high rates of unemployment. People with TRD are also more likely to receive disability or welfare benefits and are reported to have a higher frequency of co-occurring conditions, including hypertension, anemia, and diabetes, compared to people with MDD that are not treatment resistant. In addition, direct medical costs for people with TRD are estimated to be two to three times higher than for people with MDD that are not treatment resistant, with an average of twice the number of inpatient visits and hospital stays that are over one-third longer. It has been found that the proportion of people with TRD that have attempted suicide may be as high as 30%, approximately a seven-fold increase compared to people with MDD that are not treatment resistant.

9

While there are a wide range of available pharmacological therapies for depression, including SSRIs, SNRIs, and atypical antipsychotics, these drugs have significant limitations for many patients, including slow onset of effect, inadequate response, and significant side effects.

Given the limitations of existing therapeutic treatments, there continues to be a high unmet need for antidepressants that provide faster onset of effect, greater efficacy, higher remission rates, and improved tolerability.

VLS-01 Non-Clinical

Neural plasticity is considered to be a critical mechanism by which serotonergic psychedelics exert antidepressant effects. DMT acts as a partial agonist of the 5-HT 1A/2A/2C receptors, primarily in cortical neurons and the limbic system, where it is believed to increase neuroplasticity and decrease functional connectivity. In vitro and in vivo assays for neuritogenesis and synaptogenesis in the prefrontal cortex of adult rats demonstrated DMT’s potential to significantly increase dendritic arbor complexity along with functionality (assessed by ex-vivo slice recordings of excitatory postsynaptic currents [EPSCs]), suggesting the potential to restore prefrontal cortex deficits observed in the pathophysiology of depression.

In a series of behavioral experiments conducted in male rats, a single intraperitoneal injection of 10 mg/kg DMT, a hallucinogenic dose based on rodent drug discrimination data, demonstrated an antidepressant-like effect in the forced swim test, as indicated by a significant reduction in immobility and increase in swimming.

DMT has limited oral bioavailability, and current clinical studies conducted by third parties typically involve either IV or inhaled routes of administration. Given the challenges—both commercial and safety—with these routes, we are developing VLS-01 as an OTF formulation, which is expected to provide a more convenient and acceptable route of administration. Our proprietary formulation has demonstrated good mucosal penetration of DMT when tested in vitro in a standard model involving pig mucosal tissue:

Phase 2a Study of IV DMT fumarate in Major Depressive Disorder

The third-party Phase 2a study investigated the safety and efficacy of DMT fumarate with supportive therapy compared to placebo with supportive therapy, in 34 patients with moderate/severe MDD. Patients were administered a short IV infusion of 21.5mg of DMT fumarate, resulting in a 20 to 30-minute psychedelic experience. The study met the primary and key secondary endpoints, demonstrating a placebo-adjusted reduction of -10.8 (p=0.002) and -7.4 (p=0.02) in MADRS scores at one- and two-weeks post-dose, respectively. DMT fumarate was well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events reported, including no reports of suicidal ideation or behavior. There were no clinically significant safety concerns in any treatment group, including with vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) or clinical laboratory findings.

We believe this study provides strong proof of concept data for DMT as a potential treatment for depression and supports the development of the OTF formulation of DMT, VLS-01, which may simplify in-clinic administration relative to an IV formulation.

10

DemeRx IB: DMX-1002 (ibogaine) for OUD

We are initially focused on OUD, a form of SUD characterized by uncontrolled and persistent self-administration of opioids, resulting in significant impairment, distress, and mortality. In 2017, an estimated 2.1 million people in the United States had an OUD, and 47,600 people died from an opioid drug overdose. OUD’s societal effects are extremely far-reaching as the condition burdens multiple stakeholders. A retrospective secondary analysis using 2018 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the CDC WONDER Database attributed a $787 billion societal cost to OUD in the United States alone. The most common treatments for OUD are directed at achieving abstinence and include psychological and social interventions.

For many patients, pain relief and substance use disorders are fundamentally linked, given that the use of opioids to manage acute pain can lead to drug dependence. While opioids are indeed effective for most forms of acute pain, they are associated with a variety of adverse effects, including risk of addiction and respiratory depression, the latter being the main cause of death among opioid users. Of individuals prescribed at least one day of opioids, 6% are still taking them one year later. Moreover, it is estimated that 8% to 12% of individuals prescribed opioids for chronic pain ultimately develop OUD.

There are limited pharmacological agents available to treat OUD, with the current options divided into two classes: (i) synthetic opioid receptor full or partial agonists, such as methadone and buprenorphine, respectively, and (ii) opioid antagonists, such as naltrexone and naloxone. These therapies suffer from a number of limitations, including high relapse rates, inconvenient treatment regimens, difficult access and an inability to maintain abstinence after medically assisted withdrawal.

Ibogaine was generally well tolerated when administered in a highly controlled clinical setting. All patients experienced a hallucinatory, dream-like state which typically resolved between six and 12 hours after dosing, though subjective effects were observed up to 24 hours after dosing in some subjects. There were no serious adverse events or deaths that occurred from administration of ibogaine to drug dependent patients in the dose range used in this trial.

11

As shown below, opioid-dependent patients reported significant decreases in drug craving as measured by all Heroin Craving Questionnaire-29 subscales at discharge and at one-month follow-up. Similarly, assessments of mood (The Beck Depression Inventory, or BDI, The Profile of Mood States, or POMS, depression subscale, Symptom Checklist-90 depression subscale) revealed significant reductions in depression, as well as improvement in mood scores from baseline to post-dose and at one-month follow-up (p<0.01 for all).

EmpathBio: EMP-01 (MDMA derivative) for PTSD

The current first line treatment for PTSD is the use of trauma-focused psychotherapy, but access to these psychotherapies is typically difficult, and not all with PTSD respond to psychotherapy alone. Similarly, medication-only treatment is ineffective in controlling PTSD symptoms in as many as 40% to 60% of patients, and many of these medications commonly produce problematic side effects. Given the issues with access to trauma-focused psychotherapy and ineffectiveness of current pharmacotherapy, PTSD is a mental health disorder of high unmet medical need. We believe novel interventions are needed to better treat PTSD.

12

In addition, a recent third-party randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of 90 patients with severe PTSD showed a statistically significant reduction in PTSD symptoms in the MDMA-assisted psychotherapy group versus placebo.

Our Other Clinical Programs

Perception Neuroscience: PCN-101(R-Ketamine) for TRD

In January 2023, results from the Phase 2a proof-of-concept study were announced. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of PCN-101 for the two doses, 30 mg and 60 mg, which were sub-dissociative and non-sedating based upon Phase 1 results. To achieve a sufficiently differentiated and commercially viable treatment in TRD in line with our internal target product profile, we set the following targets for the single dose Phase 2a study. On efficacy, we targeted a placebo adjusted change from baseline of 5 or more points on the MADRS at 24 hours, the primary endpoint. On safety/tolerability, we targeted sedation and dissociation comparable to placebo, operationalized as a risk ratio of less than 2. The observed mean change from baseline on the MADRS at 24 hours was -15.3 for PCN-101 60 mg and -13.7 for placebo (placebo adjusted change of -1.6; p-value 0.5). The magnitude of both the placebo effect and the drug effect were comparable to that seen in several other acute antidepressant trials incorporating inpatient overnight stays. The efficacy of the 60 mg dose was greater when considering only US sites at the 24-hour time point, though the placebo effect was similar to that observed in the full sample set (-19.2 MADRS mean change from baseline on 60mg PCN-101 vs. -14.4 on placebo; p-value 0.32). However, it should be noted that the number of patients in the US-only subset was small (9 on PCN-101 and 8 on placebo). The single 60 mg dose of PCN-101 showed an efficacy signal at each timepoint over the 2-week timeframe of the study, potentially indicating a sustained duration of effect. The results did reach statistical significance (p-value 0.04) at the 15-day endpoint in the US-only subset in an exploratory analysis. PCN-101 was generally well-tolerated with rates of sedation and dissociation comparable to placebo.

13

Kures: KUR-101(deuterated mitragynine) for OUD

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, with new approaches and technologies regularly emerging. We face competition across our current programs and expect to face competition with any future programs we may seek to develop and/or commercialize from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic pharmaceutical companies, among others. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. In addition, programs that we currently believe to be complementary may eventually become competitors.

Many of the companies with which we compete or with which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved drugs than we do and may already have established markets for their products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA or other regulatory approval for alternative or superior products. Our competitors also may compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, in establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling subjects for our clinical trials and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, competitors may have higher name recognition and more extensive collaborative relationships. Mergers and acquisitions within the industry may result in greater resources being concentrated among a small set of competitors. Smaller or emerging earlier-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly if they have collaborations with larger, established companies. We are aware that a number of companies are increasing their efforts in discovery of non-traditional alternative compounds including psychedelics.

The commercial opportunity for our potential products could reduce or be eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, we may also face competition from 501(c)(3) non-profit medical research organizations, including the Usona Institute and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). Such non-profit organizations may be willing to provide products at cost or for free which could significantly disrupt the potential market for our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products faster than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and price, as well as the level of biosimilar or generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Depression

Multiple therapies for depression exist, including common pharmacological treatments such as anti-depressants and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive based therapy. There are also non-pharmacological, somatic treatments for depression such as electroconvulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation, among others. However, these current therapies are ineffective or inadequately effective for a significant portion of patients. This treatment-resistant subset of depression is our initial therapeutic focus for several of our compounds. For TRD there are currently only two pharmacological treatments approved in the United States: (i) SPRAVATO (S-ketamine) nasal spray, an NMDA receptor antagonist, approved by the FDA in March 2019 and marketed by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and (ii) a fixed dose combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine hydrochloride, which are individually available generically. These treatments are typically used alongside antidepressants and other treatments used in earlier lines of therapy for depression. In addition, there have been recent developments in the treatment of MDD, including AUVELITY, a therapeutic marketed by Axsome Therapeutics, which was recently approved by the FDA in August 2022 and which is also being studied in TRD.

14

Psychosocial interventions and non-pharmacological, somatic treatments may also be used for patients. We are aware of several biopharmaceutical companies with therapies in development for TRD and MDD including Sage Therapeutics, Relmada Therapeutics, Novartis, GH Research, as well as COMPASS, in which we hold an equity stake.

Cognitive Impairment Associated with Schizophrenia

We are not aware of any pharmacological treatments approved for CIAS. While antipsychotics are most commonly used to treat psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia, these medications fail to address the cognitive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and are often associated with severe dose limiting effects. Furthermore, over 50 assets in development for CIAS have been discontinued or are inactive, indicating the complexity of successfully developing a therapy for this condition. We are aware of biopharmaceutical companies with therapies in development for CIAS including Boehringer Ingelheim and Takeda Pharmaceuticals (in partnership with Neurocrine Biosciences). Other companies with therapies in development in schizophrenia not focused on CIAS that we are aware of include Karuna Therapeutics, Sunovion, Newron Pharmaceuticals, Reviva Pharmaceuticals and Acadia Pharmaceuticals.

Anxiety

Anxiety disorders are generally treated with medication, psychotherapy or both. Treatment often involves the use of antidepressants. However, these typically have a slow onset of action and a number of side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, drowsiness and weight gain. Benzodiazepines are also used to treat anxiety and can offer rapid reduction of symptoms, but their long-term use is associated with the development of tolerance, respiratory depression, drug dependence and sedative side effects.

We are aware of several biopharmaceutical companies with therapies in development for anxiety disorders including VistaGen Therapeutics, Mindmed, Bionomics, as well as the non-profit medical research organization MAPS.

Intellectual Property

Overview of our Intellectual Property

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of intellectual property, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to product candidates and technology that are important to our business. In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business for which we do not consider patent protection appropriate. The intellectual property covering the technologies and product candidates related to our programs are handled directly by the applicable platform companies, and we are not actively involved in the management of such intellectual property. For information regarding risks related to our intellectual property, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

As of the date of this Form 10-K, our intellectual property portfolio includes 32 issued U.S. patents, 273 issued non-U.S. patents, 37 pending U.S. patent applications, 65 pending non-U.S. patent applications, 26 pending U.S. provisional applications, and 27 PCT applications. Our intellectual property portfolio for each of the programs in our pipeline are summarized in the table below and described further for certain programs. In addition, we have, and may continue to, enter into collaboration and licensing arrangements for research

15

and development, manufacturing, and commercialization activities with counterparties for the development and commercialization of its product candidates.

A description of our patents as of the date of this Form 10-K follows below:

Perception Neuroscience (PCN-101)

Perception Neuroscience in-licenses three issued U.S. patents, three foreign issued patents in Japan and 2 foreign issued patents in Europe and Canada, four U.S. pending patent applications and 15 foreign pending patent applications in Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, and Japan covering the composition of and methods of using R-ketamine (PCN-101) for the treatment of depressive symptoms in mental disorders, neurological disorders and substance abuse. Perception Neuroscience also in-licenses one U.S. pending patent application and one foreign issued patent in Australia and seven foreign pending patent applications in Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel and Japan covering the composition of matter of S-Norketamine for the treatment of depressive symptoms. Perception Neuroscience also owns one issued U.S. patent, one U.S. pending patent application and seven foreign pending patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan and Mexico covering the method of using R-ketamine (PCN-101) for the treatment of depressive symptoms in mental disorders and substance abuse, as well as two pending PCT application directed to R-Ketamine salts and pharmaceutical compositions and one U.S. provisional patent application directed to methods of administering R-Ketamine. Perception Neuroscience’s owned and in-licensed issued patents and any patents issuing from the owned or in-licensed pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2034 and 2043, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

Recognify (RL-007)

Recognify in-licenses ten issued U.S. patents and 39 foreign issued patents in Europe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, South Africa, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and Russia, covering RL-007, including the pharmaceutical

16

composition of and methods of using RL-007. The patents licensed to Recognify are expected to expire between 2026 and 2034, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

DemeRx IB (DMX-1002)

DemeRx IB owns five issued U.S. patents and two foreign issued patents in Europe and Australia, four U.S. pending patent applications, and four foreign pending patent applications in Australia, Europe, Hong Kong and Canada covering methods of treatment using ibogaine (DMX-1002). DemeRx IB’s issued patents and any patents issuing from the pending applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2035, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Atai Life Sciences AG owns one pending U.S. patent application and one pending PCT patent application, covering methods of improving the therapeutic effectiveness and safety profile of ibogaine. Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2042, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

GABA Therapeutics (GRX-917)

GABA Therapeutics owns two issued U.S. patents, one U.S. pending patent application, eleven issued foreign patents in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Mexico, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea and Mexico and three foreign pending patent applications in India and Japan, covering the pharmaceutical composition and corresponding methods of use of the deuterated analogs of etifoxine (GRX-917). GABA Therapeutics owns one U.S. provisional patent application, covering methods of administering GRX-917. GABA Therapeutics’ issued patents and any patents issuing from the pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2036 and 2044, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

Viridia Life Sciences (VLS-01)

Atai Life Sciences AG owns one issued U.S. patent, three U.S. pending patent applications and two PCT patent applications, covering (i) DMT compositions exhibiting unique PK profiles following administration and (ii) new DMT salts and polymorphic forms, including DMT succinate (VLS-01). Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2042, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Atai Life Sciences AG owns four U.S. pending patent applications, three PCT patent applications and two U.S. provisional patent applications, covering novel analogues, products and conjugates of dimethyltryptamine, methods and pharmaceutical compositions thereof. Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2042 and 2043, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Atai Life Sciences AG owns one U.S. provisional patent application, covering polymorphic forms of DMT. Any patents issuing from this pending patent application, if granted, are expected to expire in 2043, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

EmpathBio (EMP-01)

Atai Life Sciences AG owns six U.S. pending patent applications, five PCT patent applications and two U.S. provisional patent applications, covering MDMA enantiomers and processes for the preparation of MDMA, its enantiomers and derivatives thereof. Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between 2042 and 2044, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Atai Life Sciences AG owns one U.S. provisional patent application, covering salts of R-MDMA and polymorphic forms. Any patents issuing from this pending patent application, if granted, are expected to expire in 2043, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity. Atai Life Sciences AG owns three U.S. provisional patent applications, covering salts of R-MDMA, the synthesis of R-MDMA and S-MDMA, and uses of MDMA for treating stress related disorders. Any patents issuing from these pending patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2043, exclusive of possible patent term adjustments or extensions or other forms of exclusivity.

