UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  ☒                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.

12780 El Camino Real

San Diego, CA 92130

Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders

To Be Held on May 22, 20172019

TO THE STOCKHOLDERS:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), will be held on May 22, 2017,2019, at 10:30 a.m., local time, at the Company’s corporate headquarters located at 12780 El Camino Real, San Diego, California 92130, for the following purposes as more fully described in the Proxy Statement accompanying this Notice:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on March 31, 201729, 2019 are entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

All stockholders are cordially invited to attend the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in person. However,Your vote is important. Whether or not you plan to assure your representation atattend the Annual Meeting, of Stockholders,we hope you are urged to mark, sign, date and returnwill vote as soon as possible. You may vote over the enclosed proxy cardInternet, as promptlywell as possible in the postage prepaid envelope, or vote by telephone or internet (instructions have been providedby mailing a proxy or voting instruction form. Please review the instructions on each of your voting options described in these proxy card).materials. Stockholders attending the Annual Meeting may vote in person even if they have returned a proxy.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

San Diego, California

April 20, 201717, 2019

NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.

12780 El Camino Real

San Diego, California 92130

PROXY STATEMENT

The enclosedThis Proxy is solicited on behalf of Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Neurocrine”), for use at its 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to be held on May 22, 20172019 beginning at 10:30 a.m., local time, or at any continuations, postponements or adjournments thereof for the purposes set forth in this proxy statement and the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Annual Meeting will be held at the Company’s corporate headquarters, located at 12780 El Camino Real, San Diego, California 92130. The Company’s phone number is(858) 617-7600.

ThisABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Why did I receive these proxy statementmaterials?

The Company has sent you these proxy materials because the Board of Directors of the Company is being first mailedsoliciting your proxy to vote at the Annual Meeting, including at any adjournments or postponements of the Annual Meeting. You are invited to attend the Annual Meeting to vote on the proposals described in this proxy statement. However, you do not need to attend the Annual Meeting to vote your shares. Instead, you may simply complete, sign and return the enclosed proxy card, or follow the instructions on the enclosed proxy card to submit your proxy over the telephone or Internet.

We intend to mail these proxy materials on or about April 20, 201722, 2019 to all stockholdersshareholders of record entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

What is the purpose of the Annual Meeting?

At the Annual Meeting, stockholders will act upon the matters outlined in the Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders on the cover page of thisthese proxy statement,materials, including the election of the threetwo nominees for Class IIIII Director named herein, an advisory vote on the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, an advisory vote on the frequency of advisory voting on the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, approval of an amendment increasing the number of shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the Company’s 2011 Equity Incentive Plan from 15,500,00019,000,000 to 17,000,000,21,000,000, and ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017.2019. In addition, following the Annual Meeting, management will report on the performance of the Company and respond to questions from stockholders.

Who can attend the Annual Meeting?

All stockholders of record at the close of business on March 31, 201729, 2019 (the “Record Date”), or their duly appointed proxies, may attend the Annual Meeting. If you attend, please note that you may be asked to present valid picture identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Cameras, recording devices and other electronic devices will not be permitted at the Annual Meeting.

Please also note that if you hold your shares in “street name” (that is, through a broker or other nominee), you will need to bring a copy of a brokerage statement reflecting your stock ownership as of the record date and check in at the registration desk at the Annual Meeting.

1

Who is entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting?

Stockholders of record at the close of business on the Record Date are entitled to receive notice of and to participate in the Annual Meeting. At the close of business on the Record Date, 87,519,91091,284,279 shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share, were issued and outstanding. If you were a stockholder of record on that date, you will be entitled to vote all of the shares that you held on that date at the Annual Meeting, or any continuations, postponements or adjournments of the Annual Meeting.

1

Each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock will be entitled to one vote on each proposal considered at the Annual Meeting.

What constitutes a quorum? What are brokernon-votes? What are advisory votes?

The presence at the Annual Meeting, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the aggregate voting power of the common stock outstanding on the Record Date will constitute a quorum, permitting the Company to conduct its business at the Annual Meeting. As of the Record Date, 87,519,91091,284,279 shares of common stock, representing the same number of votes, were outstanding. Thus, the presence of the holders of common stock representing at least 43,759,95645,642,140 shares will be required to establish a quorum. The presence of a quorum will be determined by the Inspector of Elections (the “Inspector”).

Proxies received but marked as abstentions, as well as “brokernon-votes,” will be included in the calculation of the number of shares considered to be present at the Annual Meeting. Brokernon-votes occur when a holder of shares in “street name” does not give instructions to the broker or nominee holding the shares as to how to vote on “non-routine”“non-routine” matters. Under the rules and interpretations of the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), “non-routine”“non-routine” matters are matters that may substantively affect the rights or privileges of stockholders, such as mergers, stockholder proposals and elections of directors, even if not contested. In addition, as required by Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, advisory votes on executive compensation and on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation arenon-routine matters for which brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote shares held by account holders. Only ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm under Proposal FiveFour is considered a routine matter.

The votesvote on ProposalsProposal Two and Three areis advisory. Neither theThe approval noror the disapproval of Proposal Two or the outcome of the vote on Proposal Three will not be binding on the Company or the Board of Directors and neither will not create or imply any change to the fiduciary duties of the Board of Directors. However, the Company and the Board of Directors will consider the results of the advisory votesvote on Proposal Two and Proposal Three in making future decisions about compensation of the Company’s named executive officers and frequency of future advisory votes on the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers.

How do I vote?vote my shares in person at the Annual Meeting?

IfYou may vote your shares held in your name as the stockholder of record in person at the Annual Meeting. You may vote your shares held beneficially in street name in person at the Annual Meeting only if you complete and properly signobtain a legal proxy from the accompanyingbroker, bank, trustee, or nominee that holds your shares giving you the right to vote the shares. Even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we recommend that you also submit your proxy card and return it to the Company, itor voting instructions as described below so that your vote will be counted if you later decide not to attend the Annual Meeting.

How can I vote my shares without attending the Annual Meeting?

Whether you hold shares directly as the stockholder of record or beneficially in street name, you may direct how your shares are voted as you direct.without attending the Annual Meeting. If you are a registered stockholder (that is, ifof record, you may vote by proxy. You can vote by proxy over the Internet, by mail or by telephone pursuant to instructions provided on the enclosed proxy card. If you hold shares beneficially in street name, you may also vote by proxy over the

2

Internet or you can also vote by telephone or mail by following the voting instruction form provided to you by your stock in certificate form and attendbroker, bank, trustee, or nominee. The deadline for voting by telephone or electronically is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 21, 2019.

Who will bear the cost of soliciting votes for the Annual Meeting), you may deliver your completed proxy card in person. “Street name” stockholders who wish to vote atMeeting?

To the Annual Meeting will need to obtain a proxy form fromextent such costs are incurred, the institution that holds their shares.

The cost of solicitation of proxies will be borne by the Company. The Company will reimburse expenses incurred by brokerage firms and other persons representing beneficial owners of shares in forwarding solicitation material to beneficial owners. To assist in soliciting proxies (votes), the Company may retain a professional proxy solicitation firm, at an approximate cost of $10,000. Proxies also may be solicited by certain of the Company’s directors, officers and regular employees, without additional compensation, personally, by telephone or by other appropriate means.

Can I vote by telephone or electronically?

If you are a registered stockholder you may vote by telephone, or electronically through the Internet, by following the instructions included with your proxy card. If your shares are held in “street name,” please check your proxy card or contact your broker or nominee to determine whether you will be able to vote by telephone or electronically. The deadline for voting by telephone or electronically is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 21, 2017.

2

Can I change my vote after I return my proxy card?proxy?

Yes. Even after you have submitted your proxy, you may change your vote at any time before the proxy is exercised by filing with the Corporate Secretary of the Company either a notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy bearing a later date. Your proxy will also be revoked if you attend the Annual Meeting and vote in person. Attendance at the Annual Meeting will not by itself revoke a previously granted proxy.

What does it mean if I receive more than one set of proxy materials?

If you receive more than one set of proxy materials, your ordinary shares arecommon stock is registered in more than one name or are registered in different accounts. Please complete sign and returna proxy for each separate set of proxy cardmaterials that you receive to ensure that all of your shares are voted.

What are the Board of Directors’ recommendations?

Unless you give other instructions on your proxy, card, the persons named as proxy holders on the proxy card will vote in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors’ recommendation is set forth together with the description of each item in this proxy statement. In summary, the Board of Directors recommends a vote:

With respect to any other matter that properly comes before the meeting, the proxy holders will vote as recommended by the Board of Directors or, if no recommendation is given, in their own discretion.

What vote is required to approve each item?

Election of Directors. The affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting is required for the election of directors. A properly executed proxy marked “WITHHOLD AUTHORITY” with respect to the election of one or more directors will not be voted with respect to the director or directors indicated, although it will be counted for purposes of determining whether there is a quorum.

3

Other Items. For each other item, other than Proposal Three, the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares represented in person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the item will be required for approval. For Proposal Three, the frequency receiving the highest number of affirmative votes of the shares represented in person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the item will be considered the frequency preferred by the stockholders. A properly executed proxy marked “ABSTAIN” with respect to any such matter will not be voted, although it will be counted for purposes of determining the number of shares represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. Accordingly, an abstention will have the effect of a negative vote for each other item, other than Proposal Three.item. If you hold your shares in “street name” through a broker or other nominee, your broker or nominee will not be permitted to exercise voting discretion with respect to each of the other matters to be acted upon, other than Proposal Five.Four. Thus, if you do not give your broker or nominee specific instructions,

3

your shares will not be voted on and will not be counted for any other matter to be acted upon, other than Proposal Five.Four. Shares represented by such “brokernon-votes” will, however, be counted in determining whether there is a quorum.

Who counts the votes?

Votes cast by proxy or in person at the Annual Meeting will be tabulated by the Inspector.

What proxy materials are available on the Internet?

The proxy statement and annual report to stockholders are available on the Internet atwww.proxyvote.com. Please have the control number on your proxy card available.

How can I find out the results of the voting at the Annual Meeting?

Preliminary voting results will be announced at the Annual Meeting. In addition, final voting results will be published in a current report on Form8-K that we expect to file with the SEC within four business days after the Annual Meeting. If final voting results are not available to us in time to file a Form8-K within four business days after the meeting, we intend to file a Form8-K to publish preliminary results and, within four business days after the final results are known to us, file an amended Form8-K to publish the final results.

What proxy materials are available on the internet?

The proxy statement and annual report to stockholders are available at www.proxyvote.com. Please have the control number on your proxy card available.

4

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Who are the principal stockholders, and how much stock does management own?

The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock as of March 15, 20172019 by (i) each of the executive officers named in the table under the heading “Summary Compensation Table,” (ii) each current director, (iii) all current directors and executive officers as a group and (iv) all persons known to the Company to be the beneficial owners of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock. The table is based upon information supplied by our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders and a review of Schedules 13D and 13G, if any, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).SEC. A total of 87,519,91091,266,478 shares of the Company’s common stock were issued and outstanding as of March 15, 2017.2019.

5

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s officers and directors, and persons who beneficially own 10% or greater of a registered class of the Company’s equity securities, to file reports of ownership on Form 3 and reports of changes in ownership on Form 4 or Form 5 with the SEC. Such officers, directors and 10% or greater stockholders are also required by SEC rules to furnish the Company with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. Based solely on its review of the copies of such forms received by it, and written representations from certain reporting persons, the Company believes that its officers, directors and 10% or greater stockholders complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to them during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

6

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEES

General

The Company’s bylaws, as amended, provide that the Board of Directors will beis comprised of nineseven directors. The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation provides that the Board of Directors is divided into three classes. There are currently threetwo directors in Class I (William H. Rastetter, Ph.D., Joseph A. Mollica, Ph.D. and George J. Morrow), threetwo directors in Class II (Corinne H. Nevinny, Richard(Richard F. Pops and Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D.), and three directors in Class III (Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., Gary A. Lyons and Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.). With the exception of Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, all current members of the Board of Directors meet the definition of “independent director” under the Nasdaq Stock Market qualification standards.

The directors in Class IIII hold office until the 20172021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the directors in Class III hold office until the 20182019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and the directors in Class IIIII hold office until the 20192020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (or, in each case, until their earlier resignation, removal from office, or death). After each such election, the directors in each such case will then serve in succeeding terms of three years and until a successor is duly elected and qualified. Officers of the Company serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors. There are no family relationships among the Company’s directors and executive officers.

The term of office for directors Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., GaryRichard F. Pops and Stephen A. Lyons and Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr.,Sherwin, M.D., Ph.D. will expire at the 20172019 Annual Meeting.Meeting of Stockholders. At the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the stockholders will elect threetwo Class IIIII directors for a term of three years.

Director Biographies of Class I and Class III Directors not Nominated for Reelection at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D. has been employed with the Company since 1993. He was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer in January 2008 after having served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since September 2006 and prior to that, as Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer and Senior Vice President of Business Development. He currently serves as Chief Executive Officer and has served on the Board of Directors since January 2008. From 1990 until 1993, Dr. Gorman was a principal of Avalon Medical Partners, L.P. where he was responsible for the early stage founding of the Company and several other biotechnology companies such as Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metra Biosystems, Inc., Idun Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Gorman received his Ph.D. in immunology and M.B.A. in Finance from the University of California, Los Angeles and did further post-doctoral training at The Rockefeller University.

The continued service ofDr. Gormanon the Company’s Board of Directors is based on the fact that as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Dr. Gorman has extensive knowledge of our product candidates, our employees and the industry in which we operate. Dr. Gorman has also demonstrated exceptional leadership skills, sound business judgment and a strong commitment to the Company.

