CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K that was intentionally omitted from Part IIIcontains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Original 10-K in reliance on General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K. In addition, this Amendment amends Item 15 of Part IV of the Original 10-K to update the exhibit list and to include new certifications by our principal executive officer and principal financial officer under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-OxleySecurities Act of 2002,1933, as required by Rule 12b-15 underamended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Because no financial These forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts and are often characterized by the use of words such as “aim”, “believe,” “can,” “could,” “potential,” “plan,” “predict,” “goals,” “seek,” “should,” “may,” “may have, been included” “would,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect” or the negative of these terms, other comparable terminology or by discussions of strategy, plans or intentions. These include, but are not limited to, statements about:

You should read this Annual Report with the understanding that such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, expectations, uncertainties, assumptions, estimates and projections about our company and other important factors that could cause our actual results, performance or achievements, actual industry results, or other actual results or events to differ materially from historical results, from any plans, intentions, or expectations disclosed in such forward-looking statements or from any future results, performance, achievements or other events expressed, suggested or implied by such forward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not rely on any forward-looking information or statements as predictors of future results or events. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences in results and events include, without limitation, those specifically addressed under the headings “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations” in this AmendmentAnnual Report and this Amendment doesin our subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The effect of these factors is difficult to predict. In addition, factors other than these could also adversely affect our results, and the reader should not containconsider these factors to be a complete set of all potential risks or amenduncertainties. New factors emerge from time to time, and management cannot assess the impact of any disclosure with respectsuch factor on our business or the extent to Items 307 and 308which any factor, or combination of Regulation S-K, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the certifications have been omitted. We are not including the certifications under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as no financialfactors, may cause results or events to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

Any forward-looking statements are being filed with this Amendment.

Except as described above, no other changes have been made to the Original 10-K. The Original 10-K continues toincluded herein speak only as of the dates describeddate of this Annual Report, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking information or statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report to conform these statements to actual results or changes in expectations, except as required by law. All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified by the foregoing cautionary statements.

​

​

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a biotechnology company developing novel small molecule therapeutics to treat diseases across several therapeutic areas, including, central nervous system (“CNS”) disorders, lysosomal storage disorders (“LSDs”), metabolic disorders, and other diseases that can be targeted through protein degradation, such as oncology. We use our exclusively in-licensed computational target and drug discovery platform, Site-Directed Enzyme Enhancement Therapy (“SEE-Tx®”), to discover novel allosteric binding sites on proteins implicated in a disease and to identify proprietary small molecules that bind these sites to modulate protein function and treat the underlying cause of the disease. We believe that SEE-Tx® is uniquely suited to identify allosteric binding sites on the protein surface, which are different from the protein’s active (or orthosteric) binding site where the natural ligand of the protein binds. Targeting an allosteric binding site instead of the active binding site of a protein provides numerous advantages, including: the ability to regulate proteins implicated in disease through several different mechanisms of action covering both functional and conformational effects, including stabilization, destabilization, targeted degradation, allosteric inhibition, and allosteric activation of the targeted protein; improved specificity of small molecules because binding to an allosteric binding site is non-competitive with the natural substrate that binds to the active binding site; and the ability to identify small molecules with more favorable drug-like properties. The SEE-Tx® platform has been used to identify novel allosteric sites and small molecules for all of our internal programs and partnered programs.  Discovering and targeting novel allosteric sites with our platform not only reduces traditional drug discovery timelines but enables rational drug design and offers the potential for superior small molecule drugs that are highly specific and that can penetrate hard to reach tissues and cross the blood-brain barrier.

Our Lead Product Candidate: GT-02287 for the Treatment of GBA1 Parkinson’s disease

Our lead product candidate, GT-02287, is being developed for the treatment of GBA1 Parkinson’s disease, including restoration of GCase function, reduction of toxic lipid substrates and toxic forms of alpha-synuclein, improved survival of dopaminergic neurons, and increase of dopamine levels and improved locomotor function in animal models.  We have generated an extensive preclinical data package providing evidence of the mechanism of action of GT-02287, and we anticipate completing IND-enabling toxicology studies by the first half of 2023. We plan to commence a first- in-human, Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial in Australia of GT-02287 by the second half of 2023. The primary objectives of  the Phase 1 clinical trial in Australia will be to evaluate administration of both single and multiple ascending dose levels of GT-02287 in healthy volunteers to assess safety and pharmacokinetics.

Our Research Programs Using SEE-Tx® Platform

In addition, we plan to continue to advance research programs and initiate additional programs targeting allosteric binding sites identified with the SEE-Tx® platform in various therapeutic areas, mainly oncology. Through academic partnerships, co-development and licensing arrangements, we intend to develop a broad pipeline of therapeutics, using our novel approach of identifying and targeting previously unknown allosteric sites.  

Our Platform for Computational Target and Drug Discovery

Overview

A majority of disease-causing proteins (up to 90%) cannot be targeted due to the lack of a known binding site. Our exclusively in-licensed SEE-Tx® platform was designed to address this problem. We use the platform to discover novel binding sites on proteins implicated in a disease and to identify proprietary small molecules that bind these sites to modulate protein function and treat the underlying cause of the disease. We focus specifically on allosteric binding sites distinct from the protein’s active, or orthosteric, binding site, where a small molecule can attach and trigger an effect that may lead to a therapeutic benefit. We refer to the small molecules we identify that bind to these allosteric sites as structurally targeted allosteric regulators, or STARs, to reflect their mechanism of action and how they are discovered.  The graphic below provided an overview of SEE-Tx®.

Allosteric Binding Site Identification

Using the three-dimensional structure of proteins that have been experimentally derived or generated or predictive protein structures from AI-powered databases such as Alphafold, our SEE-Tx® platform applies various computational methods and proprietary algorithms to identify and map previously uncharacterized clusters of binding hotspots on the protein surface where a small molecule can potentially bind. The number, density, nature and quality of these hotspot clusters determine the druggability of the protein, which refers to whether drug-like small molecules can effectively bind to the particular site on the target protein with an appropriate potency.

Advantages of Targeting Allosteric Binding Sites 

 We focus on allosteric binding site, which offer a number of advantages compared to targeting the active binding site of a protein, including the ability to regulate proteins implicated in disease through several different mechanisms of action covering both functional and conformational effects, improved specificity of small molecules because binding to an allosteric binding site is non-competitive with the natural ligand that binds to the active binding site, and the ability to identify small molecules with more favorable drug-like properties.  The graphic below provided an overview of the differences and benefits of allosteric binding sites compared to active binding sites.

​

activity may enhance the risk for Parkinson’s disease by facilitating a pathological hallmark, namely alpha-synuclein accumulation. Alpha-synuclein accumulation and GCase deficiency are thought to act in a debilitating cycle. GCase deficiency can cause the accumulation of glucosylsphingosine substrate, which has been reported to directly affect the accumulation and aggregation of alpha-synuclein. In addition, increased alpha-synuclein levels can lead to less GCase activity, which in turn can lead to more alpha-synuclein accumulation. 

Parkinson’s disease is reported to affect about 1 in 780 people worldwide or approximately one million worldwide. Up to 15% of patients with Parkinson’s disease carry GBA1 mutations, making it the major genetic risk factor for the disease and this rate is higher in certain patient populations. At present, there is no effective cure for Parkinson’s disease. Current approved therapies for Parkinson’s disease are limited to symptomatic treatments such as levodopa, dopaminergic receptor agonists and inhibitors of enzymes related to dopamine metabolism such as monoamine oxidase inhibitors and catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors. These therapies aim to improve overall dopaminergic function. The benefits of these types of treatments diminish over time as the disease progresses, and these therapies do not impact the non-motor symptoms such as cognitive decline or the progression of the disease. As the disease progresses, the non-motor symptoms, such as dementia and cognitive impairment, can lead to severe morbidity and mortality.

Overview of Gaucher Disease

​

Gaucher disease is an inherited LSD caused by homozygous mutations of the GBA1 gene that result in the misfolding and subsequent dysfunction of GCase, an enzyme that breaks down fatty chemicals in the body. Gaucher disease is traditionally classified according to one of three types. Type 1 Gaucher disease is traditionally referred to as a non-neuronopathic form of the disease, for which some treatments are available, but evolving science has shown that patients with type 1 Gaucher disease may also manifest neurological symptoms later in life. Current ERT and gene therapy treatments are unable to address the onset of type 1 neurological symptoms because these treatments are unable to cross the blood-brain barrier. Unlike Gaucher disease type 1, Gaucher disease types 2 and 3 have early onset brain degeneration that worsens over time. For this reason, Gaucher disease types 2 and 3 are known as neuronopathic Gaucher disease (nGD). Currently, there is no effective treatment for nGD. In type 2 Gaucher disease, there is neurological impairment that presents before birth through the first months of life, progresses rapidly, and is typically fatal within two years. It is a devastating disorder characterized by neurodegeneration and brainstem dysfunction. Additionally, infants with Gaucher disease may have abnormally large organs, deficiency in growth, seizures and compromised swallow and airway problems. Gaucher disease type 3 (also known as chronic neuronopathic Gaucher disease) has a later and more gradual onset compared with type 2. People with Gaucher disease type 3 may survive into adulthood with a wide variety of signs and symptoms, including seizures, skeletal irregularities, eye movement disorders, cognitive and coordination problems as well as enlarged liver and spleen, respiratory problems and blood disorders.  

​

Gaucher disease is caused by mutations of the GBA1 gene that encodes GCase, an enzyme which catalyzes a key step in breaking down glucosylceramide and glucosylsphingosine. Partial or complete loss of GCase activity can cause the buildup of glucosylceramide and glucosylsphingosine in the lysosomes of macrophages, and the accumulation of these lipid substrates in neuronal cells can result in neurological symptoms.  

​

The prevalence of Gaucher disease type 1 (non-neuronopathic Gaucher disease) is reported as 1:57,000 to 75,000 people worldwide. Type 1 is the most common form in Western countries (around 95%). The prevalence of type 2 and type 3 Gaucher disease, or nGD, is approximately 1:100,000 people worldwide, and these forms are the most common in non-Western countries, especially in Asian countries where they make up more than 50% of the Gaucher disease patient population. At present there are no available treatment options for neuronopathic Gaucher disease, but ERT is still used to address organ enlargement, hematological manifestation and bone disease, as well as to improve the quality of life for these patients. ERT does not cross the blood-brain barrier and is not efficient in treating neurological manifestations, therefore creating a significant unmet medical need in this patient population.

​

Preclinical Characterization of Lead Compound GT-02287 for the Treatment of GBA1-related Diseases

We have continued to assess the performance of our lead compounds GT-02287 and GT-02329 in the various cell-based and animal models of PD and GD that we have performed with these compounds. As more data have been generated, we determined that both molecules have similar properties and are similarly suitable for the development in GBA1 PD and nGD.  In light of the totality of the data generated with these compounds to date, we have determined to select GT-02287 as the drug candidate for all GBA1-related disease and to maintain GT-02329 as a potential back-

up compound to GT-02287.  This decision resulted in a reduction of projected development costs of our GBA1 program of approximately $8.4 million.

 Activity in Biophysical and Cell-based Assays 

Biophysical assay results have demonstrated that GT-02287 binds to the GCase protein and increases its thermal stability. In cell-based functional assays, we observed a dose-dependent increase in GCase activity in normal and GCase mutant cells when treated with GT-02287 as well as a concomitant depletion of the GCase substrate, glucosyl ceremide. Our STAR compound also has shown GCase enzyme enhancement in an extended panel of patient derived cells representative of the most frequent and pathogenic GBA1 mutations related to GBA1 PD and nGD. In addition, we reported that  GT-02287 increased GCase enzyme levels, co-localization of GCase with lysosomes, reduced GlcCer accumulation as well as phosphorylated and aggregated a-synuclein accumulation in cells derived from L444P/RecNcil and L444P/L444P patients.