Patents

Individual patents have terms for varying periods 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, utility patents issued for applications filed in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective filing date of a non-provisional patent application. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. With regard to our U.S. provisional patent applications, if we do not file any corresponding non-provisional patent applications within 12 months of the provisional patent application filing date, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. All taxes, annuities or maintenance fees for a patent, as required by the USPTO and certain foreign jurisdictions, must be timely paid in order for the patent to remain in force during this period of time.

17

The actual protection afforded by a patent may vary on a product by product basis, from country to country and can depend upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions and the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. Our patents and patent applications may be subject to procedural or legal challenges by others. We may be unable to obtain, maintain and protect the intellectual property rights necessary to conduct our business, and we may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others, which could materially harm our business. For more information, see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Trade Secrets and Proprietary Information

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors, and non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality, and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, and independent contractors. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information, and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee, however, that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties, such agreements will not be breached, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.”

Government Regulation and Product Approval

The FDA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, CMS, DEA, and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements upon companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state, local and foreign entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our product candidates. Any drug candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in those foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in the European Union (“EU”), are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.

Certain of our product candidates may be subject to regulation as combination drug-device products, which means that they are composed of both a drug product and device product. If marketed individually, each component would be subject to different regulatory pathways and reviewed by different Centers within the FDA. A combination product, however, is assigned to a Center that will have primary jurisdiction over its regulation based on a determination of the combination product’s primary mode of action, which is the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action. In the case of our product candidates, we believe the primary mode of action is attributable to the drug component of the product, which means that the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research would have primary jurisdiction over the premarket development, review and approval of our product candidates regulated as combination drug/devices. We do not anticipate that the FDA will require a separate medical device authorization for the device, but this could change during the course of its review of any marketing application that we may submit.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

18

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

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

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

19

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, such as with accelerated approval drugs, FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 trials. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach alignment on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once an NDA has been accepted for filing, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted.

The FDA may refer an NDA to an advisory committee for review before deciding on the application. 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.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP 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 requirements.

20

After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts any required inspections of the manufacturing facilities where the product candidate and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may contain limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the product is distributed and used in a manner such that benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may withdraw or limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a number of programs intended to expedite the development or review of product candidates that meet certain criteria. For example, drugs are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track-designated product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

The FDA may also designate a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track designation features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a fast track or breakthrough therapy designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. An NDA is eligible for priority review if the product candidate is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide significant improvement in safety or efficacy compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for standard review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

In addition, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA generally requires that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled confirmatory clinical trials to verify and describe the clinical benefit predicted by the surrogate or intermediate endpoint. Drugs receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required confirmatory trials or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA

21

may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our product candidates as appropriate.

Orphan drug designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease or condition for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. However, competitors, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of a competing product for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the “same drug,” as defined by the FDA, or if a product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same disease or condition. In addition, if an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to extensive continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of 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 program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. 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 studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

22

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

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Marketing Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

DEA Regulation

The CSA establishes registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA is concerned with the control and handling and distribution of controlled substances, and with the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging, in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce.

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. They may be distributed for research uses under strict controls and approval by the DEA. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized.

23

The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as security cages, surveillance cameras and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA, for example distribution reports for Schedule I and II controlled substances, Schedule III substances that are narcotics, and other designated substances. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, special authorization and notification requirements apply to imports and exports.

In addition, a DEA quota system controls and limits the availability and production of controlled substances in Schedule I or II. Distributions of any Schedule I or II controlled substance must also be accompanied by special order forms, with copies provided to the DEA. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments. To meet its responsibilities, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Individual states also regulate controlled substances.

Foreign Government Regulation

Our product candidates are subject to similar laws and regulations imposed by jurisdictions outside of the United States, and, in particular, the EU, governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product candidates in those countries. The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Non-clinical studies and clinical trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of nonclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical (pharmaco-toxicological) studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC (unless otherwise justified for certain particular medicinal products – e.g., radio-pharmaceutical precursors for radio-labelling purposes). In particular, nonclinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”), which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state in which the clinical trial takes place, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application for multi-center trials. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol, and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate

24

assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the EU Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Marketing Authorization

In order to market our future product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MA application, or MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the competent authorities make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the PRIME scheme, a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. 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 MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Moreover, in the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for

25

one year and has to be renewed annually until fulfillment of all the conditions. Once the pending studies are provided, it can become a “standard” MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the MA ceases to be renewed. Furthermore, MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This MA is close to the conditional MA as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the MA is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

Data and marketing exclusivity

In the EU, new product candidates authorized for marketing, or reference products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

Orphan medicinal products

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU are similar in principle to those in the United States. In the EU a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating; (2) either (a) condition such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an MAA. An EU orphan designation entitles a party to incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, protocol assistance and access to the centralized procedure. Upon grant of a MA, orphan medicinal products are entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved indication which means that the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA or grant a MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar medicinal product for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan, or PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The orphan exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for which it received orphan designation, including where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold or it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (1) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (2) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (3) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the orphan register.

Controlled Substances

Controlled substances are not regulated at EU level and the EU legislation does not establish different classes of narcotic or psychotropic substances. However, the United Nations, or UN, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, or the UN Conventions, codify internationally applicable control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes. The individual EU member states are all signatories to these UN Conventions. All signatories have a dual obligation to ensure that these substances are available for medical purposes and to protect populations against abuse and dependence.

26

The UN Conventions regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV substances with Schedule II substances presenting the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances and Schedule I and IV substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse.

The UN Conventions require signatories to require all persons manufacturing, trading (including exporting and importing) or distributing controlled substances to obtain a license from the relevant authority. Each individual export or import of a controlled substance must also be subject to an authorization. Before the relevant authority can issue an export authorization for a particular shipment, the exporter must provide the authority with a copy of the import authorization issued by the relevant authority of the importing country. Implementation of the obligations provided in the UN Conventions and additional requirements are regulated at national level and requirements may vary from one member state to another.

Post-Approval Requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance (“QPPV”) who is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of that system, and oversees the safety profiles of medicinal products and any emerging safety concerns. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAA must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of medicinal products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

Regulation of combination products in the EU

The EU regulates medical devices and medicinal products separately, through different legislative instruments, and the applicable requirements will vary depending on the type of drug-device combination product. EU guidance has been published to help manufacturers select the right regulatory framework.

Drug-delivery products intended to administer a medicinal product where the medicinal product and the device form a single integral product are regulated as medicinal products in the EU. The EMA is responsible for evaluating the quality, safety and efficacy of MAAs submitted through the centralized procedure, including the safety and performance of the medical device in relation to its use with the medicinal product. The EMA or the EU member state national competent authority will assess the product in accordance with the rules for medicinal products described above but the device part must comply with the Medical Devices Regulation (including the general safety and performance requirements provided in Annex I). MAA must include – where available – the results of the assessment of the conformity of the device part with the Medical Devices Regulation contained in the manufacturer’s EU declaration of conformity of the device or the relevant certificate issued by a notified body. If the MAA does not include the results of the conformity assessment and where for the conformity assessment of the device, if used separately, the involvement of a notified body is required, the competent authority must require the applicant to provide a notified body opinion on the conformity of the device.

27

By contrast, in case of drug-delivery products intended to administer a medicinal product where the device and the medicinal product do not form a single integral product (but are co-packaged, for example), the medicinal product is regulated in accordance with the rules for medicinal products described above while the device part is regulated as a medical device and will have to comply with all the requirements set forth by the Medical Devices Regulation.

The characteristics of non-integral devices used for the administration of medicinal products may impact the quality, safety and efficacy profile of the medicinal products. To the extent that administration devices are co-packaged with the medicinal product or, in exceptional cases, where the use of a specific type of administration device is specifically provided for in the product information of the medicinal product, additional information may need to be provided in the MAA for the medicinal product on the characteristics of the medical device(s) that may impact on the quality, safety and/or efficacy of the medicinal product.

The requirements regarding quality documentation for medicinal products when used with a medical device, including single integral products, co-packaged and referenced products, are outlined in the EMA guideline of July 22, 2021, which became applicable as of January 1, 2022.

Other Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, state, federal and foreign anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims and transparency laws and regulations regarding drug pricing and payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and/or individual imprisonment.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and 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 sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.

Healthcare Reform

In March 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, each as amended, collectively known as the ACA, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and fraud and abuse changes. Additionally, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer 70 percent point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which was temporarily suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, proposed and enacted legislation intended to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average

28

manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, or the impact of the IRA on our business.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that additional state, federal and foreign 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 products once approved or additional pricing pressures. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.

On December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. While the regulation entered into force in January 2022, it will only begin to apply from January 2025 onwards, with preparatory and implementation-related steps to take place in the interim. Once the regulation becomes applicable, it will have a phased implementation depending on the concerned products. This regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products as well as certain high-risk medical devices, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation will permit EU member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations.

Environmental, Health and Safety

We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, release and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes and worker health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and produce hazardous waste products and the risk of injury, contamination or non-compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations cannot be eliminated. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent, and we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with such current or future laws and regulations.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or the FTC Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the European Economic Area. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. The European Commission has adopted an adequacy decision in favor of the United Kingdom, enabling data transfers from EU member states to the United Kingdom without additional safeguards. However, the United Kingdom adequacy decision will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission re-assesses and renews/ extends that decision, and remains under review by the Commission during this period. In September 2021, the United Kingdom government launched a consultation on its proposals for wide-ranging reform of United Kingdom data protection laws following Brexit. There is a risk that any material changes which are made to the United Kingdom data protection regime could result in the Commission reviewing the United Kingdom adequacy decision, and the United Kingdom losing its adequacy decision if the Commission deems the United Kingdom to no longer provide adequate protection for personal data. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Commercialization—Actual or perceived failure to comply with health and data protection

29

laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.”

Human Capital Management

As a company focused on the treatment of mental health concerns, we’re dedicated to accelerating patient access to evidence-based innovation in mental health. Our team is the key to our success, and we believe it is essential to invest in building an engaged, diverse, supported, and incentivized workforce who can help us achieve our vision of a healing mental health disorders so that everyone, everywhere can live a more fulfilled life.

As of December 31, 2022, we had 119 full-time employees and 23 contractors or consultants doing regular work for the company. Our subsidiary companies had 14 additional full-time employees. Of our full-time employees, 64 focus on driving forward research and development programs (including Digital Therapeutics), either directly or through our subsidiaries. Others provide strategic business development, finance, and executive leadership expertise, as well as operational, communications, legal and administrative services. Approximately half of our employees are located in the U.S.; the remainder are split between the UK and Germany, with one employee in the Netherlands.

In February 2023, we implemented a realignment initiative resulting in a reduction in force of approximately 30% of our global workforce in order to more effectively allocate our research and development and other resources supporting the revised business and program priorities and to reduce operational costs. As of March 15, 2023, we had 91 full-time employees and 14 additional full-time employees employed by our subsidiary companies. Of these full-time employees, 53 focus on research and development either directly or through one of our subsidiaries. Additionally, we had 18 contractors or consultants doing regular work for the company.

Our four core atai values are: Conscious Care; Bold Entrepreneurship; Collaborative Innovation; and Radical Responsibility. Our human capital philosophy is deeply rooted in these values, which form the core of everything from performance management cycle to hiring decisions. See “—Professional Development and Performance Management” and “—Core Values and Ethics” below, for more information.

We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any significant work stoppages.

Recruiting

We have an in-house talent acquisition capability to support atai and its subsidiaries in hiring the right talent at the right time. This team of experienced recruiters works closely with hiring managers to understand the required skills and capabilities for an open role, and then supports the interview process and evaluation of candidates. We strive to hire top talent, and therefore need a high-quality recruiting process and candidate experience. We are consistently looking at new opportunities and avenues to recruit talented individuals.

We are committed to attracting and retaining top performing team members. We focus on creating a dynamic, vibrant, values-based culture that allow for autonomy, growth and impact while also offering a competitive total rewards package.

Professional Development and Performance Management

We have a bi-annual performance management cycle whereby employees are rated on both “what” they delivered (measured against agreed objectives and goals) and “how” they delivered (measured against the four core atai values and related behaviors). These reviews include self-evaluation, peer and manager feedback. The feedback focuses on strengths and opportunities for improvement to enable the professional development of all team members. At the end of each cycle, all employees are given a performance rating, which informs decisions regarding promotions, salary adjustments, and annual equity grants.