William H. Rastetter, Ph.D. has served on the Board of Directors since February 2010 and as Chairman of the Board of Directors since May 2011. Currently, he serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors for each of Fate Therapeutics, a publicly traded company focused on stem cell research, and Cerulean Pharma, Inc., a company focused on innovative oncology therapies, both of which are publicly traded, and Grail, Inc., a privately held company using next-generation sequencing and machine learning to develop cancer screening technologies.cellular therapies. Dr. Rastetter also serves on the Board of Directors atfor each of Regulus Therapeutics, a publicly traded company focused on RNA based therapeutics. Dr. Rastetter servedtherapeutics, and Daré Bioscience, Inc. (previously known as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Illumina,Cerulean Pharma Inc.), a publicly traded company focused on women’s health care and Grail, Inc., a biotechnologyprivate company from January 2005 to January 2016, and serveddeveloping deep sequencing approaches for disease diagnosis, with an initial focus on its Boardthe early diagnosis of Directors from November 1999 to January 2016. He was a founder of Receptos, Inc. in 2009 and served as its Chairman until the sale of the company to Celgene in 2015. Hecancer. Dr. Rastetter was a partner in the venture capital firm, Venrock, from 2006 through early 2013 and was Executive Chairman of Biogen Idec, Inc. from 2003 to 2005. Earlier, he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corporation until its merger with Biogen in 2003; he joined IDEC Corporation as its Chief Executive Officer at the company’s

7

founding in 1986. From 1984 to 1986, Dr. Rastetter was Director of Corporate Ventures at Genentech, where from 1982 to 1984 he held scientific positions. Dr. RastetterHe held variousa series of faculty positions including Associate Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University and is an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow.(“MIT”) from 1975 to 1982. Dr. Rastetter holdshas a S.B.Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistrychemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMIT, and received his M.A.Master of Art and Ph.D.doctorate degrees in Chemistrychemistry from Harvard University.

The continued service of Dr. Rastetter on the Company’s Board of Directors is based on Dr. Rastetter’s scientific and technical expertise combined with his business experience in leading rapidly growing companies in the life science industry. The Company’s continued growth is dependent on scientific and technical advances, and the Board of Directors believes that Dr. Rastetter offers both strategic and technical insight into the risks and opportunities associated with our business. In addition, Dr. Rastetter’s board and executive leadership experience at other life science companies provides valuable strategic and governance insight to the Board of Directors as a whole.

7

Gary A. Lyons has served on the Board of Directors since joining Neurocrine in February 1993. Mr. Lyons served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from February 1993 through January 2008. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Lyons held a number of senior management positions at Genentech, Inc., including Vice President of Business Development and Vice President of Sales. Mr. Lyons is currently serves asthe Chairman of the Board of Directors for each of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company focused on developing drugs for the treatment of inflammatory/autoimmune and metabolic diseases, and Retrophin, Inc., a company focused on developing drugs for the treatment of debilitating and often life-threatening diseases.an ultra-orphan disease commercial stage company. Mr. Lyons also serves onis a member of the Board of Directors of Vical Incorporated, a biotechnology company focused on the prevention and treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases, and CytoriNovus Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company focused on stem cellear, nose and throat therapies. Mr. Lyons was previously a director of PDL BioPharma, Inc., Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Neurogesx, KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,Cytori Therapeutics, and Facet Biotech Corporation. Mr. Lyons holds a B.S. in marine biology from the University of New Hampshire and an M.B.A. from Northwestern University’s J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management.

Joseph A. Mollica, Ph.D. has servedThe continued service of Mr. Lyons on the Company’s Board of Directors since June 1997is based on Mr. Lyons’ extensive business development and corporate governance experience and, as Chairman of the Board from 1998 until 2011. From 2004 to 2008, Dr. Mollica served as the Chairman of the Board of Pharmacopeia Drug Discovery, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company focused on drug discovery and development. From 1994 to 2004, Dr. Mollica served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors, President andCompany’s former Chief Executive Officer, hisin-depth understanding of Accelrys, Inc., the former parent of Pharmacopeia Drug Discovery. From 1987 to December 1993, Dr. Mollica served as Vice President, Medical Products of DuPontCompany’s product candidates, management and culture. With this history with the Company and then as Presidentmanagement, Mr. Lyons brings a unique perspective and CEOpoint of DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company from 1991view to 1993. At Ciba-Geigy Ltd., where he was employed from 1966 to 1986, he served in a varietythe Company’s Board of positions of increasing responsibility, rising to Senior Vice President of Ciba-Geigy’s Pharmaceutical Division. Dr. Mollica was previously a director of Cytogen Corporation, Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Redpoint Bio Corporation and Genencor International. Over the past 20 years, Dr. Mollica has served on the boards of more than a dozen public, private and not-for-profit boards. He received his B.S. from the University of Rhode Island, his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and his Sc.D.h.c. from the University of Rhode Island.Directors.

George J. Morrowhas served on the Board of Directors since October 2015. He previouslyMr. Morrow served as Executive Vice President, Global Commercial Operations at Amgen Inc., a global biotechnology company, from 2003 until his retirement in 2011, and then served2011. He joined Amgen in 2001 as a consultant to Amgen Inc. from February 2011 until January 2013. Mr. Morrow also served as Amgen’s Executive Vice President, of Worldwide Sales and Marketing from 2001 to 2003.Marketing. His responsibilities included oversight of all commercial functions for Amgen’s broad spectrum of products in more than 50 countries worldwide, and the introduction of multiple new products into global markets. From 1992 to 2001, Mr. Morrow held multiple leadershipexecutive management and commercial positions at GlaxoSmithKline Inc.within several subsidiaries of Glaxo Wellcome, including Group Vice President for Commercial Operations (U.S.), Managing Director (U.K.), and its subsidiaries, last servingmost recently as President and Chief Executive Officer of Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. (U.S.). Mr. Morrow currently serves on the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of Vical, Inc., a biotechnology company and Align Technology, Inc., Otonomy, Inc. and Vical Incorporated. Mr. Morrowa global medical device company. He has previously served previously on the boards forof Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Human Genome Sciences, Inc., Safeway, Inc., National Commerce Bank, the JohnsJohn Hopkins School of Public Health, National Commerce Bank and the Duke University Fuqua School of Business. Mr. Morrow holds a B.S. in chemistry from Southampton College, Long Island University, an M.S. in biochemistry from Bryn Mawr College and an M.B.A. from Duke University.

The continued service of Mr. Morrow on the Company’s Board of Directors is based on his extensive commercialization experience at Amgen, his broad executive experience at GlaxoSmithKline Inc., and his years of experience in corporate governance as a board member of several publicly traded companies. Mr. Morrow’s board, leadership experience and commercialization expertise prove valuable strategic insights to the Board of Directors.

8

Corinne H. NevinnyAlfred W. Sandrock, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. has served on theour Board of Directors since June 2004. Ms. NevinnySeptember 2015. Dr. Sandrock is currently a General Partner of LMNVC LLC, a privately held venture firm. From 2003 to 2010, Ms. Nevinny held various positions at Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., the global leader in the science of heart valves and hemodynamic monitoring. She served as CorporateExecutive Vice President and the General Manager of the Cardiac Surgery SystemsChief Medical Officer at Biogen, Inc., and Vascular business units, was responsible for Edwards’ global operations andhas served as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Beforein this role since November 2015. Since joining EdwardsBiogen in 2003, Ms. Nevinny was1998, Dr. Sandrock has held several senior executive positions including Group Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer of Tularik, Inc., a company involved in the discoveryDevelopment Sciences, Senior vice President of Neurology research and developmentDevelopment, and Vice President of drugs based on gene regulation, which was sold to Amgen, Inc. in 2004.clinical Development, Neurology. Prior to joining Tularik, sheBiogen, Dr. Sandrock was Executive Director-Health Care GroupAssistant Professor of Neurology at Warburg Dillon Read LLC, an investment bank. Ms. Nevinny was previouslyHarvard Medical School and Assistant in Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Sandrock currently serves on the Boards of Directors of Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. and Disarm Therapeutics Inc., and is a member of the Partners Healthcare Innovation Advisory Board. Dr. Sandrock also serves as Chairman of the Board of Directorsthe PhRMA Foundation. Dr. Sandrock received his B.A. in human biology from Stanford University, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School and a Ph.D. in neurobiology from Harvard University. Dr. Sandrock completed an internship in medicine, a residency and chief residency in neurology, and a clinical fellowship in neuromuscular disease and clinical neurophysiology (electromyography) at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The continued service of Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company focusedDr. Sandrock on the treatmentCompany’s Board of cancer that was soldDirectors is based on his extensive experience and credentials in the biotechnology industry as an Executive Vice President of Biogen and his extensive experience in successfully leading development teams. In addition, Dr. Sandrock’s medical expertise in neurology and his scientific background provide a unique contribution to Amgen in 2013, and the Board of Directors.

Director Biographies of Class II Directors Nominated for Reelection at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company focused on central nervous system disorders that was acquired by Otsuka Pharmaceutical in 2015. Ms. Nevinny received her

8

undergraduate degree in industrial engineering from Stanford University and her Master’s degree in business administration from Harvard Business School.Stockholders

Richard F. Pops has served on the Board of Directors since April 1998. Mr. Pops is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Alkermes, Inc. He joined Alkermes as Chief Executive Officer in February 1991. Under his leadership, Alkermes has grown from a privately held research-based company with 25 employees to an international, publicly traded pharmaceutical company with more than 1,3001,200 employees. In addition to Alkermes, he currently serves on the Board of Directors ofof: Acceleron Pharma, Inc., a biotechnology company focused on musculoskeletal and metabolic therapeutics; Epizyme Corporation, a biotechnology company focused on epigenetics; the Biotechnology Industry Organization; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). He has previously served on the board of directors of two other publicly traded biopharmaceutical companies, Sirtris Pharmaceuticals from 2004 to 2008, and CombinatoRx, Incorporated from 2001 to 2009. Mr. Pops also served on the board of directors of Reliant Pharmaceuticals, a privately held pharmaceutical company purchased by GlaxoSmithKline in 2007, and on the advisory board of Polaris Venture Partners. He was a member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows through June 2012. In 2014 Mr. Pops was appointed to FasterCures’ Value & Coverage Advisory Council, which is designed to provide guidance on fostering a coverage and reimbursement environment that incentivizes biomedical innovation and ensures that patients have meaningful access to life-saving therapies. He holds a B.A. in economics from Stanford University.

Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. has served on ourThe nomination of Mr. Pops for election to the Company’s Board of Directors since September 2015. He has been employedis based on his leadership experience and track record for growing companies, his strength in business strategy and his financial acumen and capital markets experience. In addition, Mr. Pops is recognized for his service to the biopharmaceutical industry as a numbermember of executive roles with increasing responsibility at Biogen, Inc., a global biotechnology company, since 1998. He currently serves as Biogen’s Executive Vice President, Neurology Discovery & Development Center, Neurodegeneration Therapeutic Areathe Boards of the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Chief Medical Officer and has served in these positions since November 2015. Dr. Sandrock previously served as Biogen’s Group Senior Vice President from May 2014 to October 2015 as well as Chief Medical Officer since February 2012. His former positions include Senior Vice President of Development Sciences, Senior Vice President of Neurologythe Pharmaceutical Research and Development,Manufacturers of America. His breadth and Vice Presidentrange of Clinical Development, Neurology. Dr. Sandrock receivedindustry experience from operations and strategy is a significant contribution to the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee also considers whether each nominee has the time available, in light of other business and personal commitments. Among the criteria considered is whether any incumbent director nominee demonstrates preparedness and engagement required for effective service to the Board and its Committees. In connection with the nomination of Mr. Pops, the Nominating and Governance Committee considered Mr. Pops’ consistently demonstrated preparedness, attendance, engagement, and vigorous leadership of the Compensation Committee and his B.A. in human biology from Stanford University, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School,contributions to both the Audit Committee and a Ph.D. in neurobiology from Harvard University. He completed an internship in medicine, a residency and chief residency in neurology, and a clinical fellowship in Neuromuscular Disease and Clinical Neurophysiology (electromyography) at Massachusetts General Hospital.the Board.

Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D. has served on the Board of Directors since April 1999. Dr. Sherwin currently divides his time between advisory work in the life science industry and patient care and teaching in his specialty of medical oncology. He is a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and a volunteer Attending Physician in Hematology-Oncology at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Sherwin currently serves on the Board of Directors of Aduro Biotech, Inc., Biogen Inc., Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Verastem, Inc.Neon Therapetics. He is a Venture Partner with Third Rock Ventures and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. Previously Dr. Sherwin served on the Board of Vical Incorporated from 2013 to 2015was chairman and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officerchief executive officer of Cell Genesys, Inc., a cancer immunotherapy company, from 1990 until the company’s merger in 2009 with BioSante

9

Pharmaceuticals (now ANI Pharmaceuticals). He was also aco-founder and chairman of Abgenix, Inc., an antibody company which was acquired by Amgen in 2006, andco-founder and Chairmanchairman of Ceregene, Inc., a gene therapy company which was acquired by Sangamo Biosciences in 2013. From 1983 to 1990, Dr. Sherwin held various positions in clinical research at Genentech, Inc., most recently that of Vice President. Prior to 1983, he was on the staff of the National Cancer Institute. In addition, Dr. Sherwin previously served on the Boardboard of Directorsdirectors of the Biotechnology Industry Organization from 2001 to 2014 and as its Chairmanchairman from 2009 to 2011.2011, and was a member of the President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST) Working Group on Drug Development from 2011 to 2013. Dr. Sherwin holds a B.A. in biology summa cum laude from Yale University and an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and is board-certified in internal medicine and medical oncology.oncology, and is a fellow of the American College of Physicians.

The nomination of Dr. Sherwin for election to the Company’s Board of Directors is based on his experience and credentials in the biotechnology industry as the former Chief Executive Officer of Cell Genesys, Inc., the former chairman andco-founder of Abgenix, Inc., the chairman andco-founder of Ceregene, Inc., and his positions at Genentech, Inc. and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Sherwin is also currently Chairman Emeritus of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. In addition to his biotechnology credentials, Dr. Sherwin’s medical expertise in internal medicine and medical oncology provides a unique contribution to the Board of Directors.

910

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

General

We have long believed that good corporate governance is important to ensure that Neurocrine is managed for the long-term benefit of its stockholders. We periodically review our corporate governance policies and practices. The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines which describe our corporate governance practices and address corporate governance issues such as Board composition, responsibilities and director qualifications. These guidelines are available atwww.neurocrine.com.

What is the Board’s leadership structure?

It is the Company’s policy to separate the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. This separation recognizes the independent roles of the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors sets Company strategy and provides oversight and accountability for the Chief Executive Officer and Company management. The Chairman of the Board presides over the Board of Directors and provides guidance to the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer and the balance of the Board of Directors set Company goals with the Chief Executive Officer providing leadership and day to day oversight in furtherance of those goals. The Company believes that separation of the Board of Directors and Company leadership reinforces the independence of the Board of Directors in its oversight of the business and affairs of the Company, and creates an environment that is more conducive to objective evaluation and oversight of management’s performance, increasing management accountability and improving the ability of the Board of Directors to monitor whether management’s actions are in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

Are the members of the Board independent?