Toxicology and Safety 

GLP  toxicology studies have shown that GT-02287 is well tolerated following single oral administration of 2000 mg/kg and 1000 mg/kg for male and female rats, respectively, and 1000 mg/kg in male and female dogs.

The GLP toxicology study with repeated administrations of GT-02287 in male and female dogs and rats is currently ongoing. No severe toxicity has been encountered up to 1000 mg/kg in dog after 14 day administration, corresponding to a human equivalent dose of 33 g per day (based on 60 kg as a standard human subject body weight). We anticipate completing IND-enabling toxicology studies in the first half of 2023 with the goal of filing the dossier required to commence a first-in-human, Phase 1 clinical trial of GT-02287 in the second half of 2023.

Pharmacokinetics 

Studies in mice, rats and dogs have shown that GT-02287 is quickly absorbed following oral administration, reaching the maximal concentration in plasma (Tmax) between 0.5 and 2 hours with a plasmatic half-life (t1/2) of about 2 hours in mice, 3 hours in rats and 5 hours in dogs.

We examined GT-02287 in neuro-PK studies to evaluate its brain penetration properties, and we have not updatedobserved high brain exposure with a brain-to-plasma ratio level greater than one.

In-Vivo Pharmacology in PD Animal Models

In mice administered the disclosures contained thereinGCase inhibitor CBE (conduritol beta epoxide) plus intra-striatal injected alpha-synuclein pre-formed fibrils, or PFF, to reflect any events that occurred subsequent to such dates. Accordingly,simulate the effects of GBA1 Parkinson’s disease. GT-02287 was orally administered once a day, at doses of 30, 60 and 90 mg/kg.  The data generated in this Amendment should be read in conjunction with our Original 10-K and our filings made with the SEC subsequent to the filingstudy showed a statistically significant augmentation of GCase activity, reduction of the Original 10-K,accumulation of the toxic substrates glucosylsphingosine and glucosylceramide, a reduction of aggregated alpha synuclein, and a reduction of microgliosis, which is an indicator of reduced neuroinflammation. In the same animal model, GT-02287 improved the survival of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. Notably, these biological effects resulted in a dose-dependent behavioral effect shown by improved neuromotor strength as informationmeasured by the “wire-hang” test. 

​

In a rotenone-induced Parkinson’s disease rat model, GT-02287 was administered orally, twice a day for seven days at a dose of 30, 60 and 90 mg/kg bodyweight. In this study, we observed that GT-02287 showed a reduction of total, aggregated and phosphorylated alpha-synuclein as well as a reduction in such filings may update or supersede certain information containedmicrogliosis. In addition GT-02287 improved the survival of dopaminergic neurons along with an increased level of dopamine in this Amendment.

PART IIIthe striatum.  Notably, these biological effects resulted in a dose-dependent behavioral effect shown by an improvement of the motor functionality measured by assessing the rearing behavior.

To verify the potential difference of a twice-a-day and once-a-day dose regimen, the rotenone rat model was repeated administering GT-02287 orally once per day for 10 days at the dose range 60 and 90 mg/kg. The study provided a similar read-out for aggregated alpha-synuclein and survival of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra thus suggesting that once-a-day oral administration can provide a similar efficacy to twice-a-day administration. In addition, GT-02287 was shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), a biomarker for

​

In Vivo Pharmacology in GD Animal Models

In mice administered the GCase inhibitor CBE to model Gaucher’s disease, our product candidate GT-02329 was orally administered once a day at a doses of 60 and Corporate Governance.90 mg/kg.  The data generated in this study showed a statistically significant augmentation of GCase activity in plasma and various different brain regions, reduction of the accumulation of the toxic substrates glucosylsphingosine and glucosylceramide and a reduction of Iba-1 levels, a marker of microgliosis, which is an indicator of reduced neuroinflammation. In the same animal model, treatment with GT-02329 caused dose-dependent behavioral effect shown by improved motor strength as measured by the “wire-hang” test.

Results of the CBE Mouse Model

​

Iba-1 levels in brains of CBE-injected mice treated with GT-02329 Motor Function

Pipeline Programs in Research and Discovery Phases

In addition to our preclinical stage programs for PD and nGD, we are progressing additional programs in the research and discovery phases, including our Krabbe disease program, our liver and lung disease program, and two active programs in oncology. We are also seeking non-dilutive funding in order to continue additional research programs in additional lysosomal storage disorders and metabolic diseases.

BoardGALC Enzyme-Related Disorders: Krabbe Disease

We are investigating the restoration of DirectorsGALC function as a treatment for Krabbe disease. GALC is an enzyme in lysosomes needed to breakdown galactolipids, which are fats primarily found in the nervous system and kidneys. Among the galactolipids that GALC breaks down are galactosylceramide, which is an essential component of neuronal myelin, and psychosine, which is formed during myelin production and is toxic to cells. The misfolding of GALC can

result in the toxic accumulation of galactosylceramide, inhibiting myelin production, and of psychosine, leading to demyelination of cells and ultimately to Krabbe disease. There is no available cure for Krabbe disease. Current developments in invasive procedures such as bone marrow transplants have not been shown to provide significant neurological improvements, and most developments in gene therapy treatments are still in the preclinical stages.

We have identified compounds that bind to allosteric sites on GALC and stabilize the enzyme in vitro. We are continuing our development of these promising molecules.

Overview of Krabbe Disease

Krabbe disease is a severe neurological condition that is part of a group of disorders which result from the loss of myelin (demyelination) in the CNS. Myelin is the protective covering around neurons that ensures the rapid transmission of neural signals. The most common form of Krabbe disease, the infantile form, usually begins before the age of one. Initial symptoms typically include irritability, muscle weakness, feeding difficulties, episodes of fever without any sign of infection, stiff posture and delayed mental and physical development. As the disease progresses, muscles continue to weaken, affecting the infant’s ability to move, chew, swallow and breathe. Affected infants also experience vision loss and seizures. Because of the severity of the condition, individuals with the infantile form of Krabbe disease rarely survive beyond the age of two. The less common forms, those that have a later onset, begin in childhood, adolescence, or adulthood. Vision problems and walking difficulties are the most common initial symptoms in these late-onset forms of the disorder, however, signs and symptoms vary considerably among affected individuals. Individuals with late-onset Krabbe disease may survive many years after the condition begins.

Krabbe disease is an inherited LSD caused by mutations in the gene GALC. In affected individuals, GALC substrate psychosine accumulation can trigger a neuroinflammatory response, a loss of myelin forming cells and a progressive demyelination of the central and peripheral nervous systems.

The following table sets forth the names, agesprevalence of Krabbe disease is reported as about 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 250,000 live births worldwide. At present, there is no effective cure or disease-modifying treatment for Krabbe Disease. Treatment of April 29, 2022,a child who is symptomatic before six months of age is supportive and certain other information for eachfocused on improving quality of life and avoiding complications. For older individuals, treatment with HSCT is individualized based on disease burden and manifestations, but it serves to delay disease progression and is not an effective cure.

Preclinical Characterization of GALC Lead Compounds

Biological Activity

We have identified several compounds that bind to allosteric sites on GALC and are able to stabilize GALC against thermal denaturation. STAR molecules were tested in vitro in transfected HEK293 cells bearing different mutations (WT, G286D, T529M). We examined promising STAR molecules in neuro-PK studies to evaluate their brain penetration properties. Several of the memberscompounds selected showed enhanced enzyme enhancement and high brain exposure with a brain-to-plasma ratio level greater than one.

In collaboration with Ernesto R. Bongarzone, Ph.D., Professor in Neuroscience at the College of Medicine at the University of Illinois, Chicago, initial compounds from this program were tested in mouse glial cultures and cell lines with relevant GALC mutations to measure their effect on GALC enzymatic activity and psychosine levels. We showed that the tested compounds showed significant reduction in psychosine levels in glial cultures.

Further characterization of our Boardcompounds is ongoing and we expect to select a lead series for further development based on additional data generated in this program. 

GLB Enzyme-Related Disorders: GM1 Gangliosidosis

GLB is an enzyme found in lysosomes, which are compartments within cells that degrade and recycle different types of Directors,molecules, including toxic molecules. GLB is essential for the breakdown of GM1 and keratan sulfate, which serve important functions in the brain and other tissues. Misfolding of GLB allows these substrates to build up to toxic levels and leads to the diseases GM1 Gangliosidosis.  

GM1 gangliosidosis is a rare and often life-threatening LSD in infants (type 1), juveniles (type 2) and adults (type 3). It manifests in a continuum of clinical severity by type. In type 1 or the Board.infantile form, the onset is observed earlier and is a more severe and rapidly progressive disease. Type 2 and 3 are less severe manifestations and have slower progression with a juvenile or adult onset. The infantile form of the disease is characterized by onset in the first year of life with symptoms including hypotonia (reduced muscle tone), progressive CNS dysfunction that can lead to deafness, blindness, enlarged liver and spleen rigidity, and progressive skeletal dysplasia that can result in restrictive lung disease and aspiration pneumonia. The disease rapidly progresses, with a life expectancy of two to four years. Juvenile GM1 manifests between 18 months and five years of age with a slower progression compared to infants. The average life expectancy for type 2 GM1 is typically 10 years. Adult GM1 has an onset age between three and 30. While it is less severe and progresses at a slower rate than infantile or juvenile GM1, adult GM1 causes debilitating symptoms, including muscular atrophy, corneal clouding and dystonia. 

The prevalence of GM1 is approximately 1:100,000 to 200,000 live births worldwide. Currently, there is no effective cure for GM1, and symptomatic treatment options, including substrate reduction therapy, ERT, bone marrow transplantation, stem cell transplantation and gene therapy are limited or still under development. We believe current approaches are unable to address both the neuronal and systemic symptoms because current treatment options cannot cross the blood-brain barrier or reach other hard-to-treat organs, such as bone. 

Eric I. RichmanIn Vitro Characterization of STARs for the Treatment of GM1 Gangliosidosis 

We have identified novel STAR molecules targeting GLB through our SEE-Tx® platform and conducted our initial studies on these compounds. Binding of two of these compounds to the GLB target has served asbeen confirmed using a biophysical assay. Preclinical studies indicate that our Chief Executive OfficerSTARs help mutated GLB escape premature degradation and travel to the lysosome where it can perform its catalytic activity. These preliminary studies were conducted in vitro using cells that carried the GLB1 mutation.  In addition, one compound showed clearance of the toxic GM1 ganglioside accumulation in GM1-affected canine cells.  Based on the data generated to date, we have selected a lead series for further characterization and development.

Serpina related disorder: alpha-1 Antitrypsin (A1AT) Deficiency

We are investigating the stabilization of alpha-1 antitrypsin (A1AT) as a memberpotential treatment for rare lung and/or liver disorder. If A1AT is stabilized, then we believe the molecule would be rendered inactive, thereby preventing the gain of our Boardfunction of Directors since July 2020. Mr. Richman has over 25 yearsthe molecule in the lung or liver. We have identified one allosteric site and have selected 146 virtual hits obtained from virtual screening with which we plan to start experimental hit confirmation. 

Primary Screening

Hit identification completed with Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) at one concentration and in dose-response. Binding was confirmed for 23 of experience146 compounds (15.6% hit rate). Hit analoging was completed with 85 analog compounds tested in a SPR dose-response assay. Positive signal was observed for 4 of 85 compounds. 