Core Values and Ethics

We have also developed a set of indicators of behavior to help staff and managers understand how to best live our values day to day. The core values are as follows:

30

All of our managing directors, supervisory directors, officers and employees are responsible for upholding these values as set forth in our Code of Conduct, which forms the foundation of our policies and practices. The Code of Conduct is available on our website at https://ir.atai.life/corporate-governance/governance-overview.

Total Rewards and Employee Engagement

To attract and retain top talent, we offer a competitive total rewards package. We target pay between the 50th and 75th percentile of market, based on Aon Radford data, and employee stock option grants at the 50th percentile or above. We link a portion of every employee’s compensation to performance through a performance bonus program. We also incentivize subsidiary-level employees to achieve specific milestones at core value-inflection points, such as IND or NDA approval.

We invest in the professional development of our employees. All of our employees are strongly encouraged to develop personal development plans with their manager semi-annually in order to define their career goals, and we encourage regular peer and manager feedback. We also offer targeted learning and development opportunities, including team and 1-1 coaching; access to continual growth through online learning platforms; external training where appropriate; and in-house live training, among other opportunities. In addition, to further employee enrichment and engagement, we periodically survey our employees regarding their engagement levels. We use these survey results to determine how we can continue to create work environments that enable and motivate our employees and to develop a positive working culture. We also provide opportunities for our employees to take two working days each year to give back to their communities through volunteerism. In addition, we hold regular company-wide team meetings aimed to connect with each other, foster a culture of transparency, receive updates from our management team and to discuss various other initiatives around the Company. We believe these initiatives foster a positive working environment.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

We believe that a diverse, equitable and inclusive culture is critical to atai’s success. We are proud to promote unique voices within and outside our organization, and are eager to learn from others’ experiences, as we know that a diverse and inclusive workforce is a business imperative and key to our long-term success.

As part of our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts, we have launched a 1-1 coaching offering for diverse employees. We have also formed a “women of atai” network and intend to roll out additional initiatives in 2023.

Hybrid office culture

As of December 31, 2022, we had offices in Berlin, London, New York, and San Diego. We aim to foster a hybrid culture where most employees are in the office two or three days per week, but with the option to work in office more. We do this because we believe the office offers meaningful benefits in terms of employee mental health and social connection; serendipitous conversations leading to greater creativity and cross-functional collaboration; and important opportunities for more junior staff to learn via exposure and osmosis.

atai Impact

In October 2021, we announced the launch of our philanthropic program, atai Impact, to harness the power of innovative mental health approaches for positive social change. atai Impact is committed to advancing education, expanding access, and supporting the wider ecosystem of mental health care, with an initial focus on psychedelics. The establishment of atai Impact is based on our position that harmonization across commercial and non-profit entities represents the best path forward to address all aspects of the escalating global mental crisis.

Since its inception, atai Impact has announced multiple initiatives, such as the establishment of the atai Fellowship Fund in Psychedelic Neuroscience (the “atai Fellowship Fund”) in collaboration with Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for the Neuroscience of Psychedelics. The $2 million atai Fellowship Fund will facilitate further research into the potential of psychedelics to address unmet patient needs in mental health and support promising graduate students in furthering their professional careers in this emerging field.

31

COVID-19 Business Update

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to present global public health and economic challenges. Although some research and development timelines have been impacted by delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company has not experienced material financial impacts on its business and operations as a result. The full extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to directly or indirectly impact our results of operations and financial condition, will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain, including as a result of new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 and the actions taken to contain or treat it, the success or failure of ongoing vaccination programs worldwide, the emergence and spread of additional variants of COVID-19, as well as the overall impact on local, regional, national and international markets and the global economy. For a discussion of the risks related to COVID-19 and impact to the Company’s business and operations, including its research and development programs and related clinical trials, refer to the section titled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A.

Corporate Information

The statutory seat of ATAI Life Sciences N.V. is in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Our office address and our principal executive office is located at Wallstraße 16, 10179, Berlin, Germany, and our telephone number is +49 89 2153 9035. Our website address is www.atai.life. All reports we file with the SEC are available for download free of charge via the Electronic Data Gathering Analysis and Retrieval (EDGAR) System on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We also make electronic copies of our reports available for download, free of charge, through our investor relations website at ir.atai.life as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such material with the SEC. The information contained on, or that can be accessed from, our website does not form part of this document. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC.

32

Item lA. Risk Factors

Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Form 10-K. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risk and uncertainties that we are unaware of or that we deem immaterial may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. The realization of any of these risks and uncertainties could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, growth and future prospects as well as our ability to accomplish our strategic objectives. In that event, the market price of our common shares could decline and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Risks Related to our Financial Position, Need for Additional Capital and Growth Strategy

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never be profitable.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We anticipate that we will incur significant losses for the foreseeable future and have incurred losses in each year since our inception. Our net loss attributable to ATAI Life Sciences N.V. stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 was $152.4 million and $167.8 million, respectively. We have no products that are approved for commercial sale and have not generated any commercial product revenue. We have financed operations solely through the sale of equity securities and convertible debt financings. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to ongoing operations and building our business infrastructure and expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. Revenue from the sale of any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the acceptance of the product by physicians and patients, the ability to obtain reimbursement at any price and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. Our growth strategy depends on our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if the number of addressable patients is not as anticipated, the indication or intended use approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than expected, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved. Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of drugs and medical devices, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of our expenses, or when we will be able to generate any meaningful revenue or achieve or maintain profitability, if ever. In addition, our expenses could increase beyond our current expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform preclinical studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in any of our or our future collaborators’ clinical trials or the development of our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may identify. Even if our existing product candidates or any future product candidates that we may identify are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product and ongoing compliance efforts.

Our failure to achieve sustained profitability would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our research and development pipeline, market our product candidates, if approved, and pursue or continue our operations. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business and to assess our future viability.

We were founded in 2018 by Christian Angermayer, Florian Brand, Srinivas Rao and Lars Christian Wilde. To date, we have invested most of our resources in developing technology, establishing our platform, building our intellectual property portfolio, developing our supply chain, conducting business planning, raising capital, building our management team and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to conduct later-stage clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product, conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization or obtain reimbursement in the countries of sale.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will eventually need to transition from a company with a development focus to a company capable of

33

supporting commercial activities and may not be successful in such a transition. We also expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

If we are unable to obtain funding when needed and on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit or discontinue our product development efforts.

Developing biopharmaceutical products is expensive and time consuming, and we expect to require substantial additional capital to conduct research, preclinical studies and clinical trials for our current and future programs, establish pilot scale and commercial scale manufacturing processes and facilities, seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval, including building our own commercial sales, marketing and distribution organization. We regularly assess the ongoing development of our programs and may, from time to time, delay, limit or otherwise discontinue a program in order to allocate resources towards more developed programs or new investments. In addition, in connection with collaboration agreements relating to our programs, we may also be responsible for the payments to third parties of expenses that may, in certain instances, include milestone payments, license maintenance fees and royalties, including in the case of certain of our agreements with academic institutions or other companies from whom intellectual property rights underlying their respective programs have been in-licensed or acquired. Because the outcome of any preclinical or clinical development and regulatory approval process is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development, regulatory approval process and potential commercialization of our product candidates and any future product candidates we may identify.

We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents and short-term investment securities as of December 31, 2022, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date the consolidated financial statements are issued. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, sales of assets or programs, other sources, such as strategic collaborations or license and development agreements, or a combination of these approaches. We also may opportunistically seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations. Any such additional fundraising efforts for us may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates that we may identify and pursue. Moreover, such financing may result in dilution to shareholders, imposition of debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned.

Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

34

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. For example, market volatility resulting from, among other factors, the COVID-19 pandemic and the related U.S. and global economic impact or other unknown factors could also adversely impact our ability to access funds as and when needed. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit or discontinue one or more research or development programs or the potential commercialization of any approved products or be unable to expand operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to current product candidates or to any future product candidates on unfavorable terms.

Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our product candidates, we expect our expenses to increase in connection with our planned operations. In order to accomplish our business objectives and develop our product pipeline, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public and private equity or debt financings, strategic partnerships, sales of assets and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, shareholder ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our shareholders. In addition, the possibility of such issuance may cause the market price of our common shares to decline. The incurrence of additional indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve additional restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations and liens on our assets, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights, and other operating and financing restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Additionally, any future collaborations we enter into with third parties may provide capital in the near term, but limit our potential cash flow and revenue in the future. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses or other rights on unfavorable terms.

If we obtain a controlling interest in certain of our existing companies or additional companies in the future, it could adversely affect our operating results and the value of our common shares, thereby disrupting our business.

As part of our strategy, we have and intend to continue to invest in companies that further our strategy and help accomplish our business objectives, which we assess on an ongoing basis. We and our atai companies have also acquired and in-licensed certain of our technologies from third parties, and we may in the future acquire, in-license or invest in additional technology that we believe would be beneficial to our business. Investments in our existing and any future subsidiaries and other companies and the acquisition, in-license or investments in technology involve numerous risks, including, but not necessarily limited to:

35

If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, in-licenses, investments or other transactions associated with the creation of new research and development programs or the maintenance of existing ones, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such acquisition, investment or transaction, we might incur costs in excess of what we anticipate, we might delay, limit or otherwise discontinue a program based on our ongoing assessment of our programs, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities.

Under certain of our investment arrangements, if we fail to make a milestone payment when due, our ownership percentage may fall below 50% of that entity.

Under our investment arrangements with DemeRx IB, Recognify Life Sciences, PsyProtix, Psyber, InnarisBio and TryptageniX, if we fail to make a milestone payment when due, we could lose our majority interest in DemeRx IB, Recognify Life Sciences, PsyProtix, Psyber, InnarisBio or TryptageniX. In order to maintain our equity ownership in these companies, we will need to make $15.2 million in remaining aggregate milestone payments upon the achievement of certain development milestones.

In December 2019, we executed a promissory note payable to DemeRx IB whereby we agreed, under a contribution agreement and a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, to make aggregate payments to DemeRx IB of up to $17.0 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones. In connection with this promissory note, we pledged and assigned to DemeRx IB a portion of the Series A Preferred Stock of DemeRx IB as security under the promissory note. In the event of default, a pro rata portion of these pledged shares will automatically be surrendered and be deemed forfeited and canceled and could result in us losing control of DemeRx IB’s board of directors and our controlling financial interest in DemeRx IB. To date, we have made aggregate payments of $17.0 million in connection with the promissory note.

In November 2020, we acquired Series A preferred stock of Recognify Life Sciences pursuant to a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, and, as amended, we agreed to make aggregate payments to Recognify Life Sciences of up to $20.0 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestones to complete the purchase of the shares and provide additional funding. In connection with this agreement to provide additional funding, Recognify Life Sciences issued the Series A preferred shares to us but held the shares in an escrow account, with the shares to be released upon receipt of our milestone payments. In the event of default, a pro rata portion of the shares held in escrow will automatically be surrendered and be deemed forfeited and canceled, and could result in us losing control of Recognify Life Sciences’ board of directors and our controlling financial interest in Recognify Life Sciences. To date, we have made aggregate payments of $14.5 million.

In February 2021, we acquired Series A preferred stock of PsyProtix pursuant to a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, and we agreed to make aggregate payments to PsyProtix of up to $4.9 million upon the achievement of specified clinical milestones to complete the purchase of the shares and provide additional funding. In connection with this agreement to provide additional funding, PsyProtix issued the Series A preferred shares to us but held the shares in an escrow account, with the shares to be released upon receipt of our milestone payments. In the event of default, a pro rata portion of the shares held in escrow will automatically be surrendered and be deemed forfeited and canceled, and could result in us losing control of PsyProtix’s board of directors and our controlling financial interest in PsyProtix. To date, we have made aggregate payments of $0.6 million.

In February 2021, we acquired Series A preferred stock of Psyber pursuant to a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, and we agreed to make aggregate payments to Psyber of up to $1.8 million upon the achievement of specified clinical milestones to complete the purchase of the shares and provide additional funding. In connection with this agreement to provide additional funding, Psyber issued the Series A preferred shares to us but held the shares in an escrow account, with the shares to be released upon receipt of our milestone payments. In the event of default, a pro rata portion of the shares held in escrow will automatically be surrendered and be deemed forfeited and canceled, and could result in us losing control of Psyber’s board of directors and our controlling financial interest in Psyber. To date, we have made aggregate payments of $1.4 million.

In March 2021, we acquired Series A preferred stock of InnarisBio pursuant to a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, and we agreed to make aggregate payments to InnarisBio of up to $4.0 million upon the achievement of specified clinical milestones to complete the purchase of the shares and provide additional funding. In connection with this agreement to provide additional funding, InnarisBio issued the Series A preferred shares to us but held the shares in an escrow account, with the shares to be released upon receipt of our milestone payments. In the event of default, a pro rata portion of the shares held in escrow will automatically be surrendered and be deemed forfeited and canceled, and could result in us losing control of InnarisBio’s board of directors and our controlling financial interest in InnarisBio. To date, we have made aggregate payments of $1.9 million.

In December 2021, we acquired Series A preferred stock of TryptageniX pursuant to a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, and we agreed to make aggregate payments to TryptageniX of up to $5.0 million upon the achievement of development milestones to complete the purchase of the shares and provide additional funding. In connection with this agreement to provide additional funding, TryptageniX issued the Series A preferred shares to us but held the shares in an escrow account, with the shares to be released upon receipt of our

36

milestone payments. In the event of default, a pro rata portion of the shares held in escrow will automatically be surrendered and be deemed forfeited and canceled, and could result in us losing control of TryptageniX’s board of directors and our controlling financial interest in TryptageniX. To date, we have made aggregate payments of $2.2 million.

As a result of covenants related to our Loan Agreement with Hercules, our operating activities may be restricted and we may be required to repay the outstanding indebtedness in the event of a breach by us, or an event of default thereunder, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

In August 2022, we entered into a Loan and Security Agreement, or the Loan Agreement, with Hercules Capital, Inc., or Hercules, pursuant to which we have total borrowing capacity under several tranches of up to $175.0 million aggregate principal, or the 2022 Term Loan Facility. The 2022 Term Loan Facility is secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets, including intellectual property, with certain limited exceptions set forth in the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement contains various covenants that may restrict our ability, among other things, to sell, transfer, lease or dispose of certain assets; make material changes to our business; incur indebtedness; encumber or permit liens on certain assets; make certain investments and acquisitions; make certain restricted payments, including paying dividends on, or repurchasing or making distributions with respect to, our common shares; and enter into certain transactions. Our business may be adversely affected by these restrictions on our ability to operate our business.