The Board of Directors annually reviews the independence of each of the directors. With the exception of Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., who is the Chief Executive Officer of Neurocrine, all current members of the Board of Directors meet the definition of “independent director” under the Nasdaq Stock Market qualification standards.

How often did the Board meet during fiscal 2016?2018?

The Board of Directors held a total of fourfive meetings during 2016.2018. For 2016,2018, the Board of Directors had an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, a Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee, and a Science and Medical Technology Committee. Charters for each of these committees have been established and approved by the Board of Directors and current copies of the charters for each of the committees have been posted on the Company’s website at www.neurocrine.com. During 2016,2018, no director attended fewer than 75% of the aggregate of the total meetings of the Board of Directors and no director attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings held by all committees of the Board of Directors on which such director served.

What are the various committees of the Board and which directors are on those committees?

The Company’s Audit Committee is comprised entirely of directors who meet the independence requirements set forth in Nasdaq Stock Market Rule 5605(c)(2)(A). Information regarding the functions performed by the committee, its membership, and the number of meetings held during the fiscal year is set forth in the “Report of the Audit Committee,” included in this annual proxy statement. The members of the Audit Committee are Corinne H. Nevinny, Richard F. Pops, George J. Morrow and Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D. The Board of Directors has determined that Corinne H. Nevinny, Richard F. Pops, George J. Morrow and Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D. are “audit committee financial experts” within the meaning of item 407(d)(5) of SECRegulation S-K. The This committee met fourfive times during 2016.2018.

The Company’s Compensation Committee consists of directors Richard F. Pops, George J. Morrow and Joseph Mollica,Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. This committee met seven times during 2016. The Compensation Committee reviews and

10

recommends to the Board of

11

Directors the compensation of executive officers and other employees of the Company. Under its charter, the Compensation Committee may form, and delegate authority to, subcommittees as appropriate. Each of the current members of the Compensation Committee is an “independent director” as defined by Nasdaq Stock Market Rule 5605(a)(2). This committee met seven times during 2018.

The Company has aCompany’s Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee currently comprisedconsists of directors Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D., Joseph A. Mollica, Ph.D.George J. Morrow and Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr. M.D., Ph.D., all of whom are “independent directors” as defined by Nasdaq Stock Market Rule 5605(a)(2). The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for developing and implementing policies and practices relating to corporate governance, including administration of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which applies to all of the Company’s officers, directors and employees, and is available on the Company’s website at www.neurocrine.com. The functions of this committee also include consideration of the composition of the Board of Directors and recommendation of individuals for election as directors of the Company. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee will consider nominees recommended by stockholders, provided such nominations are made pursuant to the Company’s bylaws and applicable law. TheThis committee met threefour times during 2016.2018.

The Board created aCompany’s Science and Medical Technology Committee in 2016, and it is currently comprisedconsists of directors Gary A. Lyons, William H. Rastetter, Ph.D. and Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr. M.D., Ph.D. The purpose of the Science and Medical Technology Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in its oversight of management’s exercise of its responsibility to make significant scientific judgments relating to the Company’s research and development activities and portfolio. TheThis committee met threetwo times during 2016.2018.

Compensation Committee interlocks and insider participation

During 2016,2018, the Compensation Committee consisted of Joseph A. Mollica, W. Thomas Mitchell, George J. Morrow, and Richard F. Pops. Mr. MitchellPops, Corinne H. Nevinny and Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. Ms. Nevinny served on the Compensation Committee until heshe resigned from the Board of Directors on May 19, 2016. Mr. MorrowSeptember 18, 2018. Dr. Sandrock joined the Compensation Committee in February 2016.September 2018 after Ms. Nevinny’s resignation. No interlocking relationship existed between any member of the Compensation Committee and any member of any other company’s Board of Directors or compensation committee.

What is our director nomination process?

In selectingnon-incumbent candidates and reviewing the qualifications of incumbent candidates for the Board of Directors, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee considers the Company’s corporate governance principles, which include the following:

12

It is the Company’s policy to have a diversity of skills, professional experience, education, associations, achievements, training, points of view and individual qualities and attributes represented on the Board of Directors. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee considers the diversity of the Board of Directors when evaluating candidates for election orre-election to the Board of Directors.

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee’s goal is to assemble a Board of Directors that brings to the Company a variety of perspectives and skills derived from high quality business and professional experience. In doing so, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee also considers candidates with appropriatenon-business backgrounds.

In addition to the foregoing, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee Charter and Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth minimum criteria for director nominees. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee may also consider such other facts as it may deem are in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee does, however, believe that at least one, and preferably several members of the Board of Directors, meet the criteria for an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by SEC rules. The following paragraphs provide information as of the date of this proxy statement about the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of each nominee and current member of the Board of Directors that led the Board to conclude that such person should serve as a director. In addition to the information below regarding each Board member, we alsoWe believe that all of our directors should have a reputation for honesty, integrity and highest ethical standards. They each have demonstratedstandards, and should demonstrate business acumen, an ability to exercise sound judgment and a commitment to serve the Company.

Class III Directors Nominated for Re-election at the 2017 Annual MeetingBoard Self-Assessment

The nominationNominating/Corporate Governance Committee ensures that each member of Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D. the Board, the Committees, and the Chair of the Board are annually assessed annually aimed at enhancing effectiveness. Directors complete a number of different evaluations in order to provide performance feedback and suggestions for electionimproved effectiveness or contributions. The assessments are done by way of a questionnaire conducted by our external legal counsel, Cooley, LLP. The assessments are treated on a confidential basis, with the results tallied on an anonymous basis for review. The results of the evaluation are analyzed by our Chief Legal Officer, the Nomination/Corporate Governance Committee and the Board, who decide whether any changes are needed to the Company’s Board’s processes, procedures, composition or Committee structure. The evaluation carried out in 2018 indicated that all individuals and groups were effectively fulfilling their responsibilities.

Board of Directors is based on the fact that as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Dr. Gorman has extensive knowledge of our product candidates, our employees and the industry in which we operate. Dr. Gorman has also demonstrated exceptional leadership skills, sound business judgment and a strong commitment to the Company.Education

The nominationBoard recognizes the importance of Gary A. Lyons for election ongoing director education. In order to the Company’s Boardfacilitate member of Directors is based on Mr. Lyons’ extensive business development and corporate governance experience and, as the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, his in-depth understanding of the Company’s product candidates, management and culture. With this history with the Company and management, Mr. Lyons brings a unique perspective and point of view to the Company’s Board of Directors.

The nomination ofAlfred W. Sandrock, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. for election to the Company’s Board of Directors is based on his extensive experience and credentials in the biotechnology industry as an Executive Vice President of Biogen and his extensive experience in successfully leading development teams. In addition, Dr. Sandrock’s medical expertise in neurology and his scientific background provide a unique contribution to the Board of Directors.

Class I Directors Continuing Until 2018 Annual Meeting

The continued serviceDirectors’ educational development, the members of Joseph A. Mollica, Ph.D. on the Company’s Board of Directors is based is based on his years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry including his wide range of leadership experience, roles and responsibilities with companies such as Pharmacopeia Drug Discovery, Inc., Accelrys, Dupont Company, Dupont Merck Pharmaceutical Company and Ciba-Geigy and his service on a number of life science company Boards. Dr. Mollica contributes a significant history and depth of experience in the biopharmaceutical industry to the Board of Directors.

12

The continued service ofGeorge J. Morrow on the Company’s Board of Directors is based on his extensive commercialization experience at Amgen, his broad executive experience at GlaxoSmithKline Inc., and his years of experience in corporate governance as a board member of several publicly traded companies. Mr. Morrow’s board, leadership experience and commercialization expertise prove valuable strategic insights to the Board of Directors.

The continued service of William H. Rastetter, Ph.D. on the Company’s Board of Directors is based on Dr. Rastetter’s scientific and technical expertise combined with his business experience in leading rapidly growing companies in the life science industry. The Company’s continued growth is dependent on scientific and technical advances, and the Board of Directors believes that Dr. Rastetter offers both strategicregularly meet with management and technical insight into the risksare given periodic presentations on our business and opportunities associated with our business. In addition, Dr. Rastetter’s board and executive leadership experience at other life science companies provides valuable strategic and governance insight torecent business developments. Members of the Board of Directors as a whole.

Class II Directors Continuing Until 2019 Annual Meeting

The continued service of Corinne H. Nevinnyalso attend dinners on the Company’sevening before regularly scheduled Board meetings. Generally, at these dinners the Board meets with senior decision-makers within the Company or outside experts in order to enhance the Board’s understanding of our business and affairs. In addition, on an annual basis an external expert meets with the Board to discuss new developments relating to corporate governance and the operation of public company boards. The Company also provides funding for members of the Board of Directors is based on her global expertise as a prior President for Global Operations of Edward Lifesciences, Inc., her financial background as a prior Chief Financial Officer for Edwards Lifesciencesto attend outside director continuing education programs sponsored by educational and Tularik, Inc., her experience as board and audit committee members at other publicly traded biotechnology companies, and her capital markets experience as Executive Director-Health Care Group at Warburg Dillon Read LLC. Her combination of financial, global and capital markets experience has in the past, and will in the future, help guide the Company’s financial and capital strategies.institutions.

The continued service of Richard F. Pops on the Company’s Board of Directors is based on his leadership experience and track record for growing companies, his strength in business strategy and his financial acumen and capital markets experience. In addition, Mr. Pops is recognized for his service to the biopharmaceutical industry as a member of the Boards of the Biotechnology Industry Organization and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. His breadth and range of industry experience from operations and strategy is a significant contribution to the Board of Directors.

The continued service of Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D. on the Company’s Board of Directors is based on his experience and credentials in the biotechnology industry as the former Chief Executive Officer of Cell Genesys, Inc., the former chairman and co-founder of Abgenix, Inc., the chairman and co-founder of Ceregene, Inc., and his positions at Genentech, Inc. and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Sherwin is also currently Chairman Emeritus of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. In addition to his biotechnology credentials, Dr. Sherwin’s medical expertise in internal medicine and medical oncology provides a unique contribution to the Board of Directors.

Identification and Evaluation of Nominees for Director

The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee identifies nominees for director by first evaluating the current members of the Board of Directors willing to continue in service. Current members with qualifications and skills that are consistent with the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee’s criteria for service and who are willing to continue are considered forre-nomination, balancing the value of continuity of service by existing members of the Board of Directors with that of obtaining members who would offer a new perspective. If any member of the Board of Directors does not wish to continue in service, or if the Board of Directors decides not tore-nominate a member forre-election, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee identifies the

13

desired skills and experience of a new nominee in light of the criteria above. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee generally polls the Board of Directors and members of management for their recommendations and may also seek input from third-party search firms. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee may also seek input from industry experts or analysts. The Nominating/Corporate Governance

13

Committee reviews the qualifications, experience and background of the candidates. Final candidates are then interviewed by the Company’s independent directors and executive management. In making its determinations, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee evaluates each individual in the context of the Company’s Board of Directors as a whole, with the objective of assembling a group that can best perpetuate the success of the Company and represent stockholder interests through the exercise of sound judgment. After review and deliberation of all feedback and data, the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee makes its recommendation to the Board of Directors.

We have not received director candidate recommendations from the Company’s stockholders and do not have a formal policy regarding consideration of such recommendations. However, any recommendations received from stockholders will be evaluated in the same manner that potential nominees suggested by members of our Board of Directors, management or other parties are evaluated. Accordingly, our Board of Directors believes a formal policy regarding consideration of such recommendations is unnecessary.

What is our process for stockholder communications with the Board of Directors?

Stockholders of the Company wishing to communicate with the Company’s Board of Directors or an individual director may send a written communication to the Board of Directors or such director c/o Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., 12780 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130, Attn: Corporate Secretary. Each communication must set forth:

Each stockholder communication will be reviewed by the Company’s Corporate Secretary to determine whether it is appropriate for presentation to the Board or such director. Examples of inappropriate communications include advertisements, solicitations or hostile communications.

Communications determined by the Corporate Secretary to be appropriate for presentation to the Board or such director will be submitted to the Board or such director on a periodic basis.

What is the Board’s role in risk oversight?

While the Board of Directors has ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, it has delegated portions of this responsibility to various committees. The Board of Directors and its committees oversee risk throughout the business with focus on financial risk, legal/compliance risk, scientific/clinical development risk, and strategic risk. The Audit Committee focuses on financial risk and internal controls and receives an annual financial risk assessment from the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.controls. The Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee and Audit Committee each focus on legal/compliance risk with the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee taking the lead on the governance and management process and the Audit Committee taking the lead on SEC reporting and compliance. The Compensation Committee addresses compensation policies and practices as they relate to risk management practices and risk-taking incentives. The Science and Medical Technology Committee reviews the scientific risk associated with the Company’s research and development activities and any related legal/compliance risk. The participation of the full Board of Directors in setting the Company’s business strategy incorporates assessment of strategic risk for the Company overall.

14

How do the Company’s compensation policies and practices relate to risk management practices and risk-taking incentives?

During 2016,2018, the Compensation Committee, in conjunction with the Board of Directors, conducted an assessment of how the Company’s compensation policies and practices relate to risk management practices and risk-taking incentives. As part of the process, the Compensation Committee engaged the services of an external,

14

independent compensation consulting firm to conduct an independent risk assessment. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee concluded that the Company’s compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

What is our policy regarding Board member attendance at the Company’s Annual Meeting?

The Company does not have a formal policy regarding attendance by members of the Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting. Directors Dr. Rastetter and Dr. Gorman attended the 20162018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

15

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The following Report of the Audit Committee does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other Company filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates this Report by reference therein.

The Audit Committee is currently comprised of directors Corinne H. Nevinny,George J. Morrow, Richard F. Pops and Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D. All current committee members satisfy the definition of “independent director” as established in the Nasdaq Stock Market qualification requirements. The Audit Committee met fourfive times during the year ended December 31, 2016.2018.

The Audit Committee oversees the Company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. Management has the primary responsibility for the Company’s financial statements and the reporting process, including the Company’s systems of internal controls. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Company’s audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016,2018, including a discussion of the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements.