We have now identified a hit chemical series that inhibits polymerization of A1AT protein, and a priority patent application was filed in February 2023.

On  March 21, 2023 we announced that that Eurostars with Innosuisse have awarded a grant in the aggregate amount of €1.2 million to a consortium led by Gain Therapeutics which includes the Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Newcells Biotech and the University of Helsinki. This grant supports a research project to develop novel small molecule allosteric regulators against Alpha-1 Antitrypsin (AAT) Deficiency, a rare genetic condition that can result in serious lung and liver diseases.

Oncology

Allosteric Regulators in Oncology

​

Allosteric regulators are molecules able to modify the activity of a protein binding to a site topographically distinct from the site of the protein, called the active site, in which the activity characterizing the protein is carried out and in oncology usually involves the binding of receptors.  

​

Targeting allosteric sites may provide greater specificity and selectivity of activity and  allow for a better efficacy and safety profile. An allosteric site is more specific to an individual protein, potentially leading to safer and more efficacious medicines. The allosteric-targeted therapies also introduce the possibility of fine-tuning a protein’s activity in new ways—one modulator may shift a protein into a conformation that shuts it down entirely, while another might under the right condition potentiate activity, and others may result in activity levels in between. Allosteric drugs open the door to identifying drug targets that are inaccessible to traditional active-site inhibitors. Allosteric drugs also may provide a new foundation for combining oncolytic agents, to achieve important additive and synergistic effects, and to prevent or overcome drug-resistance to traditional orthosteric anti-cancer agent.

​

Target Selection Strategy

​

Targets have been selected based on the potential mechanism of action (with an initial focus on allosteric inhibition), unmet medical needs such as immune resistance, metastatic resistance, non satisfactory response to current standard of care, level of innovation and availability of preclinical tools.

​

Our Oncology Programs

​

We have two active oncology projects underway in which we are identifying STARs that are designed to destabilize target proteins by binding to allosteric sites on the proteins and rendering them inactive. Thus far we have identified allosteric binding sites and run virtual screens to identify virtual hits which are being characterized further in biochemical and cell-based assays.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries as an investorare characterized by the rapid evolution of technologies and in operational roles. He served asunderstanding of disease etiology, intense competition, and a Venture Partner at Brace Pharma Capital, a life science venture capital firmstrong emphasis on intellectual property. We believe that our SEE-Tx® platform, our scientific capabilities, know-how and experience provide us with competitive advantages. However, we expect substantial competition from 2016 to 2018multiple sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and Advisor to Broad Oak Capital, a life science private equity firm from 2015 to present. Mr. Richman also served as Chief Executive Officer of Tyrogenex Inc., a biopharmaceutical companyexisting or emerging biotechnology companies, academic research institutions and he served as Chief Executive Officer of PharmAthene, Inc. (“PharmAthene”), subsequently acquired by Altimmune, Inc, from 2010 to 2015. Prior to PharmAthene, Mr. Richman held various commercial and strategic positions at MedImmune, Inc. over a 12-year period from its inception. Mr. Richman currently serves as a director of Neubase Therapeutics, Inc. and NovelStem International Corp., co-founder and Chairman of InFuse Holdings and Chairman of the board of LabConnect, Inc. Between 2007 and 2020, he served as a director of Adma Biologics, Inc., Zyversa Therapeutics, Inc. and LEV Pharma, which was acquired by Viropharma, among others privategovernmental agencies and public companies. Mr. Richman received a B.S. in Biomedical Science from the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education (CUNY Medical School) and a M.B.A. from the American Graduate School of International Management. Our Board of Directors believes that Mr. Richman is qualified to serve as a director based on his role as our Chief Executive Officer and his extensive management experience in the biotechnology industry.

Dr. Khalid Islam, Ph.D. cofounded our company in 2017 and has served as Chairmanprivate research institutions worldwide. Many of our Board of Directors since 2017. Dr. Islam has over 30 years of experiencecompetitors, either alone or with their collaborations, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in the biotechnologyresearch and pharmaceutical industries. He is currently the Managing Director of Life Sciences Management GmbH, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Fennec Pharmaceuticalsdevelopment, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and Minoryx Therapeutics S.L,marketing approved products than we do. 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 enrollment in clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a directorresult, our competitors may discover, develop, license, or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do. We are not aware of Processa Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Islam also served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gentium S.p.A. from 2009any other companies that are taking  the same therapeutic approach to 2014, where, under his leadership, Defitelio was granted marketing authorization and the company went from a $25 million valuation to a $1 billion all-cash merger with Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc. From 1999 to 2008, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Arpida AG, where he transitioned the early-stage startup to a SWX-listed company and raised $300 million between their initial public offering and follow-ons. From 1987 to 1999, Dr. Islam held various positions at HMR & MMD (now Sanofi-Aventis). Prior to HMR & MMD, he worked in academia at Imperial College, University of London and Milan University, where he was a contract professor. He has also previously served as a director of Immunomedics Inc., Karolinska Development, MolMed S.p.A., OxThera AB, Rheoscience AS, PCovery AS, Adenium AS and C10 Pharma AS. He is an advisor to Kurma Biofund (Paris). Dr. Islam is a graduate of Chelsea College and received his Ph.D. from Imperial College, University of London. Our Board of Directors believes that Dr. Islam is qualified to serve as a director based on his extensive science background and professional experience.

Dov Goldstein, M.D.has served as a member of our Board of Directors since January 2021. Dr. Goldstein has over 20 years of experience in the financial management of various biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Chief Financial Officer of BioAge Labs, a privately held biotechnology company. He was previously Chief Financial Officer and Business Officer of Indapta Therapeutics. Dr. Goldstein served as Chief Executive Officer at RIGImmune. At Aisling Capital, a private investment firm, he served as Managing Partner, from 2014 to 2019, Partner from 2009 to 2014 and Principal from 2006 to 2009. Dr. Goldstein served as Chief Financial Officer and director of Loxo Oncology, between July 2014 and January 2015 and its acting Chief Financial Officer from January 2015 to May 2015. From 2000 to 2005, Dr. Goldstein served as Chief Financial Officer of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, which was acquired by Pfizer in September 2005. Prior to joining Vicuron, Dr. Goldstein was Director of Venture Analysis at HealthCare Ventures. Dr. Goldstein completed an internship in the Department of Medicine at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital. Dr. Goldstein serves as a director of NeuBase Therapeutics. He served as a director of ADMA Biologics, Cempra (acquired by Melinta Therapeutics), Durata Therapeutics, Esperion Therapeutics, and Loxo Oncology. Dr. Goldstein received a B.S. from Stanford University, an M.B.A. from Columbia Business School, and an M.D. from Yale School of Medicine.Our Board of Directors believes that Dr. Goldstein is qualified to serve as a director based on his extensive science background and professional experience.

Hans Peter Haslerhas served as a member of our Board of Directors since January 2021. Mr. Hasler has over 20 years of experience in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Mr. Hasler is the Founder and, until 2020 served as Chief Executive Officer, of Vicarius Pharma AG, a privately held company that provides strategic options to non-European bio-pharma companies bringing late-stage assetsprotein folding disorders similar to the European market. Mr. Hasler is Chairmanones we are pursuing. However, we are aware of companies developing products for the Boardsame target indications. For example, companies targeting GBA-PD using small molecules include Vanqua Bio and Caraway Therapeutics. While both of HBM Healthcare Investments AG in Switzerland, Director of the Board of Minerva Neuroscience Inc., Boston, non-executive Chairman of the Board of Shield Therapeutics PLC, London,these approaches are small molecules hypothesized to increase GCase levels, they differ from our approach because our molecules act as non-competitive pharmacological chaperones, specifically focused on stabilizing and Chief Advisor of SBTech Advisory, a small asset scouting company located in Israel, Switzerland, and the USA. Since June 2009, he has served as a director of HBM Healthcare Investments, an investment company listed on SIX Swiss Exchange, and is Senior Advisor at SBTech Global Advisory. His prior experience includes Elan Corporation, where he was Chief Operating Officer, and Biogen, Inc., where his positions included Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President, Head of Global Neurology and International. Previously, Mr. Hasler was at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer and Managing Director of Wyeth Group Germany and General Manager, Wyeth-Lederle Switzerland, Austria and ECE. Mr. Hasler holds a Federal Swiss Commercial Diploma and a Marketing Manager Certificate from the Swiss Institute of Business Economy SIB, Zurich, Switzerland. Our Board of Directors believes that Mr. Hasler is qualifiedrestoring function to serve as a director based on his extensive science background and professional experience.

Gwen Melincoffhas served as a member of our Board of Directors since January 2021. Ms. Melincoff is a seasoned business development and venture professional with over 25 years of deal making and management experience in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Ms. Melincoff is currently managing director at Gemini Advisors LLC, a biopharmaceutical consultancy (since 2013) and an advisor to Verge Genomics, a startup drug discovery company (since 2016). Ms. Melincoff serves on the board of Protalix Biotherapeutics, Inc., Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. and in an advisory capacity atmisfolded GCase. There are also a number of pharmaceutical companies. From January 2017companies targeting GBA-PD through January 2019, she served on the board of directors of Kamada Ltd., the board of Photocures ASA from April 2017 - June 2020other modalities such as cell/gene therapies and from June 2014 through November 2016 she served on the Board of Directors of Tobiramonoclonal antibodies. These companies include, among others: Prevail Therapeutics, Inc. (acquired by Allergan plc). From August 2014 through September 2016, Ms. Melincoff previously served as Vice President of Business Development at BTG International Inc.,which is evaluating a UK-specialist healthcare company. Prior to BTG, Ms. Melincoff was Senior Vice President of Corporate Development at Shire Plc (acquired by Takeda). Additionally, she led the Shire Strategic Investment Group, the venture capital arm of Shire Plc. Ms. Melincoff was Vice President of Business Development at Adolor Corporationpotential gene therapy candidate in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, Apollo Therapeutics and held executive positions at Eastman Kodak for over ten years inVoyager Therapeutics.

There are also a number of their health care companies. Ms. Melincoff receivedcompanies with alpha-synuclein specific approaches ranging from all stages of clinical development but these are distinct from us as they only aim to deplete a B.S. in Biology from The George Washington Universityspecific substrate rather than affecting the root cause of the disease at the start of the disease cascade. For Krabbe disease, companies such as Chiesi, Ranedis, Passage Bio, MediciNova and an M.S. in Management and Health Care Administration from Pennsylvania State University. Ms. Melincoff has also attained the designation of Certified Licensing Professional (CLP™). Ms. Melincoff was named to the “Top Women in Biotech 2013” by Fierce Biotech and to the Powerlist 100 of Corporate Venture Capital in 2012 and 2013. Our Board of Directors believes that Ms. Melincoff is qualified to serve as a director based on her extensive science background and professional experience.

Claude Nicaise, M.D.has served as a member of our Board of Directors since January 2021. Dr. Nicaise has more than 35 years of experiencePolaryx are all developing potential therapies, which we believe are in the developmentpreclinical stage. We may also face competition from large pharmaceutical and regulation of biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. He is the founder of Clinical Regulatory Services, a company providing advice on clinical and regulatory matters to biotechnology companies. Dr. Nicaise serves on the board for Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., chairs their Compensation committee, and is a member of their Research and Development committee. Since 2015, Dr. Nicaise has served as an Executive Vice President Regulatory at Ovid Therapeutics Inc., a company that develops medicines for orphan diseases of the brain. Dr. Nicaise was a Senior Vice President of Strategic Development and Global Regulatory Affairs at Alexion Pharmaceuticals from 2008 to 2014. From 1983 to 2008, Dr. Nicaise served in various positions of increasing responsibility at Bristol-Myers Squibb, including senior positions such as Vice President of Global Development, Vice-President of Worldwide Regulatory Science and Strategy, and leadership positions in Oncology, Infectious Disease, and Neuroscience development. Dr. Nicaise received his M.D. from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium. Our Board of Directors believes that Dr. Nicaise is qualified to serve as a director based on his extensive science background and professional experience.