In addition, we are required under the Loan Agreement to comply with various covenants and default clauses that may restrict our ability to finance our operations, engage in business activities or expand or fully pursue our business strategies. A breach of any of these covenants or clauses could result in a default under the Lan Agreement, which could cause all of the outstanding indebtedness under the facility to become immediately due and payable.

We intend to satisfy our current and future debt service obligations with our existing cash, cash equivalents and available for sale securities, potential future product revenues and funds from external sources. However, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing on acceptable terms, or at all, to pay the amounts due under the 2022 Term Loan Facility.

Any breach by us, or any event of default under, our Loan Agreement could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our cash and cash equivalents could be adversely affected if the financial institutions at which we hold our cash and cash equivalents fail.
 

Market conditions impacting financial institutions could impact our ability to access some or all of our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, and we may be unable to obtain alternative funding when and as needed and on acceptable terms, if at all. The performance of the capital markets affects the values of funds that are held in short-term investments. These assets are subject to market fluctuations and various developments, including, without limitation, rating agency downgrades that may impair their value. Further, a bankruptcy of one of the banks in which or through which we hold or invest our cash reserves, might prevent us from accessing all or a portion of that cash for an uncertain period of time if at all. For example, we maintain cash balances at various third-party financial institutions in excess of the $250,000 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") insurance limit. Widespread demands for customer withdrawals or other needs of financial institutions for immediate liquidity may exceed the capacity of the FDIC insurance program. There is no guarantee that the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Treasury Department and the FDIC will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of any banks or financial institutions in a timely fashion or at all.
 

If we do not effectively diversify our bank deposits and investment portfolio, the value and liquidity of our investments may fluctuate substantially which could affect our access to capital and results of operations in a material way. Furthermore, our access to our cash and cash equivalents in amounts adequate to finance our operations could be significantly impaired if the financial institutions with which we have arrangements directly face liquidity constraints or failures. Investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any material decline in available funding or our ability to access our cash and cash equivalents could adversely impact our results of operations and liquidity.

Our overall value may be dominated by a single or limited number of our atai companies or clinical programs.

A large proportion of our overall value may at any time reside in a small proportion of our atai companies or clinical programs. Accordingly, there is a risk that if one or more of the intellectual property or commercial rights relevant to a valuable business were impaired, this would have a material adverse impact on our overall value. Furthermore, a large proportion of our overall revenue may at any

37

time be the subject of one, or a small number of, licensed technologies. Should the relevant licenses be terminated or expire this would be likely to have a material adverse effect on the revenue received by us.

In addition, although we do not have a majority interest in COMPASS, a large proportion of our overall value may at any time reside in our ownership interest of COMPASS. Our interest in COMPASS may also be reduced to the extent COMPASS raises capital from third-party investors. Accordingly, any material adverse impact on the value of the business of a subsidiary or a clinical program, and on the value of COMPASS, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, trading performance and/or prospects.

Our programs are difficult to value given they are in the development stage.

Investments in early-stage companies are inherently difficult to value since sales, cash flow and tangible asset values are very limited, which makes the valuation highly dependent on expectations of future development, and any future significant revenues, if they arise, would only arise in the medium to longer terms and are uncertain. Similarly, investments in companies that are in the development stage are also difficult to value since sales, cash flow and tangible assets are limited, and valuations are still dependent on expectations of future development. For example, we utilize the equity method to account for certain of our atai Non-Controlled Entities, and we evaluate each of these investments at the end of each reporting period. We present income/losses from equity investments and any impairment related to equity method investments as losses from investments in equity method investees on our consolidated statement of operations, and these evaluations could result in a material impact on our financial statements and results of operations. There can be no guarantee that our valuations of our programs will be considered to be correct in light of the early stage of development for many of these entities and their future performance. As a result, we may not realize the full value of our ownership in such subsidiaries which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our product candidates represent novel and innovative potential therapeutic areas, and negative perception of any product candidate that we develop could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, obtain regulatory approvals or identify alternate regulatory pathways to market for such product candidate.

Our product candidates are considered relatively new and novel, including substances that might be controversial, overlooked or underused. Our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of mental health disorders, including depression, substance use disorder, anxiety disorder and other neurological indications targeted by our product candidates, prescribing potential treatments that involve the use of our product candidates, if approved, in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. Our product candidates may not be successful in gaining physician acceptance, and this would adversely impact our ability to commercialize our product candidates, even if approved. Access will also depend on consumer acceptance and adoption of products that are commercialized.

The active ingredients used in some of our product candidates have been associated with risks that may lead to our product candidates not being approved, and even if approved, may lead to insufficient physician or consumer acceptance given the severity of the risks. For example, DemeRx is developing ibogaine as DMX-1002 for the potential treatment of opioid use disorder. There have been fatalities associated with the use of ibogaine including in third-party clinical trials potentially due in part to the inappropriate management of cardiovascular risk, inadequate cardiac monitoring and drug product of unknown purity and concentration. The considerations involved in the administration of ibogaine are complex and depend on the medical profile of individual patients, and we may not be successful in demonstrating an acceptable approach to manage the severity of the risks. In addition, Kures is developing KUR-101, a derivative of mitragynine, for the treatment of substance use disorder. Although mitragynine, the primary alkaloid in kratom and the one thought to drive its effects, is believed to have a lower risk of both inducing respiratory depression and abuse than typical opioids, both phenomena have been associated with kratom use in scientific literature.

In addition, responses by the United States, state or foreign governments to negative public perception or ethical concerns may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop or commercialize any product candidates, obtain or maintain regulatory approval, identify alternate regulatory pathways to market or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and may delay or impair the development and commercialization of our product candidates or demand for any products we may develop.

Because we have multiple programs and product candidates in our development pipeline, in addition to our continued business development activities, we may, and have in the past decided to, expend our limited resources and allocation of capital to pursue a particular product candidate over other product candidates that may ultimately be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success, which may adversely affect our future revenues.

Because we have limited financial resources and access to funding, we have to make challenging decisions regarding the allocation of capital and resources across our businesses. For example, in November 2022 we made a decision to deconsolidate Neuronasal to further

38

focus our capital allocation towards generating meaningful clinical readouts in the near-term and to optimize our operational efficiency. In addition, in March 2023, we announced that in conjunction with the Phase 2a study results of PCN-101 we would further evaluate the data and work with our subsidiary, Perception Neuroscience, to determine next steps for the program, including consideration of potential strategic partnership options. We face certain risks associated with these decisions. For example, we may forego or delay pursuit of certain product candidates or business opportunities that later prove to have greater commercial potential than our current or future development programs and product candidates. In addition, our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular programs or product candidates may not lead to the development of viable commercial product candidates, and may divert resources, including personnel, away from more advantageous opportunities or from our other current programs. Similarly, our decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product candidates and development programs could also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities with no resulting benefit. If our assessment of the market potential of our product candidates or trends in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries proves to be inaccurate, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
 

Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets and cash flows are and will continue to be influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar and the euro. Our reporting currency and our functional currency is primarily the U.S. dollar, but many of our operating expenses are paid in euro. We also regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in euro, and potential future revenue may be derived from Europe. As a result, our business and the price of our common shares may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the euro, which may also have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

Risks Related to the Clinical Development, Regulatory Review and Approval of our Product Candidates.

Our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will be successfully developed and/or receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive preclinical and clinical testing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Such testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the development process. To date, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on identifying, acquiring, and developing product candidates, including conducting lead optimization, nonclinical studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials and providing general and administrative support for these operations. Some of our product candidates are in the preclinical stage, and their risk of failure is high. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support the planned Investigational New Drug Applications, or INDs, in the United States or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the FDA or other regulatory authorities will accept the proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of preclinical studies will ultimately support the further development of the programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for our clinical programs on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

Moreover, the results of preclinical studies may not be predictive of the results of clinical trials, and the results of any early-stage clinical trials we commence may not be predictive of the results of the later-stage clinical trials. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials in one set of patients or disorder indications, or from preclinical studies or clinical trials that we did not lead, may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocol details and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various 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. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies, and any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market and sell these product candidates. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for

39

commercialization. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.

In addition, clinical trial design for some of our product candidates can be complex given their characteristics. For example, we will need to design clinical trials for certain product candidates to evaluate efficacy across a range of doses. Additionally, we may utilize an “open-label” trial design for some of our future clinical trials. An open-label trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the test article or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Open-label trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label studies are aware that they are receiving treatment. Open-label trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers, and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The opportunity for bias in clinical trials as a result of open-label design may not be adequately handled and may cause any of our trials that utilize such design to fail or to be considered inadequate and additional trials may be necessary to support future marketing applications. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.

We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials. Our inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us and negatively impact our ability to obtain approval and to generate revenue. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize product candidates. We currently have no products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue, and we may never be able to develop or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval.

All of our product candidates require additional development, management of preclinical, clinical and manufacturing activities and regulatory approval. In addition, we will need to obtain adequate manufacturing supply, build a commercial organization, commence marketing efforts and obtain reimbursement before they generate any significant revenue from commercial product sales, if ever. In addition, while our new program selection criteria include prior evidence in humans and we believe the product candidates we have selected have the potential for a favorable safety profile based on third-party trials and studies, many of our product candidates are in early-stage research phases of development, and the risk of failure for these programs is high. In addition, some of the product candidates we are developing are derivatives of compounds that have undergone clinical trials that failed to meet their primary endpoints. For example, we are developing RL-007 for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia, or CIAS, but the same compound was tested in a Phase 2 trial as an analgesic to treat pain associated with diabetic polyneuropathy, and no efficacy was demonstrated. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue operations, which may result in dissolution, out-licensing the technology or pursuing an alternative strategy.

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union, or EU, recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. Clinical trials for which an application was submitted (i) prior to January 31, 2022 under the Clinical Trials Directive, or (ii) between January 31, 2022 and January 31, 2023 and for which the sponsor has opted for the application of the Clinical Trials Directive remain governed by said Directive until January 31, 2025. After this date, all clinical trials (including those which are ongoing) will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans.

40

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

Clinical trials of our product candidates may be delayed, and certain programs may never advance in the clinic or may be more costly to conduct than we anticipate, any of which can affect our ability to fund our operations and would have a material adverse impact on our platform or our business.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any of our planned clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials are initiated or conducted on a timely basis, issues may arise that could result in the suspension or termination of such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:

41

Any inability to successfully initiate or complete clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to, or we may elect to, conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials to bridge data obtained from the modified product candidates to data obtained from preclinical and clinical research conducted using earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, or by the FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or if the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted suspend or terminate the participation of their clinical investigators and sites subject to their review. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down the product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In the event we identify any additional product candidates to pursue, we cannot be sure that submission of an IDE, IND, CTA or equivalent application, as applicable, will result in the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authority allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our current product candidates and future product candidates may be subject to controlled substance laws and regulations in the territories where the product will be marketed, such as the United States and Europe, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations, or the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations, may adversely affect the results of our business operations, both during clinical development and post approval, and our financial condition.

Some of our product candidates are regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, as “Controlled Substances” or scheduled substances, under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, also known as the Controlled Substances Act, or the CSA. The DEA regulates compounds as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently “accepted medical use” in the United States, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision and may not be prescribed, marketed or sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical products approved for use in the United States may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest potential for abuse or dependence and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule I and II drugs are subject to the strictest controls under the CSA, including manufacturing and procurement quotas, security requirements and criteria for importation. In addition, dispensing of Schedule II drugs is further restricted. Commercial marketing in the United States will also require scheduling-related legislative or administrative action.

Scheduling determinations by the DEA are dependent on FDA approval of a substance or a specific formulation of a substance. This scheduling determination will be dependent on FDA approval and the FDA’s recommendation as to the appropriate schedule. During the review process, and prior to approval, the FDA may determine that it requires additional data, either from non-clinical or clinical studies, including with respect to whether, or to what extent, the substance has abuse potential. This may introduce a delay into the approval and any potential rescheduling process. That delay would be dependent on the quantity of additional data required by the FDA. This scheduling determination will require the DEA to conduct notice and comment rule making, including issuing an interim final rule. Such action will be subject to public comment and requests for hearing, which could affect the scheduling of these substances. There can be no assurance that the DEA will make a favorable scheduling decision. Even assuming categorization as a Schedule II or lower controlled substance (i.e., Schedule III, IV or V), at the federal level, such substances would also require scheduling determinations under state laws and regulations.

42

If approved by the FDA, and if any of our product candidates is listed by the DEA as a Schedule II, III, IV or V controlled substance, their manufacture, importation, exportation, domestic distribution, storage, sale and legitimate use will continue to be subject to a significant degree of regulation by the DEA. In addition, the scheduling process may take significantly longer than the 90-day deadline set forth in the CSA, thereby delaying the launch of our product candidates in the United States. Furthermore, the FDA, DEA or any foreign regulatory authority could require us to generate more clinical or other data than we currently anticipate to establish whether or to what extent the substance has an abuse potential, which could increase the cost and/or delay the launch of our product candidates and any future therapeutic candidates containing controlled substances. In addition, therapeutic candidates containing controlled substances are subject to DEA regulations relating to manufacturing, storage, distribution and physician prescription procedures, including:

43

The EU legislation does not establish different classes of narcotic or psychotropic substances. However, the United Nations, or UN, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, or the UN Conventions, codify internationally applicable control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes. The individual EU member states are all signatories to these UN Conventions. All signatories have a dual obligation to ensure that these substances are available for medical purposes and to protect populations against abuse and dependence. The UN Conventions regulate narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV substances with Schedule II substances presenting the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances and Schedule I and IV substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse.

The UN Conventions require signatories to require all persons manufacturing, trading (including exporting and importing) or distributing controlled substances to obtain a license from the relevant authority. Each individual export or import of a controlled substance must also be subject to an authorization. The obligations provided in the UN Conventions and additional requirements are implemented at national level and requirements may vary from one member state to another. In order to develop and commercialize our products in the EU, we need to comply with the national requirements related to controlled substances which is costly and may affect our development plans in the EU.

Our product candidates contain psychedelic substances, the use of which may generate public controversy. Adverse publicity or public perception regarding our current or future product candidates may negatively influence the success of these therapies.