The Audit Committee also has reviewed and discussed the Company’s audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 20162018 with the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, who are responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, as well as their judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of the Company’s accounting principles and such other matters as are required to be discussed with the Audit Committee under Auditing Standard No. 16,Communications with Audit Committees, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (the “PCAOB”). The independent registered public accounting firm also is responsible for performing an independent audit of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the auditing standards of the PCAOB. In addition, the Audit Committee has discussed the independent registered public accounting firm’s independence from management and the Company, including the matters in the written disclosures and the letter from the independent registered public accounting firm required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB and considered the compatibility ofnon-audit services with the auditors’ independence.

The Audit Committee discussed with the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm the overall scope and plans for their audits. The Audit Committee meets with the independent registered public accounting firm, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the Company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016,2018, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The

15

Audit Committee and the Board of Directors are also seeking stockholder ratification of the selection of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2017.2019.

Respectfully submitted by:

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Corinne H. NevinnyGeorge J. Morrow

Richard F. Pops

Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D.

16

Audit andnon-audit fees

The aggregate fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, for the indicated services for each of the last two fiscal years were as follows:

The Audit Committee has considered whether the provision ofnon-audit services is compatible with maintaining the independence of Ernst & Young LLP, and has concluded that the provision of such services is compatible with maintaining the independence of that firm. All of the services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP werepre-approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the Audit Committeepre-approval policy described below.

Audit Committee policy regardingpre-approval of audit and permissiblenon-audit services of our independent registered public accounting firm

The Company’s Audit Committee has established a policy that all audit and permissiblenon-audit services provided by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm will bepre-approved by the Audit Committee. These services may include audit services, audit related services, tax services and other services. The Audit Committee considers whether the provision of eachnon-audit service is compatible with maintaining the independence of the Company’s registered public accounting firm.Pre-approval is detailed as to the particular service or category of services and is generally subject to a specific budget. The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm and management are required to periodically (at least quarterly) report to the Audit Committee regarding the extent of services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with thispre-approval, and the fees for the services performed to date.

1617

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The following Report of the Committee does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other Company filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates this Report by reference therein.

The Compensation Committee of the Company has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) ofRegulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement.proxy statement.

Respectfully submitted by:

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

George J. Morrow

Richard F. Pops

George J. Morrow

Joseph A. Mollica

1718

PROPOSAL ONE: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Company’s bylaws, as amended, provide that the Board of Directors will beis comprised of nineseven directors. The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation provides that the Board of Directors is divided into three classes. There are currently threetwo directors in Class I (Joseph A. Mollica,(William H. Rastetter, Ph.D., and George J. Morrow and William H. Rastetter, Ph.D.)Morrow), threetwo directors in Class II (Corinne H. Nevinny, Richard(Richard F. Pops and Stephen A. Sherwin, M.D.), and three directors in Class III (Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., Gary A. Lyons and Alfred W. Sandrock, M.D., Ph.D.). With the exception of Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., who is the Chief Executive Officer of Neurocrine, all current members of the Board of Directors meet the definition of “independent director” under the Nasdaq Stock Market qualification standards.

The directors in Class IIII hold office until the 20172021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the directors in Class III hold office until the 20182019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and the directors in Class IIIII hold office until the 20192020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (or, in each case, until their earlier resignation, removal from office, or death). After each such election, the elected directors will then serve in succeeding terms of three years and until a successor is duly elected and qualified. Officers of the Company serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors. There are no family relationships among the Company’s directors and executive officers.

The term of office for directors Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., GaryRichard F. Pops and Stephen A. Lyons and Alfred W. Sandrock,Sherwin, M.D., Ph.D. will expire at the 20172019 Annual Meeting.Meeting of Stockholders. At the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the stockholders will elect threetwo Class IIIII directors for a term of three years.

Nominees for Election at the Annual Meeting

All of the nominees (Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D., Gary(Richard F. Pops and Stephen A. Lyons and Alfred W. Sandrock,Sherwin, M.D., Ph.D.) are currently Class IIIII directors of the Company. All of the nominees were previously elected to the Board of Directors by the Company’s stockholders. Information about the nominees is set forth below:

Who are the remaining Directors that are not up for election this year?

The Class I and IIIII directors will remain in office after the 20172019 Annual Meeting.Meeting of Stockholders. The names and certain other current information about the directors whose terms of office continue after the Annual Meeting are set forth below:

18

Vote Required

The nominees receiving the highest number of affirmative votes of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the 20172019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and entitled to vote on the election of directors will be elected to the Board of Directors.

19

Votes withheld from any director are counted for purposes of determining the presence or absence of a quorum, but have no other legal effect under Delaware law.

Unless otherwise instructed, the proxy holders will vote the proxies received by them for the Company’s Class IIIII nominees named above. If any of the Company’s nominees is unable or declines to serve as a director at the time of the Annual Meeting, the proxies will be voted for any nominee who is designated by the present Board of Directors to fill the vacancy. It is not expected that any of the Company’s nominees will be unable or will decline to serve as a director. The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that stockholders vote “FOR” the Class III II nominees named above.

1920

PROPOSAL TWO: ADVISORY VOTE ON

COMPENSATION PAID TO THE COMPANY’S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

General

At the 20112017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Board of Directors, as a matter of good corporate governance, recommended that the stockholders approve an advisory vote on Named Executive Officer compensation(“say-on-pay”) on an annual basis. Approximately 91%94% of the stockholder votes cast at the 20112017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders were for the Company’s recommendation, and in response the Company holds an annualsay-on-pay vote. This annual vote is not intended to address any specific compensation item, but rather the overall compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers and the philosophy, policies and practices described in this proxy statement.

Summary of the Company’s Executive Compensation Philosophy

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) bases its executive compensation decisions on a number of objectives which include aligning management incentives with interests of stockholders, providing competitive compensation, appropriately balancing compensation risk in the context of the Company’s business strategy and meeting evolving compensation governance standards. The philosophy of the Committee in establishing the Company’s compensation policy for executive officers as well as all other employees is to:

As discussed below in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, we believe we have adopted a compensation philosophy that provides strong alignment between executive pay and performance based on strategic goals designed to provide both near-term and long-term growth in stockholder value. The historical approval rates, on an advisory basis, for the Company’s executive compensation program have been approximatelyover 98%, 99% and 99% for each of the 2014, 20152016, 2017 and 20162018 Annual Meetings of Stockholders, respectively.Stockholders. The Committee and our Board of Directors believe that this level of approval of our executive compensation program is indicative of our stockholders’ strong support of our compensation philosophy and goals as well as the overall administration of executive compensation by the Committee and the Board of Directors.

You are being asked to approve on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to the Company’s Named Executive Officers as set forth in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, Summary Compensation Table and related notes and narrative set forth herein. This vote is not intended to address any specific compensation item, but rather the overall compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers and the philosophy, policies and practices described in this proxy statement.

21

Vote Required

The ‘say-on-pay’‘say-on-pay’ vote is advisory and therefore not binding on the Company, the Committee or the Board of Directors. However, we value the opinions of our stockholders and will review and will continue to consider the

20

outcome of this advisory vote when making future compensation decisions for our Named Executive Officers and will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address the stockholders’ concerns. Approval of this advisory vote requires the affirmative vote of the majority of shares represented in person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the item. The Board of Directors unanimously recommends voting “FOR” approval of the Company’s Named Executive Officers compensation.

21

PROPOSAL THREE: ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF VOTING ON THE COMPENSATION PAID TO THE COMPANY’S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

General

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and Section 14A of the Exchange Act, every six calendar years, stockholders vote on whether say-on-pay votes should occur every year, every two years or every three years. At the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Board of Directors, as a matter of good corporate governance, recommended that the stockholders approve an advisory vote on the frequency of future say-on-pay votes on an annual basis. Approximately 91% of the stockholder votes cast at the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders were for the Company’s recommendation, and in response the Company has since held an annual say-on-pay vote. At the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, stockholders will vote on whether say-on-pay votes should occur every year, every two years or every three years. Stockholders will be allowed to specify one of four choices for this proposal on the proxy card: one-year, two-years, three-years or abstain. Stockholders are not voting to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the Board of Directors.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

After considering the benefits and consequences of each alternative, we recommend that our stockholders select a frequency of one year (i.e., an annual vote). An annual vote provides a consistent and clear communication channel for stockholders to voice their opinion on the Company’s executive pay program.

Vote Required

The advisory vote on the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation is nonbinding on the Company or the Board of Directors. The frequency receiving the highest number of affirmative votes of the shares represented in person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the item will be considered the frequency preferred by the stockholders. Although nonbinding, the Board of Directors will consider the voting results when making future decisions regarding frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation. The Board of Directors unanimously recommends voting for conducting future advisory votes on named executive officer compensation on a “ONE YEAR” basis.

22

PROPOSAL FOUR:THREE: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

General

The Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan was originally approved by the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the Company in 2011, and was subsequently amended by the Board of Directors and our stockholders most recently in 20162018 (the “2011 Plan”). Subject to stockholder approval, our Board of Directors approved an amendment of the 2011 Plan on February 6, 20178, 2019 (the 2011 Plan, as amended, the “Amended 2011 Plan”). The Board of Directors is requesting stockholder approval of the Amended 2011 Plan, which includes the following material changes to the 2011 Plan, as described in more detail under “Summary of the Amended 2011 Plan” below:

The Board of Directors believes that the proposed increase in the number of shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan will allow the Company to attract and retain valuable employees and continue to provide its employees, consultants and directors with a proprietary interest in the Company. In particular, the Company anticipates doublinga material increase in its number of employees in 2017 as a result of receiving Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval2019 in connection with: (i) the continued commercialization of the Company’s first approved product, INGREZZA^TM® (valbenazine) capsules, which occurredbegan in April 2017. The Company is commercializing INGREZZA inMay 2017; and (ii) development activities related to the United States.Company’s other development programs. Within the Company, equity awards foster an ownership culture and are a critical tool for driving stockholder value and for recruiting, retaining and motivating employees. The Company grants annual equity awards to employees as an incentive to retain its work force and remain competitive. The terms of the Company’s annual equity awards and the Company’s employee policies are designed to align employee and stockholder interests. The Company grants equity awards to a broad group of employees and such awards constitute a significant component of the Company’s employees’ total compensation. The Company’s equity awards contain long-term vesting, performance-based vesting, and provisions designed to encourage employees to focus on the Company’s long-term goals and success. If our stockholders do not approve the Amended 2011 Plan, the Company strongly believes that it will be unable to successfully continue to use equity as part of its compensation program, as most of its competitors in the industry do, putting the Company at a significant disadvantage and compromising its ability to enhance stockholder value.

The Amended 2011 Plan authorizes the grant to our employees of options that qualify as incentive stock options under Section 422 of the Code. The 2011 Plan also authorizes the grant of nonstatutory stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards, restricted stock units, performance stock awards and other stock awards (collectively “stock awards”) to our employees, directors and consultants. The 2011 Plan also provides that certain nonstatutory stock options will be automatically granted tonon-employee directors and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, as described below.

As of March 31, 2017,15, 2019, under the 2011 Plan there were 6,675,604 options outstanding to purchase 6,410,435 shares of common stock, and 5,303,7544,998,075 shares were available for future stock awards; 1,331,7541,690,001 shares were subject to outstanding restricted stock units; and 1,178,8823,400,386 shares previously issued upon exercise of options granted and 1,275,1752,242,069 shares previously issued upon vesting of restricted stock units under the 2011 Plan are now outstanding shares of common stock. As of April 12, 2017,March 29, 2019, there were approximately 355630 employees and directors eligible to receive grants under the 2011 Plan.

As of the Record Date, whether granted under the 2011 Plan or otherwise, an aggregate of 7,171,4286,873,590 shares are issuable upon exercise of outstanding options with a weighted average exercise price of $24.94$48.69 and a weighted average remaining contractual term of 7.27.1 years; and 1,356,7541,714,376 shares are subject to unvested restricted stock units. The closing price of the Company’s common stock on March 31, 201729, 2019 was $43.30,$88.10 with 87,519,91091,284,279 shares outstanding.

23

Vote Required

At the Annual Meeting, the stockholders are being asked to approve the Amended 2011 Plan. The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the item will be required to approve the Amended 2011 Plan.The Board of Directors recommends voting “FOR” the approval of the Amended 2011 Plan.

Summary of the Amended 2011 Plan

The essential features of the Amended 2011 Plan are summarized below. This summary does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and qualified by reference to, all provisions of the Amended 2011 Plan. The Amended 2011 Plan, which reflects all of the changes proposed to be made to the 2011 Plan, is attached as Appendix A to this proxy statement and is incorporated herein by reference.

Purpose. The purpose of the Amended 2011 Plan is to enable the Company to attract and retain the best available personnel, to provide additional incentives to the employees, directors and consultants of the Company and to promote the success of the Company’s business.

Administration. Our Board of Directors has the authority to administer the Amended 2011 Plan. Our Board of Directors also has the authority to delegate some or all of the administration of the Amended 2011 Plan (except theNon-Discretionary Grant Program summarized below) to a committee or committees composed of one or more members of the Board of Directors or Company officers (the Board of Directors or any such committee, the “Administrator”). The Amended 2011 Plan may be administered by different committees with respect to different groups of employees and consultants. The Administrator may make any determinations deemed necessary or advisable for the Amended 2011 Plan. The Administrator, in its discretion, selects the employees, directors and consultants to whom stock awards may be granted, the time or times at which such awards shall be granted, the number of shares subject to each such grant, and other terms of the stock awards. All decisions, determinations and interpretations of the Administrator shall be final and binding on all holders.

Eligibility. Incentive stock options may be granted only to our employees. Nonstatutory stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards, restricted stock unit awards, performance stock awards and other stock awards may be granted under the Amended 2011 Plan to our employees, directors and consultants. Participation in thenon-discretionary grant program is limited to ournon-employee directors (see “Non-Discretionary“Non-Discretionary Grant Program” below).

Stock Subject to the Amended 2011 Plan

Subject to stockholder approval of this Proposal FourThree and adjustments for changes in our capitalization, an aggregate of 17,000,00021,000,000 shares of common stock will be reserved for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan. Shares may be issued in connection with a merger or acquisition as permitted by the rules of the applicable national securities exchange, and such issuance shall not reduce the number of shares available for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan. If a stock award granted under the Amended 2011 Plan expires or otherwise terminates without all of the shares having been issued, or if any shares of common stock issued pursuant to a stock award are forfeited to us because of the failure to meet a contingency or condition required for the vesting of such shares, then the shares of common stock not issued under such stock award, or forfeited to us, shall revert to and again become available for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan.