Jeffrey Rileyhas served as a member of our Board of Directors since May 2019. Mr. Riley has more than 25 years of experience in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, during which he has negotiated numerous worldwide strategic corporate alliances, established joint ventures and assisted in venture financings to support product development. He is currently the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Caravan Biologix, Inc. and Executive Chairman of Blink TBI. Over his career, he has served in various roles and responsibilities in big pharma (SmithKline Beecham and Pfizer), venture capital (Queensland Biocapital Fund / QIC) and numerous biotechnology companies, in the capacity of business developmentacademic research institutions, government agencies and general management. From March 2010 until December 2017, he served as the President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Synthetic Biologics, Inc., a clinical-stage company leveraging the microbiome to develop therapeutics designed to prevent and treat gastrointestinal diseases. He has served as a member of several public and private boardsresearch institutions with genetic medicine and other therapeutic approaches. 

Additionally, new or advanced technologies developed by our competitors may render our current or future product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors.

Executive Officers

The following table identifies certain information about our executive officers as of April 29, 2022. Our executive officers are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, our Board.

Eric I. Richman Biographical information for Mr. Richman is included above with the director biographies under the caption “Board of Directors.”

Matthias Alder has served as our Chief Operating Officer since October 2021. Prior to joining us, he served as Chief Business Officer at Autolus Therapeutics plc from 2017 to 2021. Prior to then, from 2014 to 2017, Mr. Alder held various executive management positions at Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company which was subsequently acquired by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, including executive vice president of Business DevelopmentStrategic Transactions; Collaboration and Licensing and general counsel and corporate secretary. Prior to 2014, Mr. Alder served as executive vice president of corporate development and legal affairs and corporate secretary at Cytos Biotechnology AG, a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of targeted immunotherapies, from 2013 to October 2014. From 2006 to 2012, Mr. Alder held various executive management roles at Micromet, Inc., serving as senior vice president for administration, general counsel and secretary at the time of the acquisition of Micromet by Amgen Inc. in 2012. He was also a partner in the Life Sciences Transactions Practice at Cooley LLP from 2000 to 2006, where he represented biotech companies in strategic transactions with pharmaceutical companies. Earlier in his career, Mr. Alder was in-house counsel at Ciba-Geigy and Novartis. Mr. Alder holds law degrees from the University of Basel and the University of Miami and is qualified to practice law in Switzerland and the United States.

Salvatore CalabreseArrangements has served as our Chief Financial Officer since November 2020. Prior to joining us, Mr. Calabrese served as the Chief Financial Officer of Molmed S.p.A., a cell & gene company, from September 2018 to September 2020. Prior to joining Molmed S.p.A, Mr. Calabrese served as General Manager and Site Leader for the Italian Operation of Jazz Pharmaceuticals from 2014 to 2018. From February 2005 to August 2014, he held various positions of increasing responsibility at Gentium S.p.A., most recently holding the position of Chief Operating Officer. From December 2003 until February 2005, he served as Accounting and Finance Manager for Novuspharma, S.p.A., a development stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of cancer drugs and a subsidiary of Cell Therapeutics, Inc. From 1996 until 2003, Mr. Calabrese was employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers as an accountant and was a Manager in Assurance Business Advisory Services at the time of his departure. He earned a B.A. in Economics at the University of Messina and a M.S. in Accounting, Audit and Financial Control at the University of Pavia. He is also listed in the Italian National Audit Register held by the National Justice Department in the Republic of Italy.

There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers.

Corporate Governance

General

Our Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and charters for the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board to assist the Board in the exercise of its responsibilities and to serve as a framework for the effective governance of the Company. You can access our current committee charters, our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics in the “Corporate Governance” section of the “Investors & Media” page of our website located at https://gaintherapeutics.com/investors-media/corporate-governance.html or by writing to our Secretary at our offices at 4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 220 Bethesda, Maryland 20814.

If we make any substantive amendments to the Code of Business Conduct or we grant any waiver from a provision of the Code of Business Conduct to any executive officer or director, we will promptly disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver on our website. 

Independence of the Board of Directors

As required under the Nasdaq Stock Market, or Nasdaq, listing standards, a majority of the members of a listed company’s Board of Directors must qualify as “independent,” as affirmatively determined by the Board of Directors. The Board consults with its counsel to ensure that the Board’s determinations are consistent with relevant securities and other laws and regulations regarding the definition of “independent,” including those set forth in pertinent listing standards of Nasdaq, as in effect from time to time.

Consistent with these considerations, after review of all relevant identified transactions or relationships between each director, or any of his or her family members, and us, our senior management and our independent auditors, the Board has affirmatively determined that the following five directors are independent directors within the meaning of the applicable Nasdaq listing standards: Dr. Goldstein, Mr. Hasler, Ms. Melincoff, Dr. Nicaise and Mr. Riley. In making this determination, the Board found that none of these directors or nominees for director had a material or other disqualifying relationship with us.

Accordingly, a majority of our directors are independent, as required under applicable Nasdaq rules. In making this determination, our Board considered the applicable Nasdaq rules and the current and prior relationships that each non-employee director has with our company and all other facts and circumstances our Board deemed relevant in determining their independence, including their beneficial ownership of our capital stock.

Board Leadership Structure

The Chairman of our Board is Dr. Islam. The primary responsibilities of the Chairman of our Board of Directors are to: work with our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Richman, to develop board meeting schedules and agendas; provide our Chief Executive Officer feedback on the quality, quantity and timeliness of the information provided to the Board of Directors; develop the agenda for and moderate executive sessions of the independent members of the Board of Directors; preside over board meetings; act as principal liaison between the independent members of the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer; convene meetings of the independent directors as appropriate; and perform other duties as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time. Accordingly, Dr. Islam has substantial ability to shape the work of our Board of Directors.

We believe that separation of the positions of board chair and Chief Executive Officer reinforces the independence of the Board in its oversight of our business and affairs.

Board Diversity

Our Board believes that a diverse board is better able to effectively oversee our management and strategy, and position us to deliver long-term value for our stockholders. Our nominating and corporate governance committee considers diversity, including gender, sexual preference and ethnicity, as adding to the overall mix of perspectives of our Board as a whole. With the assistance of the nominating and corporate governance committee, our Board regularly reviews trends in board composition, including on director diversity.

The table below provides additional diversity information regarding our Board as of April 29, 2022. Each of the categories listed in the below table has the meaning as it is used in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(f). While the Board satisfies the minimum objectives of Nasdaq Rule 5605(f)(2) by having at least one director who identifies as female and at least one director who identifies as a member of an Underrepresented Minority (as defined by Nasdaq Rules), the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will continue to consider the diversity of the Board in its selection of director nominees.

such abandonment or unlawful use. We may terminate the Minoryx License Agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies, inventions and improvements that we believe are important to our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and our product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business.

As of February 2023, our patent portfolio consisted of six pending European patent applications and related national stage applications. In regard to our SEE-Tx® Technology, we in-license a European patent under the Minoryx License Agreement, which is owned by UB/ICREA and has claims directed to a method of binding site and binding energy determination by mixed explicit solvent simulations. This patent is expected to expire in 2032.

In regard to our GLB program, we in-license from Minoryx pursuant to the Minoryx License Agreement, a patent family with a pending European patent application with claims directed to composition of matter and eight foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and China. These patents applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2037, not giving effect to any potential patent term extensions and patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees.

In regard to our GBA program, we in-licensed from Minoryx pursuant to the Minoryx License Agreement, a patent family with a pending European patent application with claims directed to composition of matter and eight foreign patent applications pending in such jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and China. These patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2037, not giving effect to any potential patent term extensions and patent term adjustments and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees.

Individual patents extend 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, patents issued for regularly filed applications in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date or the filing date of a PCT application that designates the United States. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, delay in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date, which is typically the filing date of the PCT application. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

Furthermore, we rely upon trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have confidentiality agreements or invention assignment agreements with our collaborators and selected consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Our success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial

strategies, or our drugs or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize our future drugs may have an adverse impact on us. If third parties have prepared and filed patent applications prior to March 16, 2013 in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of drugs. We, along with our vendors, contract research organizations and contract manufacturers, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical, manufacturing and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals of drugs and ensuring subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, as amended, its implementing regulations and other laws. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA or other requirements at any time with respect to product development, clinical testing, approval or any other legal requirements relating to product manufacture, processing, handling, storage, quality control, safety, marketing, advertising, promotion, packaging, labeling, export, import, distribution, or sale, we may become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions or other legal consequences. These sanctions or consequences could include, among other things, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, issuance of clinical holds for ongoing studies, withdrawal of approvals, warning or untitled letters, product withdrawals or recalls, product seizures, relabeling or repackaging, total or partial suspensions of manufacturing or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

The process required by the FDA before our product candidates are approved as drugs for therapeutic indications and may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

​

Preclinical Studies and Clinical Trials for Drugs

Before testing any drug in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish the rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP requirements for safety/toxicology studies. The results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data must be submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial, including concerns that human research patients will be exposed to unreasonable health risks, and imposes a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND may result in the FDA not allowing clinical trials to commence or not allowing clinical trials to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research patients provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters and criteria to be used in monitoring safety and evaluating effectiveness. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trial are minimized and are reasonable related to the 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. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trials to public registries. Information about clinical trials, including clinical trials results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor can submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical trial not conducted under an IND if the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap.

​

​

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators fifteen days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human volunteers and any clinically important increase in the severity or rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug 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 manufacturers must develop, among other things, methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, 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. Marketing Approval for Drugs

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA must contain proof of the drug’s safety and efficacy. The marketing application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the U.S.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the NDA. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality and purity. Under the goals and polices agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard or priority NDAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Further, under PDUFA, as amended, each NDA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. 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 also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, program to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. The REMS program could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk-minimization tools.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, which 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 typically will 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 requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and other requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when those conditions have been met to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA will typically issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications.

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

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, 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 U.S., or if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the U.S. for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process, though companies developing orphan products are eligible for certain incentives, including tax credits for qualified clinical testing and waiver of application fees.

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 a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same therapeutic agent for the same indication, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product’s showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the original applicant cannot produce sufficient quantities of product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different therapeutic agents for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same therapeutic agent for a different indication than that for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval for the same therapeutic agent for the same indication before we do,

unless we are able to demonstrate that our product is clinically superior. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Further, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or the manufacturer of the approved product is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited Development and Review Programs for Drugs

The FDA maintains several programs intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. These programs include Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, and the purpose of these programs is to either expedite the development or review of important new drugs to get them to patients earlier than under standard FDA development and review procedures.

A new drug is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor interactions with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed, meaning that the agency may review portions of the marketing application before the sponsor submits the complete application, as well as Priority Review, discussed below.

In addition, a new drug may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation provides all the features of Fast Track designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for additional FDA programs intended to expedite the review and approval process, including Priority Review designation and Accelerated Approval. A product is eligible for Priority Review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious disease or condition. Under Priority Review, the FDA must review an application in six months compared to ten months for a standard review.

Additionally, products are eligible for Accelerated Approval if they can be shown to have an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality which 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.