Our product candidates contain psychedelic substances that may generate public controversy. Political and social pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in approval of, and increased expenses for our current product candidates and any future product candidates we may develop. Opponents of these compounds may seek restrictions on marketing and withdrawal of any regulatory approvals. In addition, these opponents may seek to generate negative publicity in an effort to persuade the medical community to reject these products, if approved. Adverse publicity from misuse may adversely affect the commercial success or market penetration achievable by our product candidates. Anti-psychedelic protests have historically occurred and may occur in the future and generate media coverage. Political pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in, and increased expenses for, and limit or restrict the introduction and marketing of, our product candidates or any future therapeutic candidates.

If our product candidates or any future therapeutic candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of the safety and quality of our product candidates. We may face limited adoption if third-party therapy sites, therapists or patients are unwilling to try such a novel treatment given that some of our product candidates are from substances that might be controversial, overlooked or underused. There has been a history of negative media coverage regarding psychedelic substances, including compounds in many of our product candidates, which may affect the public’s perception of our product candidates. In addition, compounds in most of our product candidates may elicit intense psychological experiences, and this could deter patients from choosing this course of treatment, if our product candidates were approved. Our business could be adversely affected if we were subject to negative publicity or if any of our product candidates, if approved, or any similar product candidates distributed by other companies prove to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Because of our dependence upon consumer perception, any adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of any of our product candidates, if approved or any similar products distributed by other companies could have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Future adverse events in research into depression and other mental health disorders, such as substance use disorder and anxiety, on which we focus our research efforts, or the pharmaceutical industry more generally, could also result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approvals of our product candidates. Any increased scrutiny could delay or increase the costs of obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates or any future product candidates.

44

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the potential commercialization of our product candidates.

Any product we may develop and the activities associated with their development and potential commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Failure to obtain marketing authorization for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction.

We expect to rely on assistance from third-party CROs or regulatory consultants to assist us in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing authorizations. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety, purity, efficacy and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use, if approved.

The process of obtaining marketing authorizations, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing authorization policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. If we experience delays in obtaining approval, or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Research and development of drugs targeting the central nervous system, or CNS, is particularly difficult, and it can be difficult to predict and understand why a drug has a positive effect on some patients but not others.

Discovery and development of new drug candidates designed to target CNS disorders are particularly difficult and time-consuming, evidenced by the higher failure rate for new drugs for CNS disorders compared with most other areas of drug discovery. For example, in 2019, both Rapastinel and SAGE-217, two third-party developed drug candidates designed to target major depressive disorder, or MDD, failed to meet their primary endpoints in Phase 3 clinical trials. The New Drug Application, or NDA, submitted by Alkermes for ALKS 5461, another drug candidate under development for MDD, was not approved by the FDA in 2019 because the FDA reportedly required additional clinical data to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness beyond the Phase 3 clinical trials that had already been conducted. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. In addition, our later-stage clinical trials may present challenges related to conducting adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, particularly as it regards managing placebo effects.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Identifying and qualifying trial participants to participate in clinical studies is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends, among other things, on the speed at which we can recruit trial participants to participate in testing our product candidates and our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. Delays in enrollment and withdrawals from the trial may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates. If trial participants are unwilling to participate in our studies because of negative publicity from adverse events in our trials or other trials of similar products, or those related to specific therapeutic area, or for other reasons, including competitive clinical studies for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting trial participants, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidate development, delays in testing the effectiveness of these product candidates, or termination of the clinical studies altogether.

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

45

Additionally, our or our collaborators’ ability to successfully initiate, enroll and conduct a clinical trial outside the United States is subject to numerous additional risks, including:

Further, successful and timely enrollment in clinical trials may be adversely affected by global health factors, including, among other things, pandemics such as COVID-19, such as:

If we have difficulty enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to conduct clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay or terminate clinical trials, either of which would have an adverse effect on our business.

46

Use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects, adverse events or other properties or safety risks, which could delay or halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon a product candidate, limit their commercial potential, if approved, or result in other significant negative consequences that could severely harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be unexpected or undesirable side effects, AEs and other risks associated with the use of our product candidates. For instance, there have been fatalities associated with the use of ibogaine including in third-party clinical trials, potentially due in part to the inappropriate management of cardiovascular risk, inadequate cardiac monitoring and drug product of unknown purity and concentration. In addition, although mitragynine, the primary alkaloid in kratom and the one thought to drive its effects, is believed to have a lower risk of both inducing respiratory depression and abuse than typical opioids, both phenomena have been associated with kratom use in scientific literature. Results of clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by these product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The side effects related to the product candidate could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Moreover, if our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon their development or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate if approved. We may also be required to modify or terminate our study plans based on findings in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. Many product candidates that initially show promise in early-stage testing may later be found to cause side effects that prevent further development. As we work to advance existing product candidates and to identify new product candidates, we cannot be certain that later testing or trials of product candidates that initially showed promise in early testing will not be found to cause similar or different unacceptable side effects that prevent their further development.

It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, or as the use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other AEs that were not observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, may be reported by subjects. If such side effects become known later in development or upon approval, if any, such findings may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Additionally, adverse developments in clinical trials of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or biotechnology products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory oversight bodies to suspend or terminate our clinical trials or to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

In addition to side effects caused by the product candidate, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. If any such AEs occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we are unable to demonstrate that any AEs were caused by the administration process or related procedures, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, a product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if we can demonstrate that all future serious adverse events, or SAEs, are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing authorization, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could impose contraindications or a boxed warning in the labeling of the product. For any of our drug product candidates receiving marketing authorization, the FDA or other regulatory authorities could require us to adopt a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, or similar risk management measures and could apply elements to assure safe use to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a Medication Guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates if approved, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

47

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

Even if any of our current or future product candidates receives regulatory approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, in which case we may not generate significant revenues or become profitable.

We have never commercialized a product, and even if any of our current or future product candidates is approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities for marketing and sale, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Physicians may be reluctant to take their patients off their current medications and switch their treatment regimen. Further, patients often acclimate to the treatment regime that they are currently taking and do not want to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or they are required to switch due to lack of coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition, even if we are able to demonstrate our product candidates’ safety and efficacy to the FDA and other regulators, safety or efficacy concerns in the medical community may hinder market acceptance.

Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources, including management time and financial resources, and may not be successful. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can

48

affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that any of our products is safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, they may not generate significant product revenue, and we may not become profitable.

For any of our current or future product candidates that obtains regulatory approval, any failure to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our business prospects. In addition, for any approved product, any negative perception of such product once commercialized, or of a similar product developed by a competitor, may adversely affect our reputation in the marketplace or among industry participants and our business prospects.

We currently, and may in the future continue to, conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We currently, and may in the future continue to, conduct one or more clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA, the EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the U.S., the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. In addition, even where the foreign study data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the study is well-designed and well-conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, the EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, the EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any product candidates that we may identify and develop, our business will be substantially harmed.

We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of preclinical or clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, and it is possible that our current product candidates and any other product candidates that we may seek to develop in the future will not ever obtain regulatory approval. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized, even if they receive regulatory approval.

Obtaining marketing approval is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including but not limited to:

49

The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials and evolving regulatory requirements, may result in our failure to obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates that we may pursue in the United States or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, approval by the FDA in the United States, if obtained, does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. In order to market any products outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and effectiveness. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional or different administrative review periods from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in any markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

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

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

From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from these trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as subject enrollment continues and more data become available. Adverse differences between interim data and top-line, preliminary, or final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common shares.

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

50

We currently rely on qualified therapists working at third-party clinical trial sites to administer certain of our product candidates in our clinical trials, and we expect this to continue upon approval, if any, of our current or future product candidates. If third-party sites fail to recruit and retain a sufficient number of therapists or effectively manage their therapists, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially harmed.

We currently administer certain of our product candidates in our clinical trials through qualified third-party therapists working at third-party clinical trial sites. However, there are currently not enough trained therapists to carry out our therapies at a commercial scale, and our efforts to facilitate training and certification programs for therapists may be unsuccessful.

While we currently provide training to the therapists and expect to continue providing trainings in the future (either directly or indirectly through third-party providers), we do not currently employ the therapists who deliver our therapies to patients and do not intend to do so in the future. Such therapists are typically employed by the third-party therapy sites. If any of our current or any future product candidates are approved for commercialization, third-party therapy sites may demand substantial financial resources from us to recruit and retain a team of qualified therapists to administer our current or future product candidates. If the third-party therapy sites fail to recruit, train and retain sufficient number of therapists, our ability to offer and administer our therapies will be greatly harmed, which may in turn reduce the market acceptance rate of our therapies. If this occurs, our commercialization prospects would be negatively affected and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

Although we currently provide training and expect to continue providing training to the therapists (directly or through third-party providers), we generally rely on qualified and certified third-party therapy sites to manage the therapists and monitor the administration of our therapies and ensure that the administration process of our therapies comply with our established protocols. However, if not properly managed and supervised, there is a risk that therapists may deviate from our training protocols, fail to follow the guidelines we have established, or abuse patients during therapeutic administration sessions. The therapists might also administer unauthorized therapies to patients using illegal drug compounds in “underground” clinics. Such illegal activities would put the patients at risk and subject us to potential liabilities, litigation, regulatory proceedings and reputational harm. If this were to occur, we may face serious setbacks for our commercialization process and our financial condition and results of operations would be materially harmed.

Certain of the product candidates we are developing are complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise harm our business.

The manufacturing processes our CMOs use to produce our product candidates are complex, and materials are challenging to source. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including inability to develop efficient manufacturing processes, equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers, including acquisition of the supplier by a third-party or declaration of bankruptcy.

Our CMOs must employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process to assure that the process is reproducible and the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory to conduct clinical trials or supply commercial markets. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We or our CMOs also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any problems in our or our CMOs’ manufacturing process or facilities could result in delays in planned clinical trials and increased costs, and could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biotechnology companies and academic research institutions, which could limit access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our or our CMOs’ manufacturing process could restrict our or their ability to meet potential future market demand for products.

The complexity of a combination product that includes a drug or biologic and a medical device, including a digital therapeutic, presents additional, unique development and regulatory challenges, which may adversely impact our development plans and our ability to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates.

51

We may decide to pursue marketing authorization of a combination product comprised of drug candidates and medical devices. A combination product includes, amongst other possibilities, a combination of a drug and device intended to be used together, according to their proposed labeling where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication or effect.

Developing and obtaining regulatory approval for combination products pose unique challenges because they involve components that are regulated by the FDA pursuant to different regulatory frameworks and by different FDA centers. As a result, such products raise regulatory, policy and review management challenges. For example, because divisions from both FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health must review submissions concerning product candidates that are combination products comprised of drug and devices, the regulatory review and approval process for these products may be lengthened. In addition, differences in regulatory pathways for each component of a combination product can impact the regulatory processes for all aspects of product development and management, including clinical investigation, marketing applications, manufacturing and quality control, adverse event reporting, promotion and advertising, user fees and post-approval modifications. Similarly, the device components of our product candidates will require any necessary approvals or other marketing authorizations or certifications in other jurisdictions, which may prove challenging to obtain.

We may not elect or be able to take advantage of any expedited development or regulatory review and approval processes available to drug product candidates granted breakthrough therapy or fast track designation by the FDA.

We intend to evaluate and continue ongoing discussions with the FDA on regulatory strategies that could enable us to take advantage of expedited development pathways for certain of our product candidates in the future, although we cannot be certain that our product candidates will qualify for any expedited development pathways or that regulatory authorities will grant, or allow us to maintain, the relevant qualifying designations. Potential expedited development pathways that we could pursue include breakthrough therapy and fast track designation.

Drug candidates are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track-designated product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

The FDA may also designate a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track designation features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance.

We cannot assure you that the FDA will grant breakthrough or fast track designation for our product candidates, even if requested. Breakthrough therapy designation and fast track designation do not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that even if we receive such designation, it will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the breakthrough therapy designation or fast track designation. Thus, even if we receive breakthrough therapy or fast track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw breakthrough therapy or fast track designation if it believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria. Our business may be harmed if we are unable to avail ourselves of these or any other expedited development and regulatory pathways.

We may seek EMA PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) designation or other designations, schemes or tools for one or more of our product candidates, which we may not receive. In the EU, innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the Breakthrough Therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur before submission of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

52

Even if we believe one of our product candidates is eligible for PRIME, the EMA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The EMA PRIME scheme or other schemes, designations, or tools, even if obtained or used for any of our product candidates may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional procedures and do not assure ultimate approval. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates is eligible to the PRIME scheme, the EMA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for review or approval will not be shortened.

Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation may be eligible for accelerated assessment (in 150 days instead of 210 days), which may be granted for medicinal products of major interest from a public health perspective or that target an unmet medical need, but this is not guaranteed.

Such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and do not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing authorization.

If the FDA does not conclude that certain of our product candidates satisfy the requirements for the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for such product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for those product candidates will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in either case may not be successful.

We are developing product candidates for which we may seek FDA approval through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of a NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDCA, would allow an NDA we submit to FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved compounds, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for these product candidates, and complications and risks associated with these product candidates, would likely substantially increase. We could need to obtain more additional funding, which could result in significant dilution to the ownership interests of our then existing shareholders to the extent we issue equity securities or convertible debt. We cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain such additional financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway would likely result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which would likely materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure you that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization.

In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer, depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to accelerated product development or earlier approval.

Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved under Section 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

For any approved product, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

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

53

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements imposed by the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, and similar regulations. As such, we and our CMOs will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and similar requirements and adherence to commitments made in any NDA or marketing authorization application, or MAA, or equivalent application. We and our CMOs are also subject to numerous other requirements pertaining to the registration of our and their manufacturing facilities and the listing of our product and product candidates with the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including with respect to manufacturing, production and quality control. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance. Additionally, under FDA regulations, certain of our product candidates that we expect to be regulated as combination products are subject to cGMP requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the Quality System Regulation applicable to medical devices, which may delay or prevent approval, or prohibit or suspend marketing of our products in certain jurisdictions. Similar requirements may apply in foreign jurisdictions and for instance, in the EU, where medical devices are highly regulated.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates may contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, such as Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of a drug product. We are required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new legislation addressing drug or medical safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization or increased costs to assure compliance.

The FDA and other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, and for certain products, the Federal Trade Commission, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. We are, and will be, required to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our product candidates, if approved. For example, promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs and medical devices are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s label or labeling. Accordingly, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have approval.