If any shares subject to a stock award are not delivered to a participant because such shares are withheld for the payment of taxes or the stock award is exercised through a reduction of shares subject to the stock award (i.e. “net exercised”), or an appreciation distribution in respect of a stock appreciation right is paid in shares of common stock, the number of shares that are not delivered will not again become available for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan. If the exercise price of any stock award is satisfied by tendering shares of common stock held by the participant, then the number of shares so tendered will not become available for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan.

24

The aggregate maximum number of shares of common stock that may be issued under the Amended 2011 Plan pursuant to the exercise of incentive stock options, subject to stockholder approval of this Proposal Four,Three, is 17,000,00021,000,000 shares.

Per-Person Award Limitations. Section 162(m) of the Code places limits on the deductibility for federal income tax purposes of compensation paid to certain executive officers of the Company. In order to preserve the Company’s ability to deduct the compensation income associated with stock awards granted to such persons, theThe Amended 2011 Plan provides that no employee may be granted, in any fiscal year of the Company, stock options, stock appreciation rights (and any other stock awards whose value is determined by reference to an increase over an exercise or strike price of at least the fair market value on the date of grant) (all such options, stock appreciation rights and other stock awards “appreciation awards”) covering more than 500,000 shares of common stock. Notwithstanding this limit, however, in connection with an employee’s initial employment, he or she may be granted appreciation awards covering up to an additional 500,000 shares of common stock. Additionalper-person limitations apply to performance stock awards, as described below in the section entitled “Terms of Performance Awards”.

Full Value Stock Award Limitations. In addition, subject to adjustments upon changes in our capitalization or in connection with a merger or other similar event, the maximum number of shares of common stock that may be issued pursuant to the grant of “full value stock awards” (i.e., restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance stock and other stock awards, but not including stock options or stock appreciation rights) is 50% of the total number of shares of common stock issuable under the Amended 2011 Plan.

Minimum Vesting. Generally, no full value stock award that vests on the basis of the participant’s continuous service with the Company shall vest at a rate that is any more rapid than ratably over a three-year period, and no full value stock award that vests based on the satisfaction of performance goals shall have a performance period of less than twelve months.

Limited Exception to Minimum Vesting Restrictions.Up to five percent (5%) of the total number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the Amended 2011 Plan may in the aggregate be issued as full value stock awards that are not subject to the minimum vesting requirements set forth in the Amended 2011 Plan.

Limit onNon-Employee Director Compensation.The aggregate value of all compensation granted or paid, as applicable, to any individual for service as anon-employee director with respect to any period commencing on the date of the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders for a particular year and ending on the date of the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders for the next subsequent year, including stock awards granted under the Amended 2011 Plan and cash fees paid to suchnon-employee director, will not exceed $1,250,000 in total value. In addition, the aggregate value of the initial option grant or other similar stock award(s) granted under the Plan or otherwise to any individual for service as anon-employee director upon or in connection with his or her initial election or appointment to the Board of Directors will not exceed $2,000,000 in total value. For purposes of these limitations, the value of stock awards is calculated based on the grant date fair value of such stock awards for financial reporting purposes. The Board of Directors has the authority to make exceptions to these limits in extraordinary circumstances, in its discretion, provided that anynon-employee director who is granted or paid such additional compensation may not participate in the decision to grant or pay such additional compensation.

Section 162(m) Transition Relief for Performance-Based Compensation. Under Section 162(m) of the Code, compensation paid to any publicly held corporation’s “covered employees” (as defined under Section 162(m) of the Code) that exceeds $1 million per taxable year for any covered employee is generallynon-deductible. Certain provisions in the Amended 2011 Plan refer to the “performance-based compensation” exception to the $1 million deduction limit under Section 162(m) of the Code. Pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, this exception was repealed with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, an award may still be eligible for this exception if, among other requirements, it is intended to qualify, and is eligible to qualify, as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code pursuant to the transition relief provided by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for remuneration provided pursuant to a written binding contract which was in effect on November 2, 2017 and which was not modified in any material respect on or

25

after such date. For purposes of this Proposal Three, the term “Section 162(m) Transition Relief” refers to such transition relief. Accordingly, the provisions in the Amended 2011 Plan which refer to the “performance-based compensation” exception under Section 162(m) of the Code will only apply to any award that is intended to qualify, and is eligible to qualify, as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code pursuant to the Section 162(m) Transition Relief and, therefore, such provisions are not applicable to any other awards granted under the Amended 2011 Plan. Because of certain ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m) of the Code, as well as other factors beyond the control of the Compensation Committee, no assurance can be given that any award granted under the Amended 2011 Plan will be eligible for such transition relief and be deductible by the Company in the future.

Terms and Conditions of Options and Stock Appreciation Rights

Options and stock appreciation rights may be granted under the Amended 2011 Plan pursuant to stock option agreements and stock appreciation right agreements. The following is a description of the permissible terms of options and stock appreciation rights under the Amended 2011 Plan. Individual grants may be more restrictive as to any or all of the permissible terms described below.

25

Exercise Price. The Administrator determines the exercise price of options and strike price of stock appreciation rights at the time the options or stock appreciation rights are granted as set forth in the applicable stock award agreement. The exercise price of a stock option and strike price of a stock appreciation right may not be less than 100% of the fair market value of the common stock on the date such award is granted. In the case of an incentive stock option granted to an optionee who owns more than 10% of all classes of stock of the Company or any parent or subsidiary of the Company, the exercise price may not be less than 110% of the fair market value of the common stock on the date such option is granted. The fair market value of the common stock is generally determined with reference to the closing sale price for the common stock on the date the option or stock appreciation right is granted.

Stock Appreciation Rights. Each stock appreciation right is denominated in shares of common stock equivalents. Upon exercise of a stock appreciation right, we will pay the participant an amount equal to the excess of (i) the aggregate fair market value of our common stock on the date of exercise over (ii) the strike price determined by the Administrator on the date of grant. The appreciation distribution upon exercise of a stock appreciation right will be paid in shares of our common stock, in cash, any combination of the two or any other form of consideration determined by the Administrator.

Repricing; Cancellation andRe-Grant of Stock Awards. Under the Amended 2011 Plan, the Administrator does not have the authority to reprice any outstanding stock awards by reducing the exercise price of the stock award or to cancel any outstanding stock awards in exchange for cash or other stock awards without obtaining the approval of our stockholders within 12 months prior to the repricing or cancellation andre-grant event.

Exercise; Form of Consideration. The Administrator determines when options and stock appreciation rights become exercisable as set forth in the applicable stock award agreement. The means of payment for shares issued upon exercise of an option is specified in each option agreement. The Amended 2011 Plan permits payment to be made to the extent permitted under applicable laws by cash, check, other shares of common stock of the Company (with some restrictions), net exercise, cashless exercise, any other form of consideration permitted by applicable law, or any combination thereof.

Term. The Administrator determines the term of options and stock appreciation rights granted under the Amended 2011 Plan as set forth in the applicable stock award agreement. The term of options and stock appreciation rights granted under the Amended 2011 Plan may be no more than 10 years from the date of grant. In the case of an incentive stock option granted to an optionee who owns more than 10% of all classes of stock of the Company or any parent or subsidiary of the Company, the term of the option may be no more than five years from the date of grant. No option or stock appreciation right may be exercised after the expiration of its term.

26

Termination of Continuous Service. Options and stock appreciation rights granted under the Amended 2011 Plan generally terminate three months after termination of the participant’s service unless (i) such termination is due to the participant’s disability, in which case the stock award may, but need not, provide that it may be exercised (to the extent the stock award was exercisable at the time of the termination of service) at any time within 12 months of such termination; (ii) the participant dies before the participant’s service has terminated, or within the period specified in the stock award agreement after termination of such service, in which case the stock award may, but need not, provide that it may be exercised (to the extent the stock award was exercisable at the time of the participant’s death) within 18 months of the participant’s death by the person or persons to whom the rights to exercise such stock award pass by will or by the laws of descent and distribution; (iii) the stock award by its terms specifically provides otherwise, or (iv) the termination is for cause. Except as provided otherwise in a participant’s stock award agreement, or otherwise set forth in an employment agreement, upon termination of a participant’s service for cause, the stock award shall immediately terminate and may not thereafter be exercised. A participant may designate a beneficiary who may exercise the stock award following the participant’s death. Individual grants by their terms may provide for exercise within a longer or shorter period of time following termination of service. In no event, however, may an option or stock appreciation right be exercised beyond the expiration of its maximum term. The option or stock appreciation right term generally is

26

extended in the event that exercise of the stock award within the foregoing periods is prohibited. A participant’s stock award agreement may provide that if the exercise of the stock award following the termination of the participant’s service would be prohibited because the issuance of stock would violate the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, then the stock award will terminate on the earlier of (i) the expiration of the term of the stock award or (ii) three months after the termination of the participant’s service during which the exercise of the stock award would not be in violation of such registration requirements.

Other Provisions. The stock option agreement may contain other terms, provisions and conditions not inconsistent with the Amended 2011 Plan as may be determined by the Administrator.

Terms of Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Unit Awards

Restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards may be granted under the Amended 2011 Plan pursuant to restricted stock award and restricted stock unit award agreements. The following is a description of the permissible terms of restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards under the Amended 2011 Plan. Individual grants may be more restrictive as to any or all of the permissible terms described below.

Consideration. The Administrator may grant restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards in consideration for past services rendered to the Company or in exchange for any other form of legal consideration acceptable to the Administrator.

Vesting. Shares of stock issued under a restricted stock award agreement may, but need not, be subject to forfeiture to the Company in accordance with a vesting schedule as determined by the Administrator. Restricted stock unit awards vest and are issued at the rate specified in the restricted stock unit award agreement as determined by the Administrator. However, at the time of grant, the Administrator may impose additional restrictions or conditions that delay the delivery of stock to be issued in respect of the restricted stock unit award after vesting.

Termination of Service. Unless the Administrator determines otherwise, the restricted stock purchase agreement shall give the Company a repurchase option exercisable upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of the purchaser’s employment or consulting relationship with the Company for any reason (including death and disability). The purchase price for any issued shares repurchased by the Company shall be the original price paid by the purchaser, if any. The repurchase option lapses at a rate determined by the Administrator. Except as otherwise provided in the applicable award agreement, restricted stock unit awards that have not vested will be automatically forfeited upon the participant’s termination of service.

27

Dividend Equivalents. Dividend equivalent rights may be credited with respect to shares covered by a restricted stock unit award. However, we do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future.

Terms of Performance Awards

The Amended 2011 Plan allows the Administrator to issue performance stock awards. Performance stock awards may be granted, vest or be exercised based upon the attainment during a certain period of time of certain performance goals and will be issued in shares of our common stock, or if determined by the Administrator, cash. All of our employees, consultants and directors are eligible to receive performance stock awards under the Amended 2011 Plan. The length of any performance period, the performance goals to be achieved during the performance period and the measure of whether and to what degree such performance goals have been attained shall be determined by the Administrator in accordance with the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code.Administrator. The maximum amount to be granted to any individual in any calendar year attributable to such performance stock awards may not exceed 500,000 shares of our common stock. Notwithstanding this limit, however, in connection with an employee’s initial employment, he or she may be granted performance stock awards covering up to an additional 500,000 shares of common stock.

27

In granting a performance stock award, the Administrator will set a period of time, or a performance period, over which the attainment of one or more goals, or performance goals, will be measured for the purpose of determining whether the stock award recipient has a vested right in or to such performance stock award. With respect to stock awards that are intended to qualify as performance based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code, within the time period prescribed by Section 162(m) of the Code, (typically before the 90th day of a performance period), the Administrator will establish the performance goals, based upon one or morepre-established criteria, or performance criteria, enumerated in the Amended 2011 Plan and described below. However, in order to qualify as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code, among other requirements, such awards must be eligible to qualify for the Section 162(m) Transition Relief (as described in “Section 162(m) Transition Relief for Performance-Based Compensation” above). As soon as administratively practicable following the end of the performance period, the Administrator will certify (in writing) whether the performance goals have been satisfied.

Performance goals under the Amended 2011 Plan shall be established by the Administrator, based on one or more of the following performance criteria: (i) earnings (including earnings per share and net earnings, in either case before or after any or all of: interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, legal settlements or other income (expense), or stock-based compensation, othernon-cash expenses and changes in deferred revenue); (ii) total stockholder return; (iii) return on equity or average stockholder’s equity; (iv) return on assets, investment, or capital employed; (v) stock price; (vi) margin (including gross margin); (vii) income (before or after taxes); (viii) operating income; (ix) operating income after taxes;(x) pre-tax profit; (xi) operating cash flow; (xii) sales or revenue targets; (xiii) increases in revenue or product revenue; (xiv) expenses and cost reduction goals; (xv) improvement in or attainment of working capital levels; (xvi) economic value added (or an equivalent metric); (xvii) market share; (xviii) cash flow; (xix) cash flow per share; (xx) cash burn; (xxi) share price performance; (xxii) debt reduction; (xxiii) implementation or completion of projects or processes (including, without limitation, discovery of apre-clinical drug candidate, recommendation of a drug candidate to enter a clinical trial, clinical trial initiation, clinical trial enrollment and dates, clinical trial results, regulatory filing submissions, regulatory filing acceptances, regulatory or advisory committee interactions, regulatory approvals, presentation of studies and launch of commercial plans, compliance programs or education campaigns); (xxiv) customer satisfaction; (xxv) stockholders’ equity; (xxvi) capital expenditures; (xxvii) debt levels; (xxviii) financings; (xxix) operating profit or net operating profit; (xxx) workforce diversity; (xxxi) growth of net income or operating income; (xxxii) billings; (xxxiii) employee hiring; (xxxiv) funds from operations; (xxxv) budget management; (xxxvi) strategic partnerships or transactions (including acquisitions, joint ventures or licensing transactions); (xxxvii) engagement of thought leaders and patient advocacy groups; (xxxviii) enhancement of intellectual property portfolio, filing of patent applications and granting of patents; (xxxix) litigation preparation and management; and (xl) to the extent that an award is not intended to comply with Section 162(m) of the Code, other measures of performance selected by the Administrator.