Accelerated Approval is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional post-approval studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. The FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under Accelerated Approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the FDA currently requires, as a condition for Accelerated Approval, that all advertising and promotional materials that are intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, and that after 120 days following marketing approval, all advertising and promotional materials must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination or publication.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval but may expedite the development or review process.

U.S. Post-Approval Requirements for Drugs

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our contract manufacturers. Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, product seizures, injunctions, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. There is also a continuing, annual prescription drug product program user fee.

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, requirements for post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of

the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Healthcare Reform

In March 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of health spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry, and impose additional policy reforms. The ACA, for example, contains provisions that subject products to potential competition by lower-cost products and may reduce the profitability of products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs; address 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, increase 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; establish annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs; and create a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, 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.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, on June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress.  In addition, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is unclear how any additional challenges and healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted:

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for

products. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs to limit the growth of government paid healthcare costs. For example, the U.S. government has passed legislation requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide rebates and discounts to certain entities and governmental payors to participate in federal healthcare programs. Further, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Further, the Biden administration released an additional executive order on October 14, 2022, directing HHS to submit a report on how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation can be further leveraged to test new models for lowering drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. It is unclear whether this executive order or similar policy initiatives will be implemented in the future. Individual states in the U.S. have also been increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced, and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the sale, marketing, coverage, and reimbursement of products regulated by CMS or other government agencies. In addition to royalties,new legislation, CMS regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways significantly affecting our business and our products.

Other Healthcare Laws and Regulations

If we obtain regulatory approval of our products, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales and marketing strategies. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, and physician sunshine laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or paying remuneration (a term interpreted broadly to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, discounts and credits), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, an item or reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant civil monetary and criminal penalties, per kickback plus three times the amount of remuneration and a prison term per violation. Further, violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can also form the basis for False Claims Act liability (discussed below). A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any source, not only government programs.

Additionally, the civil False Claims Act (the “FCA”) prohibits knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the FCA can result in very significant monetary penalties, for each false claim and treble the amount of the government’s damages. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The federal

government continues to use the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigations and prosecutions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the U.S. Such investigations and prosecutions frequently involve, for example, the alleged promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with the FCA and other applicable fraud and abuse laws.

We may be subject to the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or transferring of remuneration to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services. Federal government price reporting laws require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs.

The U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, includes a fraud and abuse provision referred to as the HIPAA All-Payor Fraud Law, which imposes criminal and civil liability for executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

We may also be subject to federal transparency laws, including the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which was part of the ACA and requires manufacturers of certain drugs and biologics, among others, to track and disclose payments and other transfers of value they make to U.S. physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests in the manufacturer held by such physicians and their immediate family members. This information is subsequently made publicly available in a searchable format on a CMS website. Failure to disclose required information may result in civil monetary penalties for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians and/or other healthcare providers.

As noted above, analogous state laws and regulations, such as, state anti-kickback and false claims laws may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. There are also state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare

laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Data Privacy and Security

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal information, such as clinical trial data and other health data. Accordingly, we may be subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, including federal, state, local, and foreign laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements and other obligations related to data privacy and security.

​

These frameworks are evolving and may impose potentially conflicting obligations. Such obligations may include, without limitation, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) (collectively, “CCPA”), the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“EU GDPR”), the EU GDPR as it forms part of United Kingdom law by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“UK GDPR”), the ePrivacy Directive, and wiretapping laws. Further. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of protected health information.

Many states also have laws governing the privacy and security of health information and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.  For example, the CCPA applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal information of such California residents or households, requires covered companies to provide certain disclosures to such California residents about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and requires covered companies to provide such California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. In addition, the CPRA expanded the CCPA’s requirements.

Additionally, European data privacy and security laws (including the EU GDPR and UK GDPR) impose significant and complex compliance obligations on companies that are subject to those laws, notably with respect to the processing of health-related data from EEA or UK-based individuals.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Market acceptance and sales of approved products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations and other private health insurers. Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for any product candidate, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Patients are unlikely to use our drugs unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our drugs. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop.

​

Government Regulation of Drugs Outside of the United States

To market any product outside of the U.S., we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, manufacturing, commercial sales and distribution of our products. To obtain a Marketing Authorization, or MA, for a product in the European Economic Area, or the EEA (comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), for example an applicant must be established within the EEA. The applicant must submit a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EEA countries

(decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EEA.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid for all EEA countries. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products, or ATMPs, and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, authorization through the centralized procedure is optional on related approval.

Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, conducts the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure in the EEA, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized MA procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EEA country in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EEA countries who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the Heads of Medicines Agencies’ Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human, or CMDh, for review. The subsequent decision of the European Commission is binding on all EEA countries.

The mutual recognition procedure allows companies that have a medicinal product already authorized in one EEA country to apply for this authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EEA countries. Like the decentralized procedure, the mutual recognition procedure is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EEA countries of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EEA countries. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an EEA country requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another EEA country.

An MA has, in principle, an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EEA country in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the eCTD (Common Technical Document) providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EEA countries may decide on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (for a centralized MA) or on the market of the authorizing EEA country within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

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. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that target unmet

medical needs. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicinal product will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. 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 potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

In the EEA, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The European Commission may grant a conditional MA for a medicinal product if it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the medicinal product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; (iii) the medicinal product fulfils an unmet medical need; and (iv) the benefit of the immediate availability to patients of the medicinal product is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once any pending studies are provided, the conditional MA can be converted into a traditional MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA and approved by the European Commission, the MA will cease to be renewed.

An MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional MA, an MA granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually, and the MA will be withdrawn if the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

Upon grant of a MA in the EEA, innovative medicinal products generally benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator's pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. During the additional two year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator's data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity period. The overall ten year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

In the EEA, there is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided in support of an application for marketing authorization.  Guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product.

EU Post-Approval Requirements

Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EEA, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. 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 individual EEA countries. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that

system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAAs 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.

In the EEA, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EEA countries’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU legislation, the details are governed by regulations in individual EEA countries and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, as approved by the competent authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EEA. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products is also prohibited in the EEA.

Orphan designation in the EU

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EEA are similar in principle to those in the U.S. In the EEA a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) 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 such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, no marketing authorization application shall be accepted, and no marketing authorization shall be granted for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. An orphan product can also benefit from an additional two years of market exclusivity in the EU for pediatric studies. The ten-year market exclusivity period 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 orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Conduct of clinical trials in the EU

In the EU, clinical trials are governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, or CTR, which entered into application on January 31, 2022 repealing and replacing the former Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20, or CTD, and related national implementing legislation of EU Member States.

The CTR is intended to harmonize and streamline clinical trial authorizations, simplify adverse-event reporting procedures, improve the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. Specifically, the Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States, introduces a streamlined application procedure through a single-entry point, the "EU portal", the Clinical Trials Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application; as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors. A harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials has been introduced and is divided into two parts. Part I assessment is led by the competent authorities of a reference Member State selected by the trial sponsor and relates to clinical trial aspects that are considered to be scientifically harmonized across EU

Member States. This assessment is then submitted to the competent authorities of all concerned Member States in which the trial is to be conducted for their review. Part II is assessed separately by the competent authorities and Ethics Committees in each concerned EU Member State. Individual EU Member States retain the power to authorize the conduct of clinical trials on their territory.

The extent to which on-going clinical trials will be governed by the CTR will depend on the duration of the individual clinical trial. For clinical trials in relation to which application for approval was made on the basis of the CTD before January 31, 2022, the CTD will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. If authorized, those clinical trials will be governed by the CTD until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. The CTR will apply to clinical trials from an earlier date if the clinical trial has already transitioned to the CTR framework. Since January 31, 2023 all new requests for approval of clinical trials must be based on the CTR.

Should we utilize third-party distributors, compliance with such foreign governmental regulations would generally be the responsibility of such distributors, who may be independent contractors over whom we have limited control.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FD&C Act also can delay the submission or the approval of certain milestones paymentsapplications. The FD&C Act provides a five-year period of 1.25%non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FD&C Act also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. 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 all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2022, we had twenty-eight full-time employees and three part-time employees. Fourteen employees are based in Barcelona, Spain, eleven employees are based in Lugano, Switzerland, two employees are based in the U.K. and four employees are based in Bethesda, Maryland. Of these thirty-one employees, twenty-two are engaged in research and development activities and nine are engaged in finance, investor relations, business development and general management. Our employees in Spain are subject to a national collective labor agreement, the “Convenio General de la Industria Quimica”. National agreements are negotiated collectively between the national associations of companies within a given industry and the respective national unions. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good and have not experienced any work stoppages. In addition, we maintain consulting arrangements with a number of scientists at various universities and other research institutions in Europe, Switzerland and the United States, including with the four external members of our Scientific Advisory Board. Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. We maintain our equity incentive plan in order to attract, retain and incentivize our workforce through the granting of stock-based compensation. We also provide cash bonus awards based on Company progress toward key annual goals and employee performance.

Available Information

We maintain an internet website at www.gaintherapeutics.com and make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we

electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s web site at http://www.sec.gov. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, specifically the section titled “Investor Relations” as a source of information about us. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report and should not be considered to be part of this Annual Report. Our website address is included in this Annual Report as an inactive technical reference only.

​

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a history of operating losses and expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We may never generate revenues or, if we are able to generate revenues, achieve profitability.

We are focused on product development, and we have not generated any significant revenues to date. We have incurred losses in each year of our operations, and we expect to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. These operating losses have adversely affected and are likely to continue to adversely affect our working capital, total assets and shareholders’ equity.

We and our prospects should be examined in light of the risks and difficulties frequently encountered by new and early-stage companies in new and rapidly evolving markets. These risks include, among other things, the speed at which we can scale up operations, our complete dependence upon development of our product candidates that currently have no market acceptance, our ability to establish and expand our brand name, our ability to expand our operations to meet the commercial demand of our clients, our development of and reliance on strategic and customer relationships and our ability to minimize fraud and other security risks.

The process of developing our product candidates requires significant time, effort and expenses in preclinical, clinical and regulatory development. In addition, commercialization of our product candidates will require that we obtain necessary regulatory approvals and establish sales, marketing and manufacturing capabilities, either through internal hiring or through contractual relationships with others. We expect to incur substantial additional operating expenses over the next several years as our research, development, preclinical studies and clinical trial activities increase. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally incur higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. As a result, we expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase in the foreseeable future as we (i) increase personnel costs, including stock-based compensation, (ii) continue preclinical development of our lead compounds, (iii) initiate clinical trials for certain product candidates, (iv) continue to discover and develop additional product candidates, and (v) pursue later stages of clinical development of product candidates.  

The amount of future losses and when, if ever, we will achieve profitability are uncertain. We have no products that have generated any commercial revenue, do not expect to generate revenues from the commercial sale of products in the foreseeable future, and might never generate revenues from the sale of products. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability will depend on, among other things, successful completion of preclinical development and testing and clinical trials of our product candidates; obtaining necessary regulatory approvals from the FDA; establishing manufacturing, sales and marketing arrangements with third parties; successfully commercializing our products; establishing a favorable competitive position; and raising sufficient funds to finance our activities. Many of these factors will depend on circumstances beyond our control. We might not succeed at any of these undertakings. If we are unsuccessful at some or all of these undertakings, our business, prospects and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We have a limited operating history and we expect a number of factors to cause our operating results to fluctuate on a quarterly and annual basis, which may make it difficult to predict our future performance.