The holder of an approved NDA, MAA or equivalent marketing authorization must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. Delays in obtaining required approvals would harm our ability to introduce new or enhanced product in a timely manner, which in turn would harm our or our future growth. Failure to submit a new or supplemental application and to obtain approval for certain changes prior to marketing the modified product may require a recall or to stop selling or distributing the marketed product as modified and may lead to significant enforcement actions.

We could also be required to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

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

54

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could prevent, limit or delay marketing authorization of any product candidates we develop. We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, if approved. In particular, while the FDA and other regulatory agencies permits the dissemination of truthful and non-misleading information about an approved product, a manufacturer may not promote a product for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The government has also required companies to enter into consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct must be changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Commercialization

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

To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing and commercial support infrastructure to market and sell our product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also elect to enter into collaborations or strategic partnerships with third parties to engage in commercialization activities with respect to selected product candidates, indications or geographic territories, including territories outside the United States, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into these arrangements even if the intent is to do so.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include:

55

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support and distribution services, the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products developed by us. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us or them. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively or may expose us to legal and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

The availability of adequate third-party coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs is uncertain, and failure to obtain adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers could impede our ability to market any future products we may develop and could limit our ability to generate revenue.

There is significant uncertainty related to the third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved drugs. The commercial success of our future products in both domestic and international markets depends on whether such third-party coverage and reimbursement is available for our product candidates. Governmental payers, health maintenance organization, managed care, pharmacy benefit and other third-party payers are increasingly attempting to manage their healthcare expenditures by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, which is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments. These payers may not view our future products as cost-effective, and coverage and reimbursement may not be available to our customers, may not be sufficient to allow our future products to be marketed on a competitive basis and will impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Government authorities and third-party payers are exerting increasing influence and control on costs, known as cost containment, on their decisions regarding the use of, and coverage and reimbursement levels for, particular medications and treatments. In particular, third-party payers may limit the covered indications. This trend in cost-control initiatives in the United States and other countries could cause us to decrease the price we might establish for products, and monitor and control company profits, which could result in lower than anticipated product revenues. If the prices for our drug candidates decrease or if governmental and other third-party payers do not provide adequate coverage or reimbursement, our prospects for revenue and profitability will suffer.

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

Even though we do not and will not control referrals of healthcare services or bill directly to government or other third-party payers, certain healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We could be subject to healthcare fraud and abuse regulation by governments and regulators where we conduct our business. The regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, without limitation:

56

Ensuring that our internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from U.S. government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Even if we are successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, the existence of these actions may adversely affect market prices of our common shares.

The production and sale of our product candidates may be considered illegal or may otherwise be restricted due to the use of controlled substances, which may also have consequences for the legality of investments from foreign jurisdictions.

Our product candidates contain controlled substances, including psychedelic substances, which are subject to strict legal requirements in certain jurisdictions where we will produce and sell our products. Certain jurisdictions may not allow the use or production of the substances included in our products, nor provide any possibilities for an exemption or regulatory approval that could allow for the lawful use or production of such substances. In addition, these jurisdictions may prohibit any form of contributing to the production or use of these drugs and may also directly or indirectly prohibit the receipt of any benefits following from the production and sale of these substances. Under circumstances, this may have consequences for the legality of the purchase of our shares or receipt of dividends in or from foreign jurisdictions.

If certain foreign authorities consider it illegal to invest in our company, this will negatively affect the possibility to commercialize and generate revenue in the country of interest. Any investigations of authorities against foreign investors could generate negative publicity. We cannot predict the likelihood of foreign authorities to take such a point of view or take any actions against investors in certain jurisdictions.

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

We and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, and regulations promulgated thereunder, or collectively, HIPAA. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.

57

Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. We may also be subject to other state laws governing the privacy, processing and protection of personal information. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which creates individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. Further, a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, was passed by California voters on November 3, 2020. The CPRA significantly amends the CCPA and will create additional obligations relating to personal information that went into effect on January 1, 2023 (with certain provisions having retroactive effect to January 1, 2022). Similar laws have passed in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut and Utah, and have been proposed in other states and at the federal level, reflecting a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States. Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

In Europe and the UK, we are subject to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 and applicable national supplementing laws, or the EU GDPR, and to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018 or the UK GDPR, and together with the EU GDPR, the GDPR. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health data and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relate, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors and introducing a principal of accountability and the obligation to demonstrate compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit. In addition, some of the personal data we process in respect of clinical trial participants is special category or sensitive personal data under the GDPR, and subject to additional compliance obligations and to local law derogations. We may be subject to diverging requirements under EU member state laws and UK law, such as whether consent can be used as the legal basis for processing and the roles, responsibilities and liabilities as between clinical trial sites and sponsors. As these laws develop, we may need to make operational changes to adapt to these diverging rules, which could increase our costs and adversely affect our business.

Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million/GBP 17.5 million or 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Since we are subject to the supervision of relevant data protection authorities under both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR, we could be fined under each of those regimes independently in respect of the same breach. In addition to fines, a breach of the GDPR may result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/ change our data processing activities, enforcement notices, assessment notices (for a compulsory audit) and/ or civil claims (including class actions). In addition, the GDPR increases the scrutiny of transfers of personal data from the EEA or UK, including from clinical trial sites located in the EEA to the United States and other jurisdictions that the European Commission or UK government does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws. Recent legal developments in Europe have created complexity and uncertainty regarding such transfers, in particular in relation to transfers to the United States. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The CJEU further noted that reliance on the standard contractual clauses (a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism and potential alternative to the Privacy Shield) alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances and that transfers must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. European court and regulatory decisions subsequent to the CJEU decision of July 16, 2020 have taken a restrictive approach to international data transfers. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the SCCs cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations,

58

statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives and judicial challenges to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70 percent (effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory challenges. For example, in order for a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. For the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, CMS altered the reimbursement formula from Average Sale Price, or ASP, plus 6 percent to ASP minus 22.5 percent on specified covered outpatient drugs, or SCODs, but did so without issuing a formal notice of proposed rulemaking, which was subsequently challenged in court. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held that although the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has authority to set reimbursement rates based on average price and discretion to “adjust” the price up or down, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group unless it conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that HHS’s changes to the 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were unlawful. Based on the foregoing, CMS issued a final rule, effective January 1, 2023, pursuant to which CMS will pay 340B hospitals under Medicare Part B for certain outpatient drugs at the drug’s ASP, plus 6%, the same rate used for non-340B hospitals. It is unclear how future changes to the payment methodology may affect pharmaceutical manufacturers and hospitals who purchase their products now and in the future.

There have been a number of significant changes to the ACA and its implementation, as well as judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, resulted in aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers, which went into effect in 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2032, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. For that and other reasons, it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, or the impact of the IRA on our business.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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 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. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.

59

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

We expect that the 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, lower reimbursement, and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

Governments outside the United States may impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, including member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. Additional countries may adopt similar approaches to the pricing of prescription drugs. In such countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory 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 coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing used by various countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval, which is time-consuming and costly. We cannot be sure that such prices and reimbursement will be acceptable to us. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before we do or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, with new approaches and technologies regularly emerging. We expect to face competition across our current programs and with any future programs we may seek to develop and/or commercialize from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology, specialty pharmaceutical and generic pharmaceutical companies among others. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization. In addition, programs that we currently believe to be complementary may eventually become competitors.

If any of our competitors receives FDA approval before we do, our product candidates would not be the first treatment on the market, and our market share may be limited. In addition to competition from other companies targeting our target indications, any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies.

We face competition across our programs in depression, including from Sage Therapeutics, Axsome Therapeutics, GH Research,The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and Praxis Precision Medicine; CIAS, including from Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen, Karuna Therapeutics, Minerva Biosciences, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals Vanda and Novartis; SUD, including from BioXcel, Opiant and Intra-Cellular Therapies; anxiety, including from VistaGen Therapeutics, Bionomics and Arvelle

60

Therapeutics; mTBI, including from SanBio, Vasopharm, Levolta Pharmaceuticals, Oxeia, Otsuka and Athersys; as well as in other therapeutic areas and indications.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, may have or develop in the future:

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of our targeted disorder indications or similar indications, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over our product candidates. Our competitors may also obtain FDA, or other comparable foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours or may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities for indications that we are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors.

In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our programs’ patents relating to our competitors’ products, and our competitors may allege that our products infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Our ability to successfully identify patients and acquire a significant market share will be necessary for us to achieve profitability and growth.

We focus research and product development on treatments for mental health disorders, including depression, substance use disorder, anxiety and other neurological indications. Our projections of both the number of individuals who are affected by our target disorder indications and have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these disorders. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with these mental health disorders we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates that we may identify may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability.

Risks Related to Reliance on Third Parties

We are currently party to and may seek to enter into additional collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements and may not be successful in maintaining existing arrangements or entering into new ones, and even if we are, we may not realize the benefits of such relationships.

We are currently party to license and collaboration agreements with a number of universities and pharmaceutical companies, and we expect to enter into additional agreements as part of our business strategy. We anticipate relying upon strategic collaborations for marketing and commercializing our existing product candidates, if approved, and we may sell product offerings through strategic partnerships with

61

pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The success of our current and any future collaboration arrangements may depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that:

Management of our relationships with collaborators will require:

Additionally, we may seek to enter into additional collaborations, joint ventures, licenses and other similar arrangements for the development or commercialization of our product candidates, due to capital costs required to develop or commercialize the product candidate or manufacturing constraints. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish such collaborations for our product candidates because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort or third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy or significant commercial opportunity. If we are unable to establish or manage such strategic collaborations on terms favorable to us in the future, our research and development efforts and potential to generate revenue may be limited. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners, and the negotiation process can be time consuming and complex. Further, any future collaboration agreements may restrict us from entering into additional agreements with potential collaborators. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license we will achieve an economic benefit that justifies such transaction.

Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish such collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed, the safety of a product candidate is questioned or sales of an approved product candidate are unsatisfactory.

62

In addition, any potential future collaborations may be terminable by our strategic partners, and we may not be able to adequately protect our rights under these agreements. Furthermore, strategic partners may negotiate for certain rights to control decisions regarding the development and commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, and may not conduct those activities in the same manner as we do. Any termination of collaborations we enter into in the future, or any delay in entering into collaborations related to our product candidates, could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness if they reach the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of research and preclinical testing and clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay product development activities.

Further, although our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities limits our control over these activities, we remain responsible for ensuring that each trial is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards. For example, notwithstanding the obligations of a CRO for a trial of one of our product candidates, we remain responsible for ensuring that each clinical trial is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA and other comparable foreign authorities requires compliance with requirements, commonly referred to as GCPs for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. The FDA and other comparable foreign authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, clinical trial sites and IRBs. If we or our third-party contractors fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in their clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA and other comparable foreign authorities may require additional clinical trials before approving our product candidates, which would delay the regulatory approval process. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCPs. We are also required to register certain clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Furthermore, the third parties conducting clinical trials on our behalf are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under the agreements with such contractors, we cannot control whether or not such contractors devote sufficient time, skill and resources to their ongoing development programs. These contractors may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug or medical device development activities, which could impede their ability to devote appropriate time to our clinical programs. If these third parties, including clinical investigators, do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, regulatory approvals for our product candidates. If that occurs, we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. In such an event, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidates that we seek to develop could be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed, impaired or foreclosed.

Our use of third parties to manufacture and develop our product candidates for preclinical studies and clinical trials may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates, products, or necessary quantities of such materials on time or at an acceptable cost.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture drug supplies for our ongoing clinical trials or any future clinical trials that they may conduct, and we lack the resources to manufacture any product candidates on a commercial scale. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers to produce our product candidates or other product candidates that we may identify for clinical trials, as well as for commercial manufacture if any product candidates receive marketing authorization and approval. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe they have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the trial, any significant delay or discontinuity in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay the clinical development and potential regulatory authorization of our product candidates, which could harm our business and results of operations.

We may be unable to identify and appropriately qualify third-party manufacturers or establish agreements with third-party manufacturers or do so on acceptable terms. Even if they are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

63

Furthermore, we and our CMOs are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks for the production of such materials and products. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our drug or medical device product candidates are subject to review by the FDA and other comparable foreign authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA, or other marketing application to the FDA and other comparable foreign authorities. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are to some extent dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as cGMP requirements for manufacture of drug and device products or similar requirements outside the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory authorization for our product candidates manufactured at these manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, or another comparable foreign regulatory agency does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if any agency withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory authorization for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Our product candidates may compete with other product candidates and marketed products for access to manufacturing facilities. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development, marketing approval or commercialization. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacturing of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our supply demands, our business will be harmed.

All entities involved in the preparation of product candidates for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing CMOs for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished drug or product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including recordkeeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates. Our failure, or the failure of 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, suspension of production, seizures or recalls of product candidates or marketed drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect clinical or commercial supplies of our product candidates.

We and our CMOs must supply all necessary documentation, as applicable, in support of a marketing application, such as an NDA or MAA, on a timely basis and must adhere to regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our CMOs have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee the CMOs, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the products may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may

64

require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third-party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified. For drug products, an NDA or MAA variation, or equivalent foreign regulatory filing is also required, which could result in further delay. Similarly, for a medical device, a new marketing application or supplement may be required. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed, and we could lose potential revenue.

We have no sales, distribution, or marketing experience, and may invest significant financial and management resources to establish these capabilities. If we are unable to establish such capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our future products, if approved, we may be unable to generate any revenues.

Given our stage of development, we have no sales, distribution, or marketing experience. To successfully commercialize any products that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop sales and marketing capabilities in the United States, Europe and other regions, either on our own or with others. We may enter into strategic alliances with other entities to utilize their mature marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into marketing agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If our future strategic collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we may be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We will be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded marketing and sales operations. Without a significant internal team or the support of a third-party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our existing product candidates or any other product candidates that we may identify, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection we currently have or obtain in the future is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize product candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may pursue may be impaired.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own solely and jointly with others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates and technology. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad and in-licensing intellectual property related to our existing product candidates, our various proprietary technologies and any other product candidates or technologies that we may identify.