28

Unless otherwise determined by the Administrator, the attainment of performance goals for a performance period will be calculated: (i) to exclude restructuring and/or other nonrecurring charges; (ii) to exclude exchange rate effects, as applicable, fornon-U.S. dollar denominated net sales and operating earnings; (iii) to exclude the effects of changes to generally accepted accounting standards required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board; (iv) to exclude the effects of any statutory adjustments to corporate tax rates; (v) to exclude the effects of items that are “unusual” in nature or occur “infrequently” as determined under generally accepted accounting principles; (vi) to exclude the dilutive effects of acquisitions or joint ventures; (vii) to assume that any business divested by the Company achieved performance objectives at targeted levels during the balance of a performance period following such divestiture; (viii) to exclude the effect of any change in the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company by reason of any stock dividend or split, stock repurchase, reorganization, recapitalization, merger, consolidation,spin-off, combination or exchange of shares or other similar corporate change, or any distributions to common stockholders other than regular cash dividends; (ix) to exclude the effects of stock based compensation and the award of bonuses under the Company’s bonus plans; (x) to exclude costs incurred in connection with potential acquisitions or divestitures that are required to be expensed under generally accepted accounting principles; (xi) to exclude the goodwill and intangible asset impairment charges that are required to be recorded under generally accepted accounting principles; and (xii) to exclude the effects of the timing of acceptance for review and/or approval of submissions to the FDA or any other regulatory body. In addition, the

28

Administrator retains the discretion to reduce or eliminate the compensation or economic benefit due upon attainment of performance goals.

Non-Discretionary Grant Program

Thenon-discretionary grant program under the Amended 2011 Plan provides for the grant of stock options tonon-employee directors over their period of service on the Board of Directors. These stock options will be granted as follows:

Initial Option Grant. Each newnon-employee director will, at the time of his or her initial election or appointment to the Board of Directors, receive an option to purchase a number of shares of the Company’s common stock determined by the Board of Directors (the “initial option grant”). The initial option grant shall vest monthly with respect to 1/36th of the shares over the three-year period following the date of grant, subject to the director’s continuous service through the applicable vesting dates, so that the initial option grant will be fully vested on the third anniversary of the date of grant.

Annual Option Grant. On each annual meeting, each continuingnon-employee director will automatically be granted a stock option to purchase a number of shares of our common stock determined by the Board of Directors (the “annual option grant”). The annual option grant shall vest monthly with respect to 1/12th of the shares over the one year period following the date of grant, subject to the director’s continuous service through the applicable vesting dates, so that the annual option grant will be fully vested on the first anniversary of the date of grant.

General Terms. The exercise price of each option granted under thenon-discretionary grant program is 100% of the fair market value of the common stock subject to the option on the date of grant. The maximum term of options granted under thenon-discretionary grant program is ten years. All other terms of each option granted under thenon-discretionary grant program shall be consistent with the terms of the Amended 2011 Plan.

Corporate Transaction. Each option granted under thenon-discretionary grant program shall automatically fully accelerate vesting upon a corporate transaction, subject to thenon-employee director’s continuous service through the date of the corporate transaction.

Terms of Other Stock Awards

The Administrator may grant other stock awards that are valued in whole or in part by reference to our common stock. Subject to the provisions of the Amended 2011 Plan, the Administrator has the authority to

29

determine the persons to whom, and the dates on which, such other stock awards will be granted, the number of shares of common stock (or cash equivalents) to be subject to each award, and other terms and conditions of such awards.

General Provisions

Tax Withholding. To the extent provided by the terms of any stock award agreement, a participant may satisfy any federal, state or local tax withholding obligation relating to such stock award by a cash payment, by authorizing the Company to withhold a portion of the stock otherwise issuable to the participant, by withholding from any amounts otherwise payable to the participant, by a combination of these means, or by such other method as set forth in the stock award agreement.

Transferability. Stock awards may not be sold, pledged, transferred, or disposed of in any manner other than by will or by the laws of descent and distribution, pursuant to a domestic relations order, or with respect to stock awards other than options or stock appreciation rights, with the Administrator’s consent, and may be exercised, during the lifetime of the holder, only by the holder or such transferees as have been transferred a

29

stock award with the Administrator’s consent. If the Administrator makes a stock award transferable, such stock award shall contain such additional terms and conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate and such award will not otherwise be transferred for consideration.

Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization. In the event any change is made to the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock without the receipt of consideration (whether through a stock split or other specified change in our capital structure), the Administrator shall appropriately adjust the number and kind of shares of stock (or other securities or property) subject to the Amended 2011 Plan, the maximum number of shares that may be issued pursuant to the exercise of incentive stock options, the maximum numbers and/or class of securities for which any one person may be granted appreciation awards, full value stock awards and performance stock awards per calendar year, the number and kind of shares of stock (or other securities or property) subject to any stock award outstanding under the Amended 2011 Plan, and the exercise or purchase price of any such outstanding stock award.

Effect of Certain Corporate Events. In the event of a dissolution or liquidation of the Company, all outstanding stock awards under the Amended 2011 Plan shall terminate immediately prior to such dissolution or liquidation. The Amended 2011 Plan further provides that, in the event of a sale, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the Company’s assets or specified types of mergers or consolidations (each, a “corporate transaction”), any surviving or acquiring corporation shall either assume stock awards outstanding under the Amended 2011 Plan or substitute similar stock awards for those outstanding under the Amended 2011 Plan. If any surviving corporation declines to assume stock awards outstanding under the Amended 2011 Plan or to substitute similar stock awards, then, with respect to participants whose service with the Company has not terminated prior to the time of such corporate transaction, the vesting and the time during which such stock awards may be exercised will be accelerated in full, and all outstanding stock awards will terminate if the participant does not exercise such stock awards at or prior to the corporate transaction. With respect to any stock awards that are held by other participants that terminated service with the Company prior to the corporate transaction, the vesting and exercisability provisions of such stock awards will not be accelerated and such stock awards will terminate if not exercised prior to the corporate transaction.

Amendment and Termination of the Amended 2011 Plan. The Board of Directors may amend, alter, suspend or terminate the Amended 2011 Plan, or any part thereof, at any time and for any reason. Unless sooner terminated, the Amended 2011 Plan will terminate on February 20, 2021. However, the Amended 2011 Plan requires stockholder approval for any amendment to the Amended 2011 Plan to the extent necessary to comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations. No action by the Board of Directors or stockholders may impair any award previously granted under the Amended 2011 Plan without the consent of the holder.

30

Federal Income Tax Consequences

Incentive Stock Options. An optionee who is granted an incentive stock option does not recognize taxable income at the time the option is granted or upon its exercise, although the exercise is an adjustment item for alternative minimum tax purposes and may subject the optionee to the alternative minimum tax. Upon a disposition of the shares more than two years after grant of the option and one year after exercise of the option, any gain or loss is treated as long-term capital gain or loss. If these holding periods are not satisfied, the optionee recognizes ordinary income at the time of disposition equal to the difference between the exercise price and the lesser of (i) the excess of the stock’s fair market value on the date of exercise over the exercise price, or (ii) the participant’s actual gain, if any, on the purchase and sale. Any gain or loss recognized on such a premature disposition of the shares in excess of the amount treated as ordinary income is treated as long-term or short-term capital gain or loss, depending on the holding period. A different rule for measuring ordinary income upon such a premature disposition may apply if the optionee is also an officer, director or 10% stockholder of the Company. Unless limited by Section 162(m) of the Code, the Company is entitled to a deduction in the same amount as the ordinary income recognized by the optionee.

30

Nonstatutory Stock Options. An optionee does not recognize any taxable income at the time he or she is granted a nonstatutory stock option. Upon exercise, the optionee recognizes taxable income generally measured by the excess of the then fair market value of the shares over the exercise price. Any taxable income recognized in connection with an option exercise by an employee of the Company is subject to tax withholding by the Company. Unless limited by Section 162(m) of the Code, the Company is entitled to a deduction in the same amount as the ordinary income recognized by the optionee. Upon a disposition of such shares by the optionee, any difference between the sale price and the optionee’s exercise price, to the extent not recognized as taxable income as provided above, is treated as long-term or short-term capital gain or loss, depending on the holding period.

Stock Appreciation Rights. No taxable income is realized upon the receipt of a stock appreciation right. Upon exercise of the stock appreciation right, the fair market value of the shares (or cash in lieu of shares) received is recognized as ordinary income to the participant in the year of such exercise. Generally, with respect to employees, we are required to withhold from the payment made on exercise of the stock appreciation right or from regular wages or supplemental wage payments an amount based on the ordinary income recognized. Subject to the requirement of reasonableness, Section 162(m) of the Code and the satisfaction of a reporting obligation, we will be entitled to an income tax deduction equal to the amount of ordinary income recognized by the participant.

Restricted Stock Awards. For federal income tax purposes, if an individual is granted a restricted stock award, the recipient generally will recognize taxable ordinary income equal to the excess of the common stock’s fair market value over the purchase price, if any. However, to the extent the common stock is subject to certain types of restrictions, such as a repurchase right in favor of the Company, the taxable event will be delayed until the vesting restrictions lapse unless the recipient makes a valid election under Section 83(b) of the Code. If the recipient makes a valid election under Section 83(b) of the Code with respect to restricted stock, the recipient generally will recognize ordinary income at the date of acquisition of the restricted stock in an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the fair market value of the shares at that date over the purchase price for the restricted stock. If, however, a valid Section 83(b) election is not made by the recipient, the recipient will generally recognize ordinary income when the restrictions on the shares of restricted stock lapse, in an amount equal to the difference between the fair market value of the shares at the date such restrictions lapse over the purchase price for the restricted stock. With respect to employees, the Company is generally required to withhold from regular wages or supplemental wage payments an amount based on the ordinary income recognized. Generally, the Company will be entitled (subject to the requirement of reasonableness, the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Code and the satisfaction of a tax reporting obligation) to a business expense deduction equal to the taxable ordinary income realized by the recipient. Upon disposition of the common stock, the recipient will recognize a capital gain or loss equal to the difference between the selling price and the sum of the

31

amount paid for such common stock, if any, plus any amount recognized as ordinary income upon acquisition (or the lapse of restrictions) of the common stock. Such gain or loss will be long-term or short-term depending on how long the common stock was held. Slightly different rules may apply to recipients who are subject to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act.

Restricted Stock Unit Awards. No taxable income is recognized upon receipt of a restricted stock unit award. The participant will recognize ordinary income in the year in which the shares subject to that unit are actually issued to the participant in an amount equal to the fair market value of the shares on the date of issuance. The participant and the Company will be required to satisfy certain tax withholding requirements applicable to such income. Subject to the requirement of reasonableness, Section 162(m) of the Code and the satisfaction of a tax reporting obligation, we will be entitled to an income tax deduction equal to the amount of ordinary income recognized by the participant at the time the shares are issued. In general, the deduction will be allowed for the taxable year in which such ordinary income is recognized by the participant.

Potential Limitation on Company Deductions. Under Section 162(m) of the Code, denies a deductioncompensation paid to any publicly held corporation for compensation paid to certaincorporation’s “covered employees” in a taxable year to(as defined under Section 162(m) of the extentCode) that compensation exceeds $1 million per taxable year for a covered employee. It is possible that compensation attributable to

31

awards granted in the future under the Amended 2011 Plan, when combined with all other types of compensation received by aany covered employee fromis generallynon-deductible. Prior to the Company, may cause this limitation to be exceeded in any particular year. Certain kinds of compensation, including qualified “performance-based compensation,” are disregarded for purposesenactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Section 162(m) of the Code provided a performance-based compensation exception, pursuant to which the deduction limitation. In accordance with Treasury regulations issuedlimit under Section 162(m) of the Code did not apply to any compensation attributablethat qualified as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code. Pursuant to stock options will qualify asthe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) of the Code was repealed with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, except that certain transition relief is provided that: (1)for compensation paid pursuant to a written binding contract which was in effect on November 2, 2017 and which is not modified in any material respect on or after such date. Compensation paid to each of the stock award plan contains a per-employee limitation onCompany’s “covered employees” in excess of $1 million per taxable year generally will not be deductible unless it qualifies for the numberperformance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) of shares for which awards maythe Code pursuant to the transition relief described above. Because of certain ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m) of the Code, as well as other factors beyond the control of the Compensation Committee, no assurance can be granted during a specified period; (2) the per-employee limitation is approvedgiven that any compensation paid by the stockholders; (3) the stockCompany (including any award is granted by a compensation committee comprised solely of “outside directors”; and (4) the exercise price of the stock award is no less than the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant.

Restricted stock awards, restricted stock unit awards and other stock awards may qualify as performance-based compensation under the Treasury regulations only if: (1) the stock award is granted by a compensation committee comprised solely of “outside directors”; (2) the stock award is earned (typically through vesting) only upon the achievement of an objective performance goal established in writing by the compensation committee while the outcome is substantially uncertain; (3) the compensation committee certifies in writing prior to the earning of the stock award that the performance goal has been satisfied; and (4) prior to the earning of the stock award, stockholders have approved the material terms of the stock award (including the class of employeesAmended 2011 Plan) will be eligible for such stock award,transition relief and be deductible by the business criteria on whichCompany in the performance goal is based, and the maximum amount (or formula used to calculate the amount) payable upon attainment of the performance goal). The Amended 2011 Plan has been designed to permit the compensation committee to grant stock options, restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and other stock awards and performance cash awards which will qualify as “performance-based compensation.”future.

The foregoing is only a summary of the effect of federal income taxation upon holders of stock awards and the Company with respect to the grant and exercise of stock awards under the Amended 2011 Plan. It does not purport to be complete, and does not discuss the tax consequences of the holder’s death or the provisions of the income tax laws of any municipality, state or foreign country in which the holder may reside.

32

New Plan Benefits

Amended 2011 Plan

32

33

Plan Benefits

The following table sets forth, for each of the individuals and groups indicated, the total number of shares of our common stock subject to options and stock awards that have been granted (even if not currently outstanding) under the 2011 Plan through the Record Date.

2011 Plan

34

33

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS

The following table sets forth information regarding all of the Company’s equity compensation plans as of March 31, 2017:1, 2019:

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS

A VOTE “FOR” PROPOSAL THREE

35

PROPOSAL FIVE:FOUR: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

General

The Audit Committee has selected Ernst & Young LLP to audit the financial statements of the Company for the current fiscal year ending December 31, 2017.2019. Ernst & Young LLP has audited the Company’s financial statements since 1992. Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP are expected to be present at the Annual Meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire, and are expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.