We are a preclinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Our operations to date have been primarily limited to organizing and staffing our company, expanding its operations, performing research, acquiring, developing and securing our in-licensed technology and preclinical development of our product candidates. We have not yet begun or successfully completed any clinical trials, completed Investigational New Drug (“IND”) enabling or Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) compliant studies for any of our product candidates, manufactured our products candidates at clinical or commercial scale or conducted sales and marketing activities that will be necessary to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or commercialized products. Our financial condition has varied significantly in the past and will continue to fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Factors relating to our business that may contribute to these fluctuations include, among other factors described elsewhere in this Annual Report:

Accordingly, the results of any consideration receivedquarterly or annual periods should not be relied upon as indications of future operating performance.

Risks Related to Product Development, Regulatory Approval, Manufacturing and Commercialization

We may conduct certain of our clinical trials for our product candidates outside of the U.S. which, among other risks, exposes us to the possibility that the FDA and other foreign equivalents may not accept data from such trials, in which case our development plans will be delayed, which could materially harm our business.

involving our product candidates. We have less control over the timing and other aspects of these preclinical studies and clinical trials than if we performed the monitoring and supervision entirely on our own. Third parties may not perform their responsibilities for our preclinical studies and clinical trials on our anticipated schedule or, for clinical trials, consistent with a clinical trial protocol. Delays in preclinical studies and clinical trials could significantly increase our product development costs and delay product commercialization. In addition, many of the factors that may cause, or lead to, a delay in the clinical trials may also ultimately lead to denial of regulatory approval of a product candidate.

The commencement of clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays in:

Once a clinical trial has begun, it may be delayed, suspended or terminated by us or the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including:

If clinical trials are unsuccessful, and we are not able to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates under development, we will not be able to commercialize these products, and therefore may not be able to generate sufficient revenues to support our business.

The disorders we seek to treat have low prevalence and it may be difficult to identify patients with these disorders, which may lead to delays in enrollment for our trials or slower commercial revenue if approved, and we may also face enrollment challenges as a result of other factors.

Genetically defined disorders generally, and especially those for which our current product candidates are targeted, have low incidence and prevalence. We expect to rely in part on relationships with clinical centers of excellence, key opinion leaders and patient advocacy groups to assist in identifying eligible patients, and any deterioration of those relationships could impede our ability to successfully enroll patients. Patient enrollment may be affected by other factors including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients with these diseases for our future clinical trials would result in significant delays and could require us to not initiate or to abandon clinical trials for one or more indications altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

Additionally, the reported number of people in the indication we aim to treat, as well as the people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates. The total addressable market opportunity for our product candidates will ultimately depend upon, among other things, the final approved product labeling for each of our product candidates, if our product candidates are approved for sale in our target indications, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, drug pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients globally may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Our product candidates are novel and still in development. If we are unable to successfully develop, receive regulatory approval for and commercialize our current or future product candidates, our business will be harmed.

Because the SEE-Tx® platform remains untested and our product candidates are in early stages of development, they will require extensive preclinical and clinical testing. Our product candidates will require significant additional development, preclinical and IND-enabling studies and clinical trials, regulatory clearances and additional investment by us or our collaborators before they can be commercialized. Our drug development methods may not lead to commercially viable drugs for any of several reasons. For example, we may fail to identify appropriate targets or compounds, our product candidates may fail to be safe and effective in clinical trials, or we may have inadequate financial or other resources to pursue development efforts for our product candidates. Also, third parties we rely on for preclinical development, such as the providers of supercomputer time needed for our SEE-Tx® platform and collaborators that provide us with materials and resources may fail to fulfill their obligations to us in a timely manner or at all and the development of our product candidates could be significantly delayed as a result. In addition, we are still developing proof of concept for our product candidates in animals and positive data from animal models may not be predictive of positive human results and patients may have side effects that were not observed in animals.

Further, we and our product candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries governing, among other things, research, testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, labeling, promotion, selling, adverse event reporting and recordkeeping. Obtaining FDA approval is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. If required regulatory registrations or approvals are delayed, denied, withdrawn or if the regulatory authorities question the efficacy of our new small molecules as a treatment, such events are likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and/or prospects.

We have not tested any of our product candidates in clinical trials. Success in early preclinical studies or clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained in later preclinical studies and clinical trials.

We have not tested any of our product candidates in clinical trials. Success in early preclinical studies or any clinical trials we may conduct not be indicative of results obtained in later preclinical studies and clinical trials.

We will be required to demonstrate through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective, with a favorable benefit-risk profile, for use in their target indications before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Trial designs and results from early-phase trials are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial designs or results, and initial positive results we may observe may not be confirmed in later-phase clinical trials. Our product candidates may also fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development even if they successfully advance through initial clinical trials. We may not be able to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our STAR molecules in our clinical trials. Even if our clinical trials demonstrate acceptable safety and efficacy of STAR molecules for a targeted disease, the labeling we obtain through negotiations with the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may not include data on secondary endpoints and may not provide us with a competitive advantage over other products approved for the same or similar indications.

Many companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development and there is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. We may face similar setbacks or failures. Different methodologies, assumptions and applications we utilize to assess particular safety or efficacy parameters may yield different statistical results. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, these data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Preclinical and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways. Accordingly, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could interpret these data in different ways from us or our partners, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. If our study data do not consistently or sufficiently demonstrate the safety or efficacy of any of our product candidates, then the regulatory approvals for such product candidates could be significantly delayed as we work to meet approval requirements, or, if we are not able to meet these requirements, such approvals could be withheld or withdrawn. Regulatory delays or rejections may also be encountered as a result of many other factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development.

The approach we are taking to discover and develop our product candidates is novel and may never lead to marketable products.

We have concentrated our efforts and research and development activities on our novel small molecules for potential treatment of rare and genetic diseases caused by protein misfolding and SEE-Tx®, our target identification platform. Our future success depends on the successful development of such product candidates, including our ability to successfully complete IND-enabling and GLP-compliant preclinical studies, and the effectiveness of our platform. The scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop new drugs are relatively new. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing drugs based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. Skepticism as to the feasibility of developing small molecules of this type that can cross the blood-brain barrier generally has been, and may continue to be, expressed in scientific literature. In addition, decisions by other companies with respect to their therapeutic development efforts may increase skepticism in the marketplace regarding the potential for potential therapeutics. There are currently no companies with approved drugs for these indications that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

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

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

Clinical trials required for our product candidates are expensive and time-consuming, and their outcome is uncertain.

To obtain FDA approval to market a new pharmaceutical product, we must demonstrate proof of safety and effectiveness in humans. To meet these requirements, we must conduct “adequate and well controlled” clinical trials. Conducting clinical trials is a lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive process. The length of time may vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty, and intended use of the product candidate, and often can be several years or more per study. Delays in clinical trials for our product candidates may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. The commencement and rate of completion of clinical trials may be delayed by many factors, including, for example: inability to manufacture sufficient quantities of stable and qualified materials under current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) for use in clinical trials; slower than expected rates of patient recruitment; failure to recruit a sufficient number of patients, which is a common issue in studies for rare disorders such as the indications we are currently pursuing; modification of clinical trial protocols; changes in regulatory requirements for clinical trials; the lack of effectiveness during clinical trials; the emergence of unforeseen safety issues; delays, suspension, or termination of the clinical trials due to the investigatory authority responsible for overseeing the trial at a particular trial site; and government or regulatory delays or “clinical holds” requiring suspension or termination of the studies.

Our clinical trials may be conducted in patients with neurodegenerative diseases, and in some cases, our product candidates are expected to be used in combination with approved therapies that themselves have significant adverse event profiles. During the course of treatment, these patients could suffer adverse medical events or die for reasons that may or may not be related to our product candidates. Any safety issues that arise with respect to our product candidates may delay or prevent clinical development.

The failure of clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness for the desired indications could harm the development of that product candidate and other product candidates that use a similar therapeutic approach. This failure could cause us to abandon a product candidate and could delay development of other product candidates. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials would delay our ability to obtain regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates and generate product revenues. Any change in, or termination of, our clinical trials could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have limited experience as a company conducting clinical trials and may be unable to complete pivotal clinical trials for any product candidates we may develop.

We are not yet a clinical stage company and our success is dependent upon our ability to initiate and successfully complete clinical trials and obtain regulatory approval for and commercialization of our product candidates. We have not demonstrated an ability to perform the functions necessary for the approval or successful commercialization of any product candidate. The successful commercialization of any product candidate may require us to perform a variety of functions, including:

We have limited experience designing, conducting and enrolling subjects in clinical trials. While certain members of our management and staff have significant experience in conducting clinical trials, to date, we have not successfully begun or completed any clinical trials as a company. Until recently, our operations have been limited primarily to organizing and staffing our company, expanding its operations, performing research, acquiring, developing and securing our in-licensed technology and preclinical development of our product candidates. These operations provide a limited basis to assess our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

Because of this lack of experience, any future clinical trials we may conduct may not be completed on time, if at all. Large-scale trials require significant additional financial and management resources, monitoring and oversight, and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, consultants or contract research organizations (“CROs”). Relying on third-party clinical investigators, CROs and manufacturers, which are all also subject to governmental oversight and regulations, may also cause us to encounter delays that are outside of our control.

In addition, we are still in the drug discovery and preclinical development stage for our product candidates and have not yet begun discussions with the FDA as to the design, structure and number of clinical trials that our product candidates would require for approval. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently advance any candidates we select for clinical trials or execute and complete necessary GLP-compliant preclinical and IND-enabling studies in a way that leads to IND submission and approval of any product candidate. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of any product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, future planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing our product candidates.

We are subject to extensive and costly government regulation.

Product candidates employing our technology are subject to extensive and rigorous domestic government regulation including regulation by the FDA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Justice, state and local governments and their respective foreign equivalents. The FDA regulates the research, development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, manufacture, safety, effectiveness, record-keeping, reporting, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export of biopharmaceutical products. If products employing our technologies are marketed abroad, they will also be subject to extensive regulation by foreign governments, whether or not they have obtained the FDA’s approval for a given product and its uses. Such foreign regulation may be equally or more demanding than corresponding United States regulation.

Government regulation substantially increases the cost and risk of researching, developing, manufacturing and selling our products. The regulatory review and approval process, which includes preclinical studies and clinical trials of each product candidate, is lengthy, expensive, and uncertain. We or our collaborators must obtain and maintain regulatory authorization to conduct clinical trials. We or our collaborators must obtain regulatory approval for each product we intend to market, and the manufacturing facilities used for the products must be inspected and meet legal requirements. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and other supporting information for each proposed therapeutic indication in order to establish the product’s safety and efficacy, and in the case of biologics also potency and purity, for each intended use. The development and approval process takes many years, requires substantial resources, and may never lead to the approval of a product.

Even if we are able to obtain regulatory approval for a particular product, the approval may limit the indicated medical uses for the product, may otherwise limit our ability to promote, sell, and distribute the product, may require that we conduct costly post-marketing surveillance, and/or may require that we conduct ongoing post-marketing studies. Material changes to an approved product, such as, for example, manufacturing changes or revised labeling, may require further regulatory review and approval. Once obtained, any approvals may be withdrawn, including, for example, if there is a later discovery of previously unknown problems with the product, such as a previously unknown safety issue.

If we, our collaborators, or our manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements at any stage during the regulatory process, such noncompliance could result in, among other things delays in the approval of applications or supplements to approved applications; refusal of a regulatory authority, including the FDA, to review pending market approval applications or supplements to approved applications; warning letters; fines; import and/or export restrictions; product recalls or seizures; injunctions; total or partial suspension of production; civil penalties; withdrawals of previously approved marketing applications or licenses; recommendations by the FDA or other regulatory authorities against governmental contracts; and/or criminal prosecutions.