Obtaining and enforcing pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to patents licensed to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal, technological and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. The standards that the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or vice versa. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending application or later invalidate or narrow the scope of an issued patent. For example, 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 published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such

65

inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. In some instances, we submit patent applications directly with the USPTO as provisional patent applications. However, U.S. provisional patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents unless and until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the provisional application filing date. With regard to such U.S. provisional patent applications, if we do not timely file any non-provisional patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our provisional patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in our provisional patent applications. Any pending and future patent applications that we own or in-license may not result in patents being issued that protect our product candidates or technology, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications that we own or license currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative product candidates in a non-infringing manner.

In addition, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical product candidates to ours, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drugs similar or identical to ours.

Moreover, some of our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications are, and may in the future be, co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed intellectual property rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. For example, the United States federal government retains such rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. The research resulting in certain of our in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by a governmental authority, for example, the U.S. government and the Japanese government. As a result, such governmental authority may have certain rights, including march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology, under the Bayh-Dole Act or similar laws in other jurisdictions and our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights or by any third-party of its reserved rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject in part to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others, and the patent protection, prosecution and enforcement for some of our product candidates may be dependent on their licensors.

We currently are reliant upon licenses of certain intellectual property rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our proprietary technology, including technology related to our product candidates. These licenses, and other licenses we may enter into in the future, may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property rights and proprietary technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize technology and product candidates in the future. Licenses to additional third-party proprietary technology or intellectual property rights that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our proprietary technology or product candidates or to develop or license replacement technology, which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may not be able to develop and commercialize technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses, which could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and enforcement of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In addition, some of our agreements with our licensors

66

require us to obtain consent from the licensor before we can enforce patent rights, and our licensor may withhold such consent or may not provide it on a timely basis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors or collaborators will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by taking reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of know-how and trade secrets, or by paying all applicable prosecution and maintenance fees related to intellectual property registrations for any of our product candidates. We also cannot be certain that our licensors have drafted or prosecuted the patents and patent applications licensed to us in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. This could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

In addition, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property rights that are subject to our existing licenses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or these agreements are terminated or we otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.

We are party to various agreements that we depend on to develop our product candidates and various proprietary technologies, and our rights to use currently licensed intellectual property, or intellectual property to be licensed in the future, are or will be subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of these agreements. For example, under certain of our license agreements, we are subject to certain diligence obligations, including to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize product candidates covered by the licensed intellectual property rights and to maintain the licensed intellectual property rights, each of which could result in the termination of the relevant license agreements in the event we fail to comply.

Despite our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements.

Moreover, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

In addition, certain provisions in our license agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

67

Third parties may claim that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell any product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for or obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell, if approved, our product candidates. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a considerable number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity may be difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity in court requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity that applies to issued patents, and a court of competent jurisdiction may not invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. In addition, many companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility and market exposure as a public company, the risk increases that our existing product candidates and any other product candidates that we may identify may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

There may be other third-party patents or patent applications with claims to composition of matter, materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our existing or future product candidates. Further, we may not be aware of patents that have already been issued and that a third party, for example, a competitor in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates, might assert are infringed by our current or future product candidates, including claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods of use or treatment that cover our product candidates. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop, could be found to be infringed by our product candidates. 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. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our 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 candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.

Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or it may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property rights.

Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional or international patent application filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are

68

commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we are not able to obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the marketing exclusivity term of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such product candidates or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments allow a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates, such as the Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe. In particular, a maximum of five and a half years of supplementary protection can be achieved in Europe for an active ingredient or combinations of active ingredients of a medicinal product protected by a basic patent, if a valid marketing authorization exists (which must be the first authorization to place the product on the market as a medicinal product) and if the product has not already been the subject of supplementary protection.

Nevertheless, we may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request.

If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product may be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data to launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If or when one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business would be harmed.

We consider proprietary trade secrets, confidential know-how and unpatented know-how to be important to our business. We seek to protect our confidential proprietary information, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with parties who have access to them, including our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors, CROs, contract manufacturers, collaborators and other third parties, that are designed to protect our proprietary information. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology, and we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary technology, or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know, whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective.

Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products that we consider proprietary. We may not be able to obtain adequate remedies in the event of such unauthorized use. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Trade secrets will also over time be disseminated

69

within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic institutions to industry scientific positions. Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, collaborators, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets and proprietary information, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of such information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be harmed.

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

Our current or future registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or descriptive, cancelled or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using those names, which we need to build name recognition among potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in other foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Although these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful and our issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in courts or patent offices.

Competitors or other third parties may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one or more of our product candidates, the defendant could allege that we infringe their patents, assert counterclaims that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable, or both. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including novelty, nonobviousness, written description or enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent

70

withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common shares. Moreover, we may not have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

Further, interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Our defense of litigation or interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue clinical trials, continue research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring product candidates to market. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

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

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders, or it may be otherwise impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or other product candidates, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

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

Our agreements with employees and contractors and our personnel policies provide that any inventions conceived by an individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. Although our policy is to have all such individuals complete these agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing and individuals with whom we have entered into these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property may not be automatic upon the creation of an invention and despite such agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection.

71

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arising from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship of our or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we or our licensors 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, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the intellectual property, proprietary information, know how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer or other third parties. We may also become subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, a court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our product candidates, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. We may also lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of our owned and licensed patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ outside firms and rely on outside counsel to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non-U.S. patent agencies. However, we cannot guarantee that our licensors have similar systems and procedures in place to pay such fees. In addition, the USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, 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 and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

72

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

Patents are of national or regional effect, and filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the 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 foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical 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. For example, in EU countries, compulsory licensing laws compel patent owners to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, 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. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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

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

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to a patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third-party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third-party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application and be diligent in filing patent applications, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional

73

procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third-party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third-party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third-party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. For example, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

Further, in Europe, a new unitary patent system takes effect June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications will have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court ("UPC"). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, directors, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on the management, research and development, clinical, financial and business development expertise of our executive officers, our directors, as well as the other members of our scientific and clinical teams, including Christian Angermayer, our co-founder, Florian Brand, our Chief Executive Officer, and Srinivas Rao, our Chief Scientific Officer. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers and other key personnel, and our inability to find suitable replacements could result in delays in product development and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, because certain of our key personnel provide a centralized source of support across multiple of our programs, the loss of any of these key personnel could negatively affect the operations of the affected programs, and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Furthermore, each of our executive officers may terminate their employment with us at any time, subject to notice period requirements. Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and clinical personnel and, if we progress the development of our pipeline toward scaling up for commercialization, sales and marketing personnel, will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and 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 regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates. Competition to hire qualified personnel in our industry is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. Furthermore, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information, or that their former employers own their research output. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions.

In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts 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 pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

74

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

As we mature, we may expand our full-time employee base and hire more consultants and contractors. Our management has, and may need to continue, to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time toward managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage a potential expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates or opportunistic business activities. If our management is unable to effectively manage our potential growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

Because we are developing multiple product candidates and are pursuing a variety of target indications and treatment modalities, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on development opportunities or other potential product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and personnel resources, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with potential target indications or product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential than our current and planned product candidates. 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 other future product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may be required to 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 development and commercialization rights to such future product candidates.

Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses, investments in or acquisitions of development-stage assets or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a successful product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. If we are unable to identify investments or programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any of our product candidates.

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

Although our programs maintain product liability insurance, including coverage for clinical trials that we sponsor, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage as we commence additional clinical trials and if our programs successfully commercialize any product candidates.

75

The market for insurance coverage is increasingly expensive, and the costs of insurance coverage will increase as our programs increase in size. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

We could experience difficulty enforcing our contracts.

Due to the nature of our business and the fact that our contracts involve certain substances whose usage is not legal under U.S. federal law and in certain other jurisdictions, we may face difficulties in enforcing our contracts in U.S. federal and state courts. The inability to enforce any of our contracts could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In order to manage our contracts with contractors, we ensure that such contractors are appropriately licensed at the state and federal level in the United States and at the appropriate level in other jurisdictions. Were such contractors to operate outside the terms of these licenses, we may experience an adverse effect on our business, including the pace of development of our product candidates and any future therapeutic candidates.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs and the significant number of mental health disorders our therapeutics are being developed to treat, and we intend to utilize appropriate social media in connection with our commercialization efforts following approval of our product candidates. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical study or to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations. In addition, we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our product candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud, misconduct or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors as well as the employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors of our programs. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the laws of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities. If we obtain FDA or foreign approval of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States or abroad, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. In particular, research, sales, marketing, education and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, educating, marketing and promotion, sales and commission, certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. 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. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Employee litigation and unfavorable publicity could negatively affect our future business.

Our employees may, from time to time, bring lawsuits against us regarding injury, creating a hostile workplace, discrimination, wage and hour disputes, sexual harassment or other employment issues. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of discrimination and harassment claims generally. Coupled with the expansion of social media platforms and similar devices that allow individuals access to a broad audience, these claims have had a significant negative impact on some businesses. Certain companies that have faced employment- or harassment-related lawsuits have had to terminate management or other key personnel, and have suffered reputational harm that has negatively impacted their business. If we were to face any employment-related claims, our business could be negatively affected.

76

If we or our third-party manufacturers or suppliers fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we or our third-party manufacturers or suppliers could become subject to fines or penalties or other sanctions or incur costs that could harm our business.

We and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, release and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes and worker health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials or waste products. In the event of such contamination or injury, we could be held strictly, jointly and severally liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources.

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.

Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers 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. Failure by us or our third-party manufacturers and suppliers to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Unfavorable global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our ability to invest in and expand our business and meet our financial obligations, to attract and retain third-party contractors and collaboration partners and to raise additional capital depends on our operating and financial performance, which, in turn, is subject to numerous factors, including the prevailing economic and political conditions and financial, business and other factors beyond our control, such as the rate of unemployment (including as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the overall global economic downturn), the number of uninsured persons in the United States, political influences and inflationary pressures. For example, an overall decrease in or loss of insurance coverage among individuals in the United States as a result of unemployment, underemployment or the repeal of certain provisions of the ACA, may decrease the demand for healthcare services and pharmaceuticals. If fewer patients are seeking medical care because they do not have insurance coverage, we may experience difficulties in any eventual commercialization of our product candidates and our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

In addition, our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets upon which pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies such as us are dependent for sources of capital. The global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions in the past several years, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates, rising inflation and interest rates, and uncertainty about economic stability. A severe or prolonged economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business, including a reduced ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, cost increases due to high and persistent inflation and weakened demand for our product candidates. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

Moreover, persistent economic downturns may require us to undertake optimization and cost saving initiatives, including streamlining our organization and adjusting the size and structure of our workforce. For example, throughout 2022, we implemented certain cost reduction efforts to reduce material spend and operating expenses. In February 2023, we also restructured our workforce and eliminated approximately 30% of our global workforce in order to more effectively allocate our research and development and other resources supporting the revised business and program priorities and to reduce operational costs. Any reduction in force may yield unintended consequences and costs, such as attrition beyond the intended reduction in force, the distraction of employees and reduced employee morale, which could, in turn, adversely impact productivity, including through a loss of continuity, loss of accumulated knowledge or inefficiency during transitional periods. Any of these impacts could also adversely affect our reputation as an employer, make it more difficult for us to hire new employees in the future and increase the risk that we may not achieve the anticipated benefits from the restructuring.

77

Cyberattacks or other failures in our telecommunications or information technology systems, or those of our collaborators, CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors or other contractors or consultants, could result in information theft, data corruption and significant disruption of our business operations which could materially affect our results.

We, our programs, our collaborators, our CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors and other contractors and consultants utilize information technology, or IT, systems and networks to process, transmit and store electronic information, including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information, in connection with our business activities. Our internal IT systems and those of current and future third parties on which we rely may fail and are vulnerable to breakdown, breach, interruption or damage from cyber incidents, employee error or malfeasance, theft or misuse, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures or other compromises. As use of digital technologies has increased, cyber incidents, including third parties gaining access to employee accounts using stolen or inferred credentials, computer malware (e.g. ransomware), viruses, spamming, phishing attacks, denial-of-service attacks or other means, and deliberate attacks and attempts to gain unauthorized access to computer systems and networks, have increased in frequency, intensity, and sophistication. These threats pose a risk to the security of our, our programs’, our collaborators’, our CROs’, third-party logistics providers’, distributors’ and other contractors’ and consultants’ systems and networks, and the confidentiality, availability and integrity of our intellectual property, confidential information, preclinical and clinical trial data, proprietary business information, personal data, and health-related information. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in preventing cyberattacks or successfully mitigating their effects.

The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyberattacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity, and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. In addition, in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, varying parts of our workforce are currently working remotely on a part or full time basis. This could increase our cyber security risk, create data accessibility concerns, and make us more susceptible to communication disruptions. We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, and we may not be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched, and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including outside groups such as external service providers, organized crime affiliates, terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments or agencies. We may also experience security incidents that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence. Similarly, there can be no assurance that our collaborators, CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors and other contractors and consultants will be successful in protecting our clinical and other data that is stored on their systems. Any loss of clinical trial data from our completed or ongoing clinical trials for any of our product candidates could result in delays in our development and regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. We and certain of our service providers are from time to time subject to cyberattacks and security incidents. We have experienced and expect to continue to experience actual and attempted cyberattacks of our IT networks, such as through phishing scams and ransomware. Although we do not believe that we have experienced any significant system failure, accident or security incidents to date, we cannot guarantee that we will not experience such incidents in the future.

Any cyberattack that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding clinical trial participants or employees, data breach or destruction or loss of data could result in a violation of applicable U.S. and international privacy, data protection and other laws and regulations, require us to notify affected individuals or supervisory authorities, subject us to litigation and governmental investigations, proceedings and regulatory actions by federal, state and local regulatory entities in the United States and by international regulatory entities, cause our exposure to material civil and/or criminal liability and cause us to breach our contractual obligations, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to incur significant additional expenses in order to implement further data protection measures or to remediate any information security vulnerability. Further, our general liability insurance and corporate risk program may not cover all potential claims to which we are exposed and may not be adequate to indemnify us for all liability. There can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in our contracts would be enforceable or adequate or would otherwise protect us from liabilities or damages as a result of the events referenced above. We also cannot be certain that our existing insurance coverage will continue to be available on acceptable terms or in amounts sufficient to cover the potentially significant losses that may result from a security incident or breach or that the insurer will not deny coverage of any future claim. Accordingly, if our cybersecurity measures, and those of our service providers, fail to protect against unauthorized access, attacks and the mishandling of data by our employees and third-party service providers, then our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected.