Stockholders are not required to ratify the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. However, the Audit Committee is submitting the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to the stockholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate practice. If the stockholders fail to ratify the selection, the Audit Committee will reconsider whether or not to retain that firm. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee in their discretion may direct the selection of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if they determine that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

Vote Required

The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the item will be required to approve and ratify the Audit Committee’s selection of Ernst & Young LLP. The Board of Directors unanimously recommends voting “FOR” approval and ratification of such selection. In the event of a negative vote on such ratification, the Audit Committee will reconsider its selection.

36

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

As of the Record Date, our executive officers were as follows:

See above for biographical information concerning Kevin C. Gorman, Ph.D.

David-AlexandrèMatthew C. Gros, M.D.Abernethy became President andwas appointed Chief OperatingFinancial Officer in January 2017. PriorNovember 2017 and is responsible for leading corporate finance activities and commercial supply chain operations, as well as information technology and investor relations functions at Neurocrine. Mr. Abernethy has nearly 15 years of experience in the financial sector and investor relations with expertise in the healthcare industry. He joined Neurocrine from Zimmer Biomet, where he held various positions from February 2009 to joining Neurocrine, he was SeniorNovember 2017, including most recently, Vice President, Chief Business OfficerInvestor Relations and Principal Financial Officer,Treasurer and was a member of the Management Board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Prior to joining Alnylam in June 2015, Dr. Gros served as Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer at Sanofi SA, from September 2011 to June 2015, where he was a member of the Executive Committee. Prior to Sanofi, he held positions of increasing responsibility with a focus on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals in investment banking at Centerview Partners from 2009 to July 2011 and Merrill Lynch from 2006 to 2009, and in management consulting at McKinsey & Company prior to that time. Dr. Gros holds an M.D. from The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a B.A. from Dartmouth College.

Christopher F. O’Brien, M.D. became Chief Medical Officer in January 2007 after having served as Senior Vice President of Clinical Development since 2005.Finance for the Americas and Global Product Engines. He is responsible for clinical operations, regulatory affairs, drug safety, biostatisticsbegan his career with KPMG LLP and data management. Prior to joining Neurocrine, he was Chief Medical Officer at Prestwick Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2003 to 2005 and Senior Vice President of Global Medical Affairs at Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2000 to 2003. Dr. O’Brien is currently on the Board of Directors of Verifax Corporation, a biometrics company focused on developing a dynamic signature verification system. Dr. O’Brien is a Board-Certified Neurologistcertified public accountant. Mr. Abernethy earned his B.S. in Accounting and obtained his undergraduate degree in NeuroscienceBusiness Administration from Boston University, his medical degreeGrace College and residency trainingan MBA from the University of Minnesota and fellowship training from the University of Rochester School of Medicine.Chicago.

Eric Benevichwas appointed Chief Commercial Officer in May 2015 and is responsible for all aspects of commercial development, marketing and sales of the Neurocrine product portfolio. Previously, Mr. Benevich was at Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from 2005 to 2015, serving most recently as Vice President of Marketing where he was responsible for NUEDEXTA^® and commercialization of their CNS pipeline. Mr. Benevich has over 20 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and previously served in various positions of increasing responsibility at Peninsula Pharmaceuticals Inc., Amgen and AstraZeneca in the sales and marketing of drugs such as Enbrel^®, Epogen^® and Prilosec^®. Mr. Benevich has a BBA in International Business from Washington State University.

Haig P. Bozigian, Ph.D. was appointed Chief Development Officer in December 20062013 after having served as Senior Vice President of Pharmaceutical and Preclinical Development. HeDr. Bozigian is responsible for all pre-clinical, chemicalpreclinical development, chemistry manufacturing and pharmaceutical development.controls (CMC) and clinical pharmacology, and has led such functions since 2006. Dr. Bozigian joined Neurocrine in 1997. With extensive expertise in CNS related new product development, Dr. Bozigian has participated in research and development for more than 20approximately 30 years. Prior to joining Neurocrine, Dr. Bozigian served as Director of Pharmaceutical Development at Procyte Corporation, Associate

37

Director of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Metabolism at Sphinx Pharmaceuticals Corporation and as a Clinical Pharmacokineticist at GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Bozigian earned his B.S. in Microbiology from the University of Massachusetts, his M.S. in Pharmacodynamics and Toxicology from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and earned his Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from the University of Arizona.

Kyle W. Gano, Ph.D. was appointed Chief Business Development Officer in 2011 and is responsible for all business and corporate development activities, including the management of ongoing collaborations with AbbVie, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, BIAL, Jnana Therapeutics and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma.Voyager Therapeutics. From 2001 to 2011, Dr. Gano held several positions of increasing responsibility at Neurocrine spanning marketing analytics to

37

business development. Dr. Gano received his B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Oregon, B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of Washington, and his Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry and M.B.A in Finance from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dimitri E. Grigoriadis, Ph.D.becamewas appointed Chief Research Officer in January 2007 and2013. Dr. Grigoriadis oversees all research functions, including drug discovery, biology and chemistry.chemistry, and has led such functions since 2006. Dr. Grigoriadis joined Neurocrine in 1993, established the pharmacology and drug screening groups and was most recently a Neurocrine Fellow and Vice President of Discovery Biology. Prior to joining Neurocrine, he was a Senior Scientist in the Neuroscience group at the DuPont Pharmaceutical Company from 1990 to 1993. Dr. Grigoriadis received his B.Sc. from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, and his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He conducted his postdoctoral research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse from 1987 to 1990.

Darin M. Lippoldt was appointed Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary in October 2014 and is responsible forhas oversight of all corporate legal matters.matters, intellectual property, compliance, and government relations. Prior to joining Neurocrine, Mr. Lippoldt served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Chief Compliance Officer and Corporate Secretary of Volcano Corporation, a company he joined in 2010. Prior to Volcano, Mr. Lippoldt served as Associate General Counsel at Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since 2003. He previously practiced corporate and securities law with the law firms of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP and Matthews and Branscomb, P.C. Mr. Lippoldt received a B.B.A. in Finance, an M.A. in International Relations and a J.D. from St. Mary’s University.

Malcolm C. Lloyd-Smith was appointed Chief Regulatory Officer in September 2014 and is responsible for regulatory affairs and quality assurance. Prior to joining Neurocrine, Mr. Lloyd-Smith served at Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Quality and Clinical from August 2012 to September 2014, and previously as Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance from August 2008. Mr. Lloyd-Smith served as Vice President and Head of Global Regulatory Affairs for Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from September 2003 to August 2008, after having served in the United Kingdom as its Vice President, International Regulatory Affairs from March 2002 to August 2003. Previously, Mr. Lloyd-Smith served in various positions of increasing responsibility with DuPont Pharmaceuticals in Germany, Switzerland, USA and UK. Mr. Lloyd-Smith holds a B.Sc. in Pharmacology from the University of Leeds and a M.Sc. in Pharmacological Biochemistry from Hatfield Polytechnic.

Eiry W. Roberts, M.D., was appointed Chief Medical Officer in January 2018 and is responsible for all clinical development and medical affairs activities at Neurocrine. Dr. Roberts has over 25 years of research and development experience in the pharmaceutical industry across all phases of drug development from research through commercialization in multiple therapeutic areas, including neuroscience, inflammation, oncology and metabolic diseases. She joined Neurocrine from Eli Lilly and Company where she had worked since May 1991. During her tenure at Eli Lily and Company Dr. Roberts held various positions of increasing responsibility, including Vice President, Clinical Pharmacology/Managing Director of Chorus a position she held from October 2014 until December 2017 and Vice President of R&D, BioMedicines Business Unit. At Eli Lilly Dr. Roberts was the Chair of the Medical Review Committee, where she was responsible for review and approval of all the integrated clinical plans for molecules in the Lilly portfolio. Dr. Roberts was accountable for early clinical development programs across all therapeutic areas within Lilly, as well as registration for new chemical entities and biproducts in Phase III development. During her time at Lilly, Dr. Roberts established a new therapeutic area, which resulted in the development of five potential novel medicines from Phase I through to approval, with two of them successfully receiving regulatory approval. Dr. Roberts also has extensive leadership and business development experience, including the management of strategic alliances, business partnerships and venture capital collaborations. Dr. Roberts is a physician who trained in pharmacology and medicine in the UK, qualifying from the University of London in 1987. Her post-graduate clinical training was in clinical pharmacology and cardiology at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and the Royal London Hospital.

38

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes Neurocrine’s executive officer compensation program for 20162018 and certain elements of our 20172019 program. It provides qualitative information on the factors relevant to these decisions and the manner in which compensation is awarded to the following individuals who are our Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) for 2016:2018:

(1)

Executive Summary

Business Overview

We are a biotechnology company focused on neurologic, psychiatricdiscovering, developing, and commercializing innovative and life-changing pharmaceuticals, in diseases with high unmet medical needs, through our novel research and development (R&D) platform, focused on neurological and endocrine related diseases and disorders. InUtilizing a portfolio approach to drug discovery, we have multiple small molecule drug candidates at various stages of pharmaceutical development. We develop proprietary pharmaceuticals for our pipeline, as well as collaborate with other pharmaceutical companies on our products and product candidates.

On April of11, 2017, the FDAUnited States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved INGREZZA^TM® (valbenazine) capsules for the treatment of adults with tardive dyskinesia (TD). We market INGREZZA isfor TD in the United States (U.S.) through our specialty sales force focused primarily on physicians who treat TD patients, including psychiatrists and neurologists. The commercial launch of INGREZZA occurred on May 1, 2017.

On July 24, 2018, we were notified by AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie) that FDA approval was granted for ORILISSA^® (elagolix) for the management of moderate to severe endometriosis pain in women. Discovered and developed through Phase II clinical trials by us, ORILISSA, the firstFDA-approved oral medication for the management of endometriosis with associated moderate to severe pain in over a novel, selectivedecade, began to be marketed by AbbVie in August 2018 as part of a collaboration to develop and commercialize elagolix for women’s health.

Our clinical development programs include opicapone as an adjunctive therapy to levodopa/DOPA decarboxylase inhibitors in adult Parkinson’s disease patients, elagolix for uterine fibroids partnered with AbbVie,NBI-74788 for the treatment of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor and isafirst-in-class central nervous system compound each with potential use in the firsttreatment of neurologic and only FDA-approved product indicatedpsychiatric disorders, and two gene therapy programs in which we are partnered with Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. (Voyager) for the treatment of adultsParkinson’s disease and Friedreich’s ataxia.

We currently have several collaborations with TD. We planother companies. In June 2010, we announced an exclusive worldwide collaboration with AbbVie to develop and commercialize elagolix and all next-generation gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists. In March 2015, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation for the development and commercialization of INGREZZA for movement disorders in Japan and other select Asian markets. In February 2017, wein-licensed technology from BIAL—Portela & Ca, S.A. for the development and commercialization of opicapone for the

39

treatment of human diseases and conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, in the United States. Our three late-stage clinicalU.S. and Canada. In October 2018, we entered into a research collaboration with Jnana Therapeutics, Inc. aimed at discovering novel small molecule therapeutics for multiple targets for CNS disorders. In January 2019, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with a Voyager, clinical-stage gene therapy company. The collaboration is focused on the development and commercialization of four programs are: elagolix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonistusing Voyager’s proprietary gene therapy platforms. The four programs consist of Voyager’sVY-AADC program for women’s health that is partnered with AbbVie Inc.; opicapone, a novel, once-daily, peripherally-acting, highly-selective catechol-o-methyltransferase inhibitor under investigationParkinson’s disease andVY-FXN01 program for Friedreich’s ataxia, as adjunct therapywell as rights to levodopatwo programs to be determined by the parties in Parkinson’s patients; and INGREZZA under investigation for the treatment of Tourette syndrome.future.

20162018 Corporate Performance Highlights

20162018 was a year of significant achievement for the Company as we:

39

Pay for Performance/At Risk Pay

Our executive officer compensation program is designed to reward achievement of the specific strategic goals that we believe will advance our business strategy and create long-term value for our stockholders. Consistent with our goal of attracting, motivating and retaining a high-caliber executive team, our executive officer compensation program is designed to pay for performance. We utilize compensation elements that meaningfully align our NEOs’ interests with those of our stockholders to create long-term value. As such, a significant portion of our CEO’s and other executive officers’ compensation is “at risk”,“at-risk,” performance-based compensation, in the form of long-term equity awards, and annual cash incentives that are only earned if we achieve multiple corporate metrics. The graphics below illustrate the elements of our CEO’s compensation mix for 2018 and the aggregate compensation mix for 2018 for the other named executive officers as a group.

40

Our Compensation Practices

Below are key elements of our compensation program, as well as problematic pay practices that we avoid:

40

Role of the Compensation Committee

As discussed in greater detail below, the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors (the “Committee”) takes into consideration a peer groups,group, survey data and advice from an independent compensation consultantsconsultant when setting the compensation structurephilosophy and compensation philosophystructure for the Company. The Committee’s complete roles and responsibilities are set forth in a written charter which was adopted by the Board of Directors and is available atwww.neurocrine.com. Some of the significant roles and responsibilities of the Committee include:

41

Committee Actions in Connection withSay-on-Pay Vote

Our Committee is committed to ensuring that our executive officer compensation program is effective and aligned with our stockholders’ interests and concerns. Accordingly, a critical component of our Committee’s process has been to continue to:

In 2016,2018, we sought an advisory vote from our stockholders regarding our executive officer compensation program and received a 99.5%98.2% favorable vote supporting the program. Each year, the Committee considers the results of the advisory vote as it completes its annual review of each pay element and the compensation provided to our NEOs and other executives.executive officers. Given the significant level of stockholder support, the Committee concluded that our

41

executive officer compensation program continues to align executive officer pay with stockholder interests and provides competitive pay that encourages retention and effectively incentivizes performance of talented NEOs and executives.executive officers. Accordingly, the Committee determined not to make any significant changes to our programs as a result of the vote. The Committee will continue to consider the outcome of oursay-on-pay votes and our stockholders’ views when making future compensation decisions for the NEOs and executives.executive officers.

Compensation Philosophy and Overall Compensation Determination Process

We believe that in order to create value for our stockholders, it is critical to attract, motivate and retain key executive officer talent by providing competitive compensation packages. Accordingly, we design our executive officer compensation programs to attract, motivate and retain executivesexecutive officers with the skills and expertise to execute our business plans, and reward those executivesexecutive officers fairly over time for actions consistent with creating long-term stockholder value. The market for talented individuals in the life sciences industry is highly competitive.competitive and becoming more challenging for employers.