If we decide to pursue a Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek Fast Track Designation for one or more of our product candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical

needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

If we decide to seek Orphan Drug Designation for some of our product candidates, we may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug Designation, including the potential for supplemental market exclusivity.

As part of our business strategy, we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for one or more of our product candidates, and we may be unsuccessful. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as a tax credit. Opportunities for grant funding toward clinical trial costs may also be available for clinical trials of drugs for rare diseases, regardless of whether the drugs are designated for the orphan use. In addition, if a product that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances.

Even if we obtain Orphan Drug Designation for our product candidates in specific indications, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval of these product candidates for the orphan-designated indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. If a competitor with a product that is determined by the FDA to be the same as one of our product candidates obtains marketing approval before us for the same indication we are pursuing and obtains orphan drug exclusivity, our product candidate may not be approved until the period of exclusivity ends unless we are able to demonstrate that our product candidate is clinically superior. Even after obtaining approval, we may be limited in our ability to market our product. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different principal molecular structural features can be approved for the same condition. Orphan Drug Designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. While we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for our product candidates, we may never receive such designation.

We do not have, and may never obtain, the regulatory approvals we need to market our product candidates.

Following completion of clinical trials, the results are evaluated and, depending on the outcome, an NDA is submitted to the FDA to obtain the FDA’s approval of the product and authorization to commence commercial marketing. In responding to an NDA, the FDA may require additional testing or information, may require that the product labeling be modified, may impose post-approval study and other commitments or reporting requirements or other restrictions on product distribution, or may deny the application. The FDA has established performance goals for review of NDAs: six months for priority applications and ten months for standard applications. However, the FDA is not required to complete its review within these time periods. The timing of final review by the FDA and action varies greatly but can take years in some cases and may involve the input of an FDA advisory committee of outside experts. Product sales in the United States may commence only when an NDA is approved.

To date, we have not applied for or received the regulatory approvals required for the commercial sale of any of our products in the United States or in any foreign jurisdiction. None of our product candidates have been determined to be safe and effective, and we have not submitted an IND or an NDA to the FDA or an equivalent application to any foreign regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates.

It is possible that none of our product candidates will be approved for marketing. Failure to obtain regulatory approvals, or delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, may adversely affect the successful commercialization of any drugs or biologics that we or our partners develop, may impose additional costs on us or our collaborators, may diminish any competitive advantages that we or our partners may attain, and/or may adversely affect our receipt of revenues or royalties.

Our product candidates may cause serious adverse events (“SAEs”) or undesirable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval, or, if approval is received, require them to be taken off the market, require them to include safety warnings or otherwise limit their sales.

SAEs or undesirable side effects from our product candidates could arise either during development or, if approved, after the approved product has been marketed. The results of future clinical trials may show that our product candidates cause SAEs or undesirable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, resulting in delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities.

If any of our product candidates cause SAEs or undesirable side effects or suffer from quality control issues:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from the sale of our Companyproducts.

Even if approved, our products will be subject to extensive post-approval regulation.

Once a product is approved, numerous post-approval requirements apply. Among other things, the holder of an approved NDA is subject to periodic and other monitoring and reporting obligations by the FDA, including obligations to monitor and report adverse events and instances of the failure of a product to meet the specifications in the NDA. Application holders must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain the FDA’s approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. Application holders must also submit advertising and other promotional material to the FDA and report on ongoing clinical trials.

Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet these post-approval requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if we comply with the FDA’s and others’ requirements, new information regarding the safety or effectiveness of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, our product candidates may not be accepted by the market.

Even if the FDA approves one or more of our product candidates, physicians and patients may not accept it or use it. Even if physicians and patients would like to use our products, our products may not gain market acceptance among healthcare payors such as managed care formularies, insurance companies or government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. Acceptance and use of our products will depend upon a number of factors including: perceptions by members of the health care community, including physicians, about the safety and effectiveness of our drug or device product; cost-effectiveness of our product relative to competing products; availability of reimbursement for our product from government or other healthcare payors; and effectiveness of marketing and distribution efforts by us and our licensees and distributors, if any.

The degree of market acceptance of any pharmaceutical product that we develop will depend on a number of factors, including:

Because we expect sales of our current product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our product revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of these products to find market acceptance would harm our business and require us to seek additional financing, which may not be available.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements; Competition

We will need to raise additional capital, which may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates, and additional capital may not be available on favorable terms or at all, which may force us to  delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate our research and development programs, reduce our commercialization efforts or curtail our operations.  

To develop and bring our product candidates to market, we must commit substantial resources to costly and time-consuming research, preclinical studies and clinical trials and marketing activities. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to seek additional funding to meet our operational needs and capital requirements. While we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2024, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner

than we expect, including if our business or operations change in a manner that consumes available resources more rapidly than we anticipate. Our requirements for additional capital will depend on many factors, including:

We expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, government or private party grants, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. We do not currently have any other committed external sources of funds. To the extent we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interest will or could be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights as a common stockholder. In addition, if we obtain debt financing, a substantial portion of our operating cash flow may be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness, thus limiting funds available for our business activities. In addition, debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or product candidates, grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us or commit to future payment streams.

We will require substantial additional funds to support our research and development activities, and the anticipated costs of preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory approvals and eventual commercialization. Such additional sources of financing may not be available on favorable terms, if at all, including as a result of actions taken by central banks to counter inflation, volatility in the capital markets and related market uncertainty.  If we do not succeed in raising additional funds on acceptable terms, we may be unable to commence or complete clinical trials or obtain approval of any product candidates from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. In addition, we could be forced to discontinue product development, forego sales and marketing efforts and forego attractive business opportunities.

Our continued operations may be in jeopardy and we may be forced to cease operations and sell or otherwise transfer all or substantially all of our remaining assets.

We face intense competition in the markets targeted by our product candidates. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources than we do, and we expect that all of our product candidates under development will face intense competition from existing or future drugs.

We expect that all of our product candidates under development, if approved, will face intense competition from existing and future drugs marketed by large companies. These competitors may successfully market products that compete with our products, successfully identify product candidates or develop products earlier than we do, or develop products that are more effective, have fewer side effects or cost less than our products.

Additionally, if a competitor receives FDA approval before we do for a drug that is similar to one of our product candidates, FDA approval for our product candidate may be precluded or delayed due to periods of non-patent

exclusivity and/or the listing with the FDA by the competitor of patents covering its newly-approved drug product. Periods of non-patent exclusivity for new versions of existing drugs can extend up to three and one-half years.

These competitive factors could require us to conduct substantial new research and development activities to establish new product targets, which would be costly and time consuming. These activities would adversely affect our ability to commercialize products and achieve revenue and profits.

Competition and technological change may make our product candidates and technologies less attractive or obsolete.

We compete with companies that are pursuing other forms of treatment for the same or similar indications we are pursuing, including established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and that have greater financial and other resources. While we are not currently aware of any other companies that are taking the same therapeutic approach to protein folding disorders similar to the ones we are pursuing, we are aware of companies developing products for the same target indications. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors.

Other companies may succeed in developing products earlier than us, obtaining FDA approval for products more rapidly, or developing products that are more effective than our product candidates. Research and development by others may render our technology or product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive, or result in treatments or cures superior to any therapy we develop. For example, other companies may succeed in developing a technology that addresses protein misfolding and proves to be more effective or is more readily accepted than STARs. We face competition from companies that internally develop competing technology or acquire competing technology from universities and other research institutions. As these companies develop their technologies, they may develop competitive positions that may prevent, make futile, or limit our product commercialization efforts, which would result in a decrease in the revenue we would be able to derive from the sale of any products.

We may not be able to obtain marketplace acceptance for any of our product candidates as readily as these or other competing treatments. Furthermore, if our competitors’ products are approved before ours, it could be more difficult for us to obtain approval from the FDA, and if they are commercialized before ours they may establish a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Even if our products are successfully developed and approved for use by all governing regulatory bodies, physicians and patients may not accept our products as a treatment of choice.

The pharmaceutical research industry is diverse, complex, and rapidly changing, and inherently involves significant and numerous business risks. The effects of competition, intellectual property disputes, market acceptance, and FDA regulations, among other factors described herein, preclude us from forecasting revenues or income with certainty or even confidence.

Our business and operations may be adversely affected by health epidemics or pandemics.

Our business and operations may be adversely affected by pandemics or epidemics,  including due to business interruptions caused by travel restrictions, quarantines, “stay-at-home” and "shelter-in-place" orders, shutdowns requested or mandated by governmental authorities, or staffing shortages while employees quarantine as a result of exposure to or transmission of the virus.

Previously, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the declaration of a global pandemic and adversely affected economic activity across virtually all sectors and industries on a local, national, and global scale. It resulted in travel and other restrictions in order to reduce the spread of the disease, including government-imposed prohibitions on non-essential operations at physical locations, gatherings and events and travel. As a result of such restrictions, we had implemented a work-from-home policy allowing employees who can work from home to do so.  Following the lifting of pandemic-era restrictions, we have transitioned to a hybrid work schedule of in-office work and at-home work consistent with business needs and job requirements. Business travel was previously suspended but is now reduced compared to pre-pandemic levels as online and teleconference technology has been adopted and continues to be used regularly. In addition, COVID-19 restrictions impacted our third-party manufacturers, including one in China, and has previously disrupted, and may in the future disrupt, our ability to obtain manufacturing services.While restrictions have been lifted in places where we operate, future similar government orders or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations and travel related to the COVID-19 pandemic may negatively impact productivity and may disrupt

our ongoing and planned research and development activities. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a broad negative impact globally on capital markets and economies worldwide.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, and the extent to which it may impact our business is uncertain and difficult to predict. The magnitude of the negative effects of COVID-19 will depend, in part, on the length and severity of any restrictions imposed, as well as on the emergence, infectiousness and severity of new variants. New health epidemics or pandemics may emerge that result in similar or more severe disruptions to our business.

​

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We rely on a license to use the technology that is material to our business and if the agreements underlying the licenses were to be terminated or if other rights that may be necessary for commercializing our intended products cannot be obtained, it would halt our ability to market our products and technology, as well as have an immediate material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.

products either in the United States or in international markets; there may be significant pressure on the United States government and other international governmental bodies to limit the scope of patent protection both inside and outside the United States for treatments that prove successful as a matter of public policy regarding worldwide health concerns; and countries other than the United States may have less robust patent laws than those upheld by United States courts, allowing foreign competitors the ability to exploit these laws to create, develop, and market competing products using our technologies and patents.

Moreover, any patents issued to us may not provide us with meaningful protection, or others may challenge, circumvent or narrow our patents. Third parties may also independently develop products similar to our products, duplicate our unpatented products or design around any patents or proprietary technologies on products we develop. Additionally, extensive time is required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product. While extensions of patent terms due to regulatory delays may be available, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent, even with an extension, may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantages to us of the patent.

In addition, the PTO and patent offices in other jurisdictions have often required that patent applications concerning pharmaceutical and/or biotechnology-related inventions be limited or narrowed substantially to cover only the innovations specifically exemplified in the patent application, thereby limiting the scope of protection against competitive challenges. Thus, even if we or our licensors are able to obtain patents, the patents may be substantially narrower than anticipated, which could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

Our success depends on our patents and patent applications that may be licensed exclusively to us and other patents and patent applications to which we may obtain assignment or licenses. We may not be aware, however, of all patents, published applications or published literature that may affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our product candidates, by preventing the patentability of our product candidates by us or our licensors, or by covering the same or similar technologies. These patents, patent applications, and published literature may limit the scope of our future patent claims or adversely affect our ability to market our product candidates. We have not conducted any formal search of patents issued to third parties, and third-party patents containing claims covering our product candidates that predate our patents may exist. Because of the number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our technical areas or fields, our competitors or other third parties may assert that our product candidates are covered by United States or foreign patents held by them.