Disruptions at the FDA, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

78

The ability of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities to review and approve new products or take action with respect to other regulatory matters can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the FDA and comparable foreign authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, such as the EMA following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved, or for other actions to be taken, by relevant government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Similarly, a prolonged government shutdown could prevent the timely review of our patent applications by the USPTO, which could delay the issuance of any U.S. patents to which we might otherwise be entitled. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA postponed most inspections of domestic and foreign manufacturing facilities at various points. Even though the FDA has since resumed standard inspection operations of domestic facilities where feasible, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, and any resurgence of the virus or emergence of new variants may lead to further inspectional delays. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

A pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak of an infectious disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may materially and adversely affect our business, including our preclinical studies, clinical trials, trial sites, third parties on whom we rely, our supply chain, our ability to raise capital, our ability to conduct regular business and our financial results.

We are subject to risks related to public health crises such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic and policies and regulations implemented by governments in response to the pandemic, often directing businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations, prohibiting certain nonessential gatherings and ceasing non-essential travel have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred, supply chains have been disrupted, facilities and production have been suspended, and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical service and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, has fallen. The full extent to which COVID-19 or other outbreaks, epidemics, pandemics or public health crises may negatively impact the broader global economy and our business and operations, including our research and development programs and related clinical trials, will largely depend on future developments and actions taken in response to such events, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted.

In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we have in the past taken, and may take in the future, temporary precautionary measures intended to help minimize the risk of the virus to our employees, including, from time to time, closing our offices and temporarily requiring all employees to work remotely, suspending all non-essential travel worldwide for our employees, delaying and changing the location of trials and discouraging employee attendance at industry events and in-person work-related meetings, all of which could negatively affect our business. The extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our preclinical studies or clinical trial operations, our supply chain and manufacturing and our office-based business operations will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence.

We continue to work closely with third-party manufacturers, distributors and other partners to manage our supply chain activities and mitigate potential disruptions to the production of our product candidates and any future therapeutic candidates as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While supply shortages are beginning to show signs of recovery, they may nonetheless persist and cause significant and material disruptions to our supply chains and operations, and associated delays in the manufacturing and supply of our product candidates and any future therapeutic candidates. Any such supply disruptions would adversely impact our ability to generate sales of and revenue from our approved products, if any, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects could be materially adversely affected.

The COVID-19 pandemic, or future pandemics, may also affect employees and patients involved in our clinical trials. Any negative impact the COVID-19 pandemic has on patient enrollment or treatment or the development of our product candidates and any future therapeutic

79

candidates could cause costly delays to clinical trial activities, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates and any future therapeutic candidates, if approved, increase our operating expenses, and have a material adverse effect on our financial results. The COVID-19 pandemic has also caused significant volatility in public equity markets and disruptions to the United States and global economies, which has adversely impacted, and may continue to adversely impact, our share price and our ability to raise capital on favorable terms, or at all.

To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and financial results, it may also heighten many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section, such as those relating to the timing and completion of our clinical trials.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by a natural or man-made disaster and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Natural or man-made disasters or outbreak of disease could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a natural or man-made disaster, power outage, pandemic or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our physical space, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our programs or any of their third-party CMOs, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are not able to maintain and enhance our reputation and brand recognition, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be harmed.

We believe that maintaining and enhancing our reputation and brand recognition is critical to our relationships with existing and future investments, third-party therapy sites, therapists, patients and collaborators, and to our ability to attract clinics to become our third-party therapy sites offering our therapies. The promotion of our brand may require us to make substantial investments, and we anticipate that, as our market becomes increasingly competitive, these marketing initiatives may become increasingly difficult and expensive. Brand promotion and marketing activities may not be successful or yield increased revenue, and to the extent that these activities yield increased revenue, the increased revenue may not offset the expenses we incur and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed. In addition, any factor that diminishes our reputation or that of our management, including our or our failing to meet the expectations of our network of third-party therapy sites, therapists and patients, could harm our reputation and brand and make it substantially more difficult for us to attract new third-party therapy sites, therapists and patients. If we do not successfully maintain and enhance our reputation and brand recognition, our business may not grow, and we could lose our relationships with third-party therapy sites, therapists and patients, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The increasing focus on environmental sustainability and social initiatives could increase our costs, harm our reputation and adversely impact our financial results.

There has been increasing public focus by investors, patients, environmental activists, the media and governmental and nongovernmental organizations on a variety of environmental, social and other sustainability matters. We may experience pressure to make commitments relating to sustainability matters that affect us, including the design and implementation of specific risk mitigation strategic initiatives relating to sustainability. If we are not effective in addressing environmental, social and other sustainability matters affecting our business, or setting and meeting relevant sustainability goals, our reputation and financial results may suffer. In addition, even if we are effective at addressing such concerns, we may experience increased costs as a result of executing upon our sustainability goals that may not be offset by any benefit to our reputation, which could have an adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

In addition, this emphasis on environmental, social and other sustainability matters has resulted and may result in the adoption of new laws and regulations, including new reporting requirements. If we fail to comply with new laws, regulations or reporting requirements, our reputation and business could be adversely impacted.

We may be classified as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) which could result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders of common shares.

We may be classified as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) which could result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders of common shares.

A non-U.S. corporation will be classified as a passive foreign investment company, or a PFIC, for any taxable year if either:

80

The PFIC rules also contain a look-through rule whereby the Company will be treated as owning its proportionate share of the gross assets and earning its proportionate share of the gross income of any other corporation in which it owns, directly or indirectly, 25% or more (by value) of the stock.

If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. holder holds our common shares, certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could apply to such U.S. holder.

To alleviate such adverse tax consequences, U.S. holders in certain circumstances may make a “qualified electing fund” election or, if shares of the PFIC are “marketable stock” for purposes of the PFIC rules, may make a mark-to-market election with respect to the shares of the PFIC. Based on our historic and anticipated operations and composition of assets and a review of income sources and asset categories, we may be a PFIC for the current taxable year and in the foreseeable future. If we determine that we are a PFIC for any taxable year, we will use reasonable efforts to provide U.S. holders with information as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service may require, including a PFIC annual statement, in order to enable the U.S. holders to make the qualified electing fund election. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to timely provide such required information to the U.S. holders.

The U.S. Treasury recently proposed regulations that may change certain aspects of the PFIC rules described above, including the application of certain elections to partnerships and similar entities. It is unclear whether such proposed regulations would be finalized. U.S. holders should consult their tax advisors regarding the potential consequences of PFIC status, including with respect to making a qualified electing fund or mark-to-market election.

If a United States person is treated as owning at least 10% of our common shares, such holder may be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.

Depending upon the aggregate value and voting power of our common shares that United States persons are treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively), we could be treated as a controlled foreign corporation (“CFC”). Additionally, because our group consists of one or more U.S. subsidiaries, certain of our non-U.S. subsidiaries could be treated as CFCs and lead to adverse U.S. tax consequences for threshold United States holders of common shares, regardless of whether or not we are treated as a CFC. If a United States person (as defined in the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code) is treated as owning (directly, indirectly or constructively) at least 10% of the value or voting power of our common shares, such person may be treated as a “United States shareholder” with respect to applicable CFCs in our group. Such shareholders are potentially subject to current taxation on their pro rata share of certain CFC income and additional U.S. reporting obligations.

If you are treated as a United States shareholder of a CFC (as defined above), failure to comply with these reporting obligations may subject you to significant monetary penalties and may extend the statute of limitations with respect to your U.S. federal income tax return for the year for which reporting was due. Additionally, a United States shareholder of a CFC that is an individual would generally be denied certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits in respect of its income that may otherwise be allowable to a United States shareholder that is a U.S. corporation. We cannot provide any assurances that we will assist holders of our common shares in determining whether we or any of our non-U.S. subsidiaries are treated as CFCs or whether any holder of our common shares is treated as a United States shareholder with respect to any such CFC, nor do we expect to furnish to any United States shareholders information that may be necessary to comply with the aforementioned reporting and tax paying obligations. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has provided limited guidance regarding the circumstances in which investors may rely on publicly available information to comply with their reporting and taxpaying obligations with respect to foreign-controlled CFCs. U.S. investors in our common shares should consult their advisors regarding the potential application of these rules to their investment in the common shares.
 

Evolving global tax legislation could increase our overall tax burden.

Global tax legislative changes could negatively impact our business. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”), with the support of the Group of Twenty (“G20”), initiated the base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) project in 2013 in

81

response to concerns that changes were needed to international tax laws. In November 2015, the G20 finance ministers adopted final BEPS reports designed to prevent, among other things, the artificial shifting of income to low-tax jurisdictions, and legislation to adopt and implement the standards set forth in such reports has been enacted or is currently under consideration in a number of jurisdictions. In June 2016, the Council of the European Union adopted Directive (EU) 2016/1164 which established rules against aggressive tax planning practices including, but not limited to, profit shifting and hybrid instruments and structures. In May 2019, the OECD released a two-pillar framework to address taxation challenges associated with the digital economy. Pillar One focused on the allocation of group profits among taxing jurisdictions based on a market-based concept rather than the historical “permanent establishment” concept. Pillar Two, among other things, introduced a global minimum tax. While we do not currently meet the revenue thresholds to fall within the scope of some of the aforementioned provisions, the foregoing tax changes and other possible future tax changes may have an adverse impact on us.

 

We do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. If we do pay dividends, we may need to withhold tax on such dividends payable to holders of our common shares in both Germany and the Netherlands.

We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, for the foreseeable future, to fund the development and growth of our business. We do not intend to pay any dividends to holders of our common shares. As a result, capital appreciation in the price of our common shares, if any, will be your only source of gain on an investment in our common shares. However, if we do pay dividends, we may need to withhold tax on such dividends both in Germany and the Netherlands.

Dividends paid by us to our shareholders are subject to Dutch dividend withholding tax on the basis that we are a company incorporated under Dutch law. Given that we are also considered a tax resident of Germany on the basis of our place of effective management, the tie-breaker rule taken up in the double tax treaty between Germany and the Netherlands, or the Convention, concludes that we are solely considered a tax resident of the jurisdiction where our place of effective management is situated and restricts the Netherlands to levy Dutch dividend withholding tax on dividends distributed by us to our shareholders. The restriction for the Netherlands to levy Dutch dividend withholding tax does not apply to dividends distributed by us to shareholders who are (deemed to be) a resident in the Netherlands for Dutch tax purposes or if the common shares are attributable to a permanent establishment situated in the Netherlands of a holder that is not (deemed) resident of the Netherlands.

Our shareholders will need to be identified in order to establish whether we need to withhold Dutch dividend withholding tax on dividends distributed. If we are not able to identify our shareholders, we are required to withhold both Dutch as well as German dividend withholding tax which may have an adverse consequence on the actual amount received by our shareholders.

Furthermore, the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures, or the MLI, may have an impact on the restriction for the Netherlands to levy Dutch dividend withholding tax on dividends paid by us to our shareholders by amending the tie-breaker rule taken up in the Convention. If both Germany as well as the Netherlands list the Convention as covered by the MLI, or a Covered Convention, and opt-in to apply the amendment to the tie-breaker rule, the MLI would amend the tie-breaker rule taken up in the Convention on the basis of which we are considered a tax resident of Germany by introducing a mandatory MAP procedure. As it currently stands, the MLI is not applicable to the Convention because Germany did not include the Convention in the list of tax treaties covered by the MLI. If Germany changes its position in the future, we will not be entitled to any relief or exemption from tax provided by the Convention, including the withholding tax restriction, as long as Germany and the Netherlands do not reach an agreement on our tax residency for purposes of the Convention except to the extent and in such manner as may be agreed upon by the authorities. As a result, any dividends distributed by us during the period in which no such agreement has been reached between Germany and the Netherlands may be subject to withholding tax both in Germany and the Netherlands.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforward and other tax attributes may be limited.

 

We have net operating losses, or NOLs, in various jurisdictions including Germany and the United States. As of December 31, 2022, our German NOL carryforward was approximately $151.0 million. German tax law imposes certain limits on the utilization of NOLs that are carried forward or carried back to a particular year. Our ability to utilize NOLs may be further limited under Section 8c of the German Corporation Income Tax Act (Körperschaftsteuergesetz – KStG) and Section 10a of the German Trade Tax Act (Gewerbesteuergesetz –

82

GewStG). These additional limitations may apply if a qualified ownership change, as defined by Section 8c KStG, occurs and no exemption is applicable.

Generally, a qualified ownership change occurs if more than 50% of the share capital or the voting rights are directly or indirectly transferred to a shareholder or a group of shareholders within a period of five years. A qualified ownership change may also occur in case of a transaction comparable to a transfer of shares or voting rights or in case of an increase in capital leading to a respective change in the shareholding. In the case of such a qualified ownership change, tax loss carryforwards expire in full. To the extent that the tax loss carryforwards do not exceed hidden reserves (stille Reserven) taxable in Germany, they may be further utilized despite a qualified ownership change. In case of a qualified ownership change within a group, tax loss carryforwards will be preserved if certain conditions are satisfied. In case of a qualified ownership change, tax loss carryforwards will be preserved (in the form of a fortführungsgebundener Verlustvortrag) if the business operations have not been changed and will not be changed within the meaning of Section 8d KStG.

According to an appeal filed by the fiscal court of Hamburg dated August 29, 2017, Section 8c, paragraph 1, sentence 1 KStG is not in line with the German constitution. The appeal is still pending. It is unclear when the Federal Constitutional Court will decide this case. According to statements in German legal literature, there are good reasons to believe that the Federal Constitutional Court may come to the conclusion that Section 8, paragraph 1, sentence 1 KStG is not in line with the German constitution. In addition, our ability to utilize our NOLs and certain other tax attributes in the United States could be subject to limitation or expire unused under U.S. tax law. As of December 31, 2022, we had U.S. federal NOLs of $37.5 million. In addition, under Section 382 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a cumulative change, by value, in our ownership by “5-percent stockholders” that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. If an ownership change occurs and our ability to use our net operating loss carryforward is materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations.

Risks Related to Our International Operations

Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

As a company incorporated in the Netherlands, our business is subject to risks associated with being organized outside of the United States. Our business strategy incorporates potential international expansion to target patient populations outside the United States. If we receive regulatory approval for and commercialize any of our product candidates in patient populations outside the United States, we may hire sales representatives and conduct physician and patient association outreach activities outside of the United States. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including, but not limited to:

83