In addition to patents, we rely on a combination of trade secrets, confidentiality, nondisclosure and other contractual provisions, and security measures to protect our confidential and proprietary information. These measures may not adequately protect our trade secrets or other proprietary information. If they do not adequately protect our rights, third parties could use our technology, and we could lose any competitive advantage we may have. In addition, others may independently develop similar proprietary information or techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets, which could impair any competitive advantage we may have.

Patent protection and other intellectual property protection is crucial to the success of our business and prospects, and there is a substantial risk that such protections will prove inadequate.

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

The pharmaceutical industry has been characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights, and companies have employed intellectual property litigation to gain a competitive advantage. We may become subject to infringement claims or litigation arising out of present and future patents and other proceedings of our competitors. The defense and prosecution of intellectual property suits are costly and time-consuming to pursue, divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel, and their outcome is uncertain. Litigation may be necessary to determine the enforceability, scope, and validity of the proprietary rights of others. An adverse determination in litigation to which we may become a party could subject us to significant liabilities, require us to obtain licenses from third parties, or restrict or prevent us from selling our products in certain markets. Although patent and intellectual property disputes might be settled through licensing or similar arrangements, the costs associated with such arrangements may be substantial and could include our paying large, fixed payments and ongoing royalties. Furthermore, the necessary licenses may not be available on satisfactory terms or at all.

Competitors may infringe our patents, and we may file infringement claims to counter infringement or unauthorized use. Third parties may assert that our patents are invalid and/or unenforceable in these proceedings. Such litigation can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover its technology. An adverse determination of any litigation or defense proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly.

Third parties may also assert that our patents are invalid in patent office administrative proceedings. These proceedings include oppositions in the European Patent Office and inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the PTO. The success rate of these administrative challenges to patent validity in the United States is higher than it is for validity challenges in litigation.

Interference or derivation proceedings brought before the PTO may be necessary to determine priority of inventions disclosed in our patents or patent applications. Determining whether a product infringes a patent, as well as priority of inventions and other patent-related disputes, involves complex legal and factual issues and the outcome is often uncertain. During these proceedings, it may be determined that we do not have priority of invention for one or more aspects in our patents or patent applications and could result in the invalidation in part or whole of a patent or could put a patent application at risk of not issuing. Even if successful, an interference or derivation proceeding may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management.

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

Also, a third party may assert that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. There are not currently any unresolved communications, allegations, complaints or threats of litigation that claim our patents are invalid or unenforceable. Any litigation or claims against us, whether or not merited, may result in substantial costs, place a significant strain on our financial resources, divert the attention of management and harm our reputation. An adverse decision in litigation or administrative proceedings could result in inadequate protection for our product candidates and/or reduce the value of any license agreements we have with third parties.

If we infringe the rights of third parties, we could be prevented from selling products or forced to pay damages and defend against litigation.

If our products, methods, processes and other technologies infringe the proprietary rights of other parties, we could incur substantial costs and we may have to: obtain licenses, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all; abandon an infringing product candidate; redesign our products or processes to avoid infringement; stop using the subject matter claimed in the patents held by others; pay damages; and/or defend litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly whether we win or lose, and which could result in a substantial diversion of our financial and management resources.

In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue and because publication schedules for pending applications vary by jurisdiction, there may be applications now pending of which we are unaware, and which may result in issued patents that our future products would infringe. Also, because the claims of published patent applications can change between publication and patent grant, there may be published patent applications that may ultimately issue with claims that we infringe.

We have licensed all of the rights, assets and technology related to the SEE-Tx® platform from Minoryx and we believe that they owned all of such rights prior to our license. Although, to our knowledge, no third party has asserted a claim of infringement or other claim against us, others may hold or claim to hold proprietary or other rights that could prevent our SEE-Tx® platform from being developed or marketed. Any legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to our SEE-Tx® platform or our processes could subject us to potential liability for damages and require us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market any future product candidates based upon the SEE-Tx® platform. We may not prevail in any such actions and any license required under any of these patents may not be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition,

we may not be able to redesign any future product candidates or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing our future product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

Risks Related to Third Parties and Collaborators

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

We expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we will have limited influence over their actual performance. We will control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that our clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs are required to comply with the FDA’s Good Clinical Practices (“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 clinical trial participants are protected. The FDA enforces these GCPs through periodic inspections of study sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving any marketing applications. Upon inspection, the FDA may determine that our clinical trials did not comply with GCPs. In addition, our clinical trials will require enrollment and participation of a sufficiently large number of patients to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of our product candidates. Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or fail to recruit a sufficient number of participants, our clinical trials may be delayed or we may be required to repeat such clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Our CROs are not our employees, and we are not able to control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical trials. These CROs may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other drug development activities which could harm our competitive position.

If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for such product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

We intend to rely on third parties to manufacture the compounds used in our studies, and we intend to rely on them for the manufacture of any approved products for commercial sale. If these third parties do not manufacture our product candidates in sufficient quantities and at an acceptable cost, clinical development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed, prevented or impaired.

We have no manufacturing facilities and we intend to rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) to manufacture some or all of our product candidates in future clinical trials and our products that reach commercialization. Initiation and completion of our clinical trials and commercialization of our product candidates requires the manufacture of a sufficient supply of our product candidates. If, for any reason, we become unable to rely on these third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates, either for clinical trials or, in the event any of our product candidates are approved, for commercial quantities, then we would need to identify and contract with additional or replacement third-party manufacturers to manufacture compounds for preclinical, clinical and commercial purposes, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms or at all, or we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to

change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations.

We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidates according to any specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a CMO may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such CMO owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such CMO or require us to obtain a license from such CMO in order to have another CMO manufacture our product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

We believe that there are a variety of manufacturers that we may be able to retain to produce these products. However, we may be in competition with other companies for access to these manufacturers’ facilities and may be subject to delays in manufacture if the manufacturers give other clients higher priority than they give to us. If we are unable to secure and maintain third-party manufacturing capacity, the development and sales of our products and our financial performance may be materially affected. In addition, once we retain a manufacturing source, if our manufacturers do not perform in a satisfactory manner, we may not be able to develop or commercialize potential products as planned. Certain specialized manufacturers are expected to provide us with modified and unmodified pharmaceutical compounds, including finished products, for use in our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Some of these materials are available from only one supplier or vendor. Any interruption in or termination of service by such sole source suppliers could result in a delay or interruption in manufacturing until we locate an alternative source of supply. Any delay or interruption in our future supply chain and manufacturing operations (or failure to locate a suitable replacement for such suppliers) as a result of pandemics or epidemics, global geopolitical conflicts or broader global supply chain disruptions, may affect their ability to deliver products to us in a timely manner and, could materially adversely affect our business, prospects, or results of operations. For example, supply chain issues have occurred and may continue to occur as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the war between Ukraine and Russia and sanctions resulting therefrom, and global geopolitical tension, including as a result of impacts on energy availability and prices and natural materials availability and prices. We also have a third-party manufacturer in China, which may be impacted by heightened tensions between the United States and China. If we fail to contract for manufacturing on acceptable terms or if third-party manufacturers do not perform as we expect, our development programs could be materially adversely affected. This may result in delays in filing for and receiving FDA approval for one or more of our products or prevent such approval entirely. Any such delays or failures to obtain regulatory approval could cause our prospects to suffer significantly.

​

Failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with the regulatory guidelines set forth by the FDA with respect to our product candidates could delay or prevent the completion of clinical trials, the approval of any product candidates or the commercialization of our products.

Third-party manufacturers must be inspected by the FDA for cGMP compliance before they can produce commercial products.

We may be in competition with other companies for access to these manufacturers’ facilities and may be subject to delays in manufacture if the manufacturers give other clients higher priority than they give to us. If we are unable to secure and maintain third-party manufacturing capacity, the development and sales of our products and our financial performance may be materially affected.

Manufacturers are obligated to operate in accordance with FDA-mandated requirements. A failure of any of our third-party manufacturers to establish and follow cGMP requirements and to document their adherence to such practices may lead to significant delays in the availability of material for clinical trials, may delay or prevent filing or approval of marketing applications for our products, and may cause delays or interruptions in the availability of our products for commercial distribution following FDA approval. This could result in higher costs to us or deprive us of potential product revenues.

Drug manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and corresponding state and foreign agencies to ensure strict compliance with

cGMP requirements and other requirements under federal drug laws, other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. If we or our third-party manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulations, sanctions could be imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure by the government to grant marketing approval of drugs, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls of product, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions.

Corporate and academic collaborators may take actions to delay, prevent, or undermine the success of our products.

Our operating and financial strategy for the development, clinical testing, manufacture, and commercialization of product candidates is heavily dependent on our entering into collaborations with corporations, academic institutions, licensors, licensees, and other parties and we may not be successful in establishing such collaborations. Some of our existing collaborations are, and future collaborations may be, terminable at the sole discretion of the collaborator. Replacement collaborators might not be available on attractive terms, or at all. The activities of any collaborator will not be within our control and may not be within our power to influence. Any collaborators may not perform their obligations to our satisfaction, or at all, we may not derive any revenue or profits from such collaborations, and any collaborators may ultimately compete with us. If any collaboration is not pursued, we may require substantially greater capital to undertake development and marketing of our proposed products and may not be able to develop and market such products effectively, if at all. In addition, a lack of development and marketing collaborations may lead to significant delays in introducing proposed products into certain markets and/or reduced sales of proposed products in such markets.

Data provided by collaborators and others upon which we rely that has not been independently verified could turn out to be false, misleading, or incomplete.

We rely on third-party vendors, scientists and collaborators to provide us with significant data and other information related to our projects, clinical trials and our business. If such third parties provide inaccurate, misleading or incomplete data, our business, prospects and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

If we fail to establish marketing, sales and distribution capabilities, or fail to enter into arrangements with third parties, we will not be able to create a market for our product candidates.

Our strategy for our product candidates is to control, directly or through contracted third parties, all or most aspects of the product development process, including marketing, sales and distribution. Currently, we do not have any sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. In order to generate sales of any product candidates that receive regulatory approval, we must either acquire or develop an internal marketing and sales force with technical expertise and with supporting distribution capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services for us. The acquisition or development of a sales and distribution infrastructure would require substantial resources, which may divert the attention of our management and key personnel and defer our product development efforts.

To the extent that we enter into marketing and sales arrangements with other companies, our revenues will depend on the efforts of others. These efforts may not be successful. If we fail to develop sales, marketing and distribution channels, or enter into arrangements with third parties, we will experience delays in product sales and incur increased costs.

Sales of pharmaceutical products largely depend on the reimbursement of patients’ medical expenses by government health care programs and private health insurers. Without the financial support of the government or third-party payors, the market for our products will be limited. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost effectiveness of medical products and services. Recent proposals to change the health care system in the United States have included measures that would limit or eliminate payments for medical products and services or subject the pricing of medical treatment products to government control. Significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products. Third-party payors may not reimburse sales of our products or enable our collaborators to sell them at profitable prices.

Our business strategy might involve out-licensing product candidates to or collaborating with larger firms with experience in marketing and selling pharmaceutical products. We may not be able to successfully establish marketing, sales, or distribution relationships and such relationships, if established, may not be successful. Further, we may not be successful in gaining market acceptance for our products. To the extent that we enter into any marketing, sales, or distribution arrangements with third parties, our product revenues will be lower than if we marketed and sold