Our compensation philosophy for executive officers provides that cash compensation should be structured such that at leastone-third of each executive officer’s total cash compensation, consisting of base salary and target cash incentives, is at risk and dependent upon the Company’s performance. achievement of specific corporate metrics that drive shareholder value.Non-cash long-term equity compensation for executive officers is generally a

42

combination of performance-based and time-based vesting, and is designed to motivate executive officers to increase long-term stockholder value as well as reward and retain key employees. The Committee believes that this approach provides an appropriate blend of short-term and long-term incentives to maximize stockholder value.

The implementation of the compensation philosophy is carried out under the supervision of the Committee. The Committee uses the services of an independent compensation consultant who is retained by, and reports directly to, the Committee. Management, under guidelines and procedures approved by the Committee, determines the compensation of ournon-executive officer employees.

In the early part of each year, the Committee, without the presence of our Chief Executive Officer, deliberates and makes decisions regarding the base salary, target cash incentives and long-term equity award components of compensation to be awarded to our Chief Executive Officer for the new fiscal year, as well as performance-based compensation payouts for the prior fiscal year. In setting compensation for our other NEOs, the Committee solicits the input of our Chief Executive Officer, who recommends to the Committee the base salary, target cash incentives and long-term equity award components of compensation to be awarded to our NEOs for the new fiscal year, as well as performance-based compensation payouts for the prior fiscal year. The Committee remains solely responsible for making the final decisions on compensation for all of our NEOs. Our NEOs are not present during discussions of their compensation packages nor do they participate in approving any portion of their own or other NEO compensation packages.

The Chief Executive Officer annually reviews the performance of each NEO (other than himself) and discusses these performance reviews with the Committee. These recommendations reflect his consideration of the overall performance of the Company, market data prepared by the Committee’s independent compensation consultant, the performance of each NEO, internal pay equity among individuals (including qualifications and contributions to meeting our corporate objectives), criticality and scope of job function and our Chief Executive Officer’s extensive industry experience. The Committee reviews and considers the market data, our Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations on specific pay levels for each NEO and Radford’s recommendations on compensation policy determinations for the executive officer group, and also reviews internal pay equity among individuals and positions, criticality and scopea variety of job function, retention risk, Company performance and individual performance (including qualifications and contributionsfactors, as described below, which may vary from year to meeting our corporate objectives), total targeted and historical compensation for each individual NEO and any other factors the Committee determines important. The Committee uses all of these factorsyear, to set the compensation of our NEOs at levels that the Committee considers to be competitive and appropriate for each NEO, using the Committee’s professional experience and judgment.

42

The Committee generally meets at least six times per year.

In the first quarter of the year, the performance of each executive officer for the prior year and peer group compensationmarket data are reviewed by the Committee, and base salary adjustments, cash incentive payouts, following year targets and annual equity grants are discussed and approved. Also, during the first quarter of the year, Company-wide performance goals for the then current year are finalized by the Committee and the Board of Directors. Atmid-year meetings, the Committee reviews the Company’s compensation philosophy, policies and procedures. MeetingsCommittee meetings in the fourth quarter of the year generally focus on Company goal achievement, selection of the peer group for the following year and the structure of executive officer performance reviews.

43

Compensation Consultants

The Committee uses the services of an independent compensation consultant who is retained by, and reports directly to, the Committee to provide the Committee with an additional external perspective with respect to its evaluation of relevant market and industry practices. The Committee selectedcontinued to select Radford, an AON Hewitt Company, as a third-party compensation consultant to assist the Committee in establishing 2014, 2015, 20162018 and 20172019 overall compensation levels. Radford conducted analyses and provided advice on, among other things, the appropriate peer group, executive officer compensation for our executive officers and compensation trends in the life sciences industry.

In weighing its recommendations for executive officer compensation for the fiscal year 2016,2018, the Committee directed Radford to advise the Committee on both best practices and peer practices when designing and modifying our compensation program for executive officers in order to achieve our objectives. As part of its duties, Radford provided the Committee with the following services with respect to 20162018 compensation decisions:

The Committee annually assesses whether the work of Radford as a compensation consultant has raised any conflict of interest, taking into consideration the following factors: (i) the provision of other services, if any, to the Company by Radford; (ii) the amount of fees the Company paid to Radford as a percentage of the firm’s total revenue; (iii) Radford’s policies and procedures that are designed to prevent conflicts of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationship of Radford or the individual compensation advisors employed by the firm with an executive officer of the Company; (v) any business or personal relationship of the individual compensation advisors with any member of the Committee and (vi) any stock of the Company owned by Radford or the individual compensation advisors employed by the firm. The Committee has determined, based on its analysis of the above factors, that the work of Radford and the individual compensation advisors employed by Radford as compensation consultants to the Company hashave not created any conflict of interest.

43

Competitive Assessment of Compensation—Peer Group and Market Data

2018 Peer Group.When developing a proposed list of our peer group companies to be used in connection with making compensation decisions for 2016,2018, Radford reexamined our compensation philosophy and peer group and recommended changes to our 20152017 peer group company list to reflect our growth, market capitalization and the stage of our commercial development. Radford suggested biopharmaceutical companies that were late stage pre-commercial (Phase III orprimarily recently commercial companies with minimal revenue ofgenerally less than $100 million),$300 million, had market values of

44

approximately one half (0.5x) totwo-and-a-half (2.5x) our market capitalization at the time (resulting in a range of between $2 billion to $10$12 billion in market capitalization) and had headcounts ofapproximately one half (0.5x) totwo-and-a-half (2.5x) our headcount at the time (resulting in a range generally between 50200 to 300. 1,000 employees approximately). As a result of the growth in revenue, market capitalization and headcount that we experienced from when our 2017 peer group was determined, there was a change to the criteria used to determine our 2018 peer group, as compared to the criteria used to determine our 2017 peer group.

Based on these criteria, for 2018 Radford recommended, and our Committee approved eliminating Aegerionthe following peer group:

The 2018 peer group reflects the following changes from our 2017 peer group, all of which were recommended by Radford and approved by our Committee: (i) the removal of the following company Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celldex Therapeutics, Inc., Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NewLink Genetics Corporation, Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., PTC Therapeutics, Inc., Relypsa, Inc., Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. and Xoma Corporation (whichwhich no longer met the criteria described above), KYTHERA Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Receptos, Inc. and Synageva BioPharma Corp. (which wereabove, (ii) the removal of the following companies due to such companies being acquired since the 20152017 peer group company list was approved) and adding Agioshad been approved: ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Juno Therapeutics, Inc., and Kite Pharma, Inc., Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.

2016 Peer Group. Based on these parameters, in November 2015 our Committee approved(iii) the addition of the following companies, as our peer group for 2016: ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., bluebird bio, Inc.,which met the criteria above: Clovis Oncology, Inc., Dyax, Corp., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., JunoHalozyme Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Inc., Novavax, Inc., and Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., TESARO, Inc. and Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.

In determining executive officer compensation for 2016,2018, the Committee reviewed data from this group of peer companies. At the time of approval of our 20162018 peer group, our Company was approximately in the 7666^th percentile of the peer group for market capitalization, and 60in the 8^th percentile of the peer group for revenue.

In early 2016,2018, Radford completed an assessment of executive officer compensation based on the 20162018 peer group to inform the Committee’s determinations of executive officer compensation for 2016. This market2018. The data for this assessment was compiled from multiple sources, including: (i) the 20162018 peer group companies’ publicly disclosed information, or public peer data and (ii) data from public biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in the Radford Global Life Sciences Survey that had market values between $2 billion and $10 billion.$12 billion or the general survey data. The components of the marketthis data were based on the availability of sufficient comparative data for an executive officer’s position. The general survey data and the public peer data, collectively referred to in this proxy statement together as market data, were reviewed by the Committee, with the assistance of Radford, and used as one reference point, in addition to other factors, in setting our executive officers’ compensation.

The Committee generally reviews target total direct compensation, comprising both target cash compensation and equity compensation, against the market data described above primarily to ensure that our executive officer compensation program as a whole is positioned competitively to attract and retain the highest caliber executive officers and that the total direct compensation opportunity for the executive officer group is aligned with our corporate objectives and strategic needs. The Committee does not have a specific target compensation level for the NEOs; rather, the Committee reviews a range of market data reference points (generally at the 25^th, 50^th and 75^th percentiles of the market data) with respect to target total direct compensation, target total target cash compensation (including both base salary and the target annual cash incentive) and equity compensation (valued based on an approximation of grant date fair value). In making compensation determinations, the Committee considers a variety of factors, which may includethe market data, along with the other factors described above under “Compensation Philosophy and a particular executive officer’s experience, overall qualifications and criticality of skills to the future performance of our Company.Overall Compensation Determination Process”.

20172019 Peer Group.In late 2016,November 2018, when developing a proposed list of our peer group companies to be used in connection with making compensation decisions for 2017,2019, Radford selected biopharmaceutical companies that were in late stage pre-commercial (Phase IIIprimarily recently

45

commercial or recently commercial biopharmaceutical companies with revenue generally less than

44

$300 million), had market values of approximately one half (0.5x) to two-and-a-half (2.5x) ourbetween $200 million and $1.5 billion, market capitalization at the time (resulting in a range of between $2$4 billion to $10$25 billion and employee headcounts up to 2,000, reflecting our growth in revenue, market capitalization)capitalization and had headcounts of generally between 50 to 600. headcount.

Based on these criteria, for 2019 Radford recommended, and Radford’s recommendation, our Committee removedapproved the following peer group:

The 2019 peer group reflects the following changes from our 2018 peer group, all of which were recommended by Radford and approved by our Committee: (i) the removal of the following companies ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Clovis Oncology, Inc., Novavax, Inc. and Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which no longer met the criteria described above), Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Dyax Corp. (which were acquired since the 2016 peer group company list was approved) and added ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Exelixis,Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc., Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NektarJuno Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics,Inc., Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Puma Biotechnology, Inc., TESARO, Inc. and The Medicines Company, towhich no longer meet the remaining 2016 peers to formcriteria above or were acquired since the final 2017 list2018 peer group had been approved and (ii) the addition of peer companies.the following companies, which met the criteria above: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Alkermes, BeiGene, BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Incyte Corporation, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sage Therapeutics, Inc., and United Therapeutics Corporation.

Components of Executive Compensation

The Committee considers each executive officer’s performance, contribution to Company goals, responsibilities, experience, qualifications, and where in the competitive range the executive officer’s compensation compares to the Company’s identified peer group when determining the appropriate compensation for each executive officer. The Committee considers each component of compensation independently and each component in the context of each executive officer’s total compensation. Compensation for our NEOs currently consists of three key elements that are designed to reward performance in a simple and straightforward manner: base salaries, annual performance-based cash incentives and long-term equity awards, which generally include restricted stock unit awards (“RSUs”) and stock options, which both vest based on continued service over time, and in some years include performance restricted stock units (“PRSUs”), which vest upon achievement of key corporate metrics that we believe will create shareholder value. The purpose and key characteristics of each of these elements are summarized below.

46

45

47

46

48

47

20162018 Executive Officer Compensation Decisions

Base Salary

In February 2016,2018, our Committee reviewed and determined the 20162018 base salaries for each of the NEOs as set forth in the table below.below, except for Mr. Abernethy’s and Dr. Roberts’ base salary, which the Committee determined in connection with the commencement with Mr. Abernethy’s employment in the fourth quarter of 2017 and the commencement of Dr. Roberts’ employment in the first quarter of 2018, respectively. In making these 20162018 decisions, the Committee considered the positioning ofmarket data for each individual’s salary as compared to the peer data,individual NEO’s position, as well as the individual’s historical salary levels (if applicable), our then-current budget for employee salary adjustments, and

49

anticipated role and responsibilities for the coming year.year, along with the other factors described under “Compensation Philosophy and Overall Compensation Determination Process” set forth above. The changes also take into account the adjustments made to our peer group for 2018 as a result of our growth in revenue, market capitalization and headcount since late 2016 when our 2017 peer group was determined. Although the Committee does not have a specific target compensation level for each NEO, the NEOs’ salaries are generally within the 5025^th to 7550^th percentiles of the peermarket data.

Pursuant to a transition agreement with the Company, Mr. Coughlin’s base salary decreased from $434,700 to $310,000 effective as of the Resignation Date. Mr. Coughlin will receive this reduced base salary until December 31, 2017, or such earlier date that Mr. Coughlin’s employment with the Company terminates.

Annual Cash Incentives

In February 2016,2018, the Board of DirectorsCommittee approved the Company’s executive officer cash incentive target percentages and performance goals for 2016.2018, with the exception of Dr. Roberts’ percentage, which the Committee determined in connection with her commencement of employment with us in January 2018. The table below sets forth the minimum target and maximum cash incentive targets for our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officersNEOs for 2016.2018. No changes were made to the target percentages of our NEOs who were employed with us in 2017. The target percentage is paid as a percentage of such executive officer’s base salary. For example, if 100% of the Company’s performance goals are achieved for 2016,2018, this would yield our Chief Executive Officer a cash incentive award of 60%70% of his 20162018 base salary. The target percentages were generally set at the 50^th percentile of the peer group data for Dr. Gorman and above the 75^th percentile of the peer group data for the other executive officers.

48

In early 2016,2018, the Committee established the corporate goals described below. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and so ourOur objective corporate goals are directly aligned with our specific strategic goals, including advancing our development programs, our research function, our clinical activities, pre-commercializationcommercialization activities and certain corporate and financial goals, which we believe will create long-term value for stockholders. The Board of Directors and the Committee did not assign specific relative weightings to the goals for 2016.2018. The maximum corporate achievement for 2018 was 120% of our 2018 corporate goals. In February 2017,2019, the Committee evaluated the accomplishments and performance of the Company against such corporate goals. After its consideration of the Company’s performance, as more specifically described below, the Committee rated our 20162018 corporate achievement at 90% of our 20162018 corporate goals.

49

In February 2017,2019, after making these determinations regarding level of corporate performance achieved against thepre-established performance goals, the Committee reviewed and approved corporate cash incentives as set forth in the table below. The Committee may, in its sole discretion, eliminate any individual cash incentive or reduce or increase the amount of compensation payable with respect to any individual cash incentive. The

50

Committee exercised its discretion to increase the amount of individual cash incentives with respect to Dr. Gorman, Dr. O’BrienMr. Abernethy, Mr. Benevich and Dr. BozigianGano for 20162018 by paying their cash incentives at the rates noted below, rather than 90%, due to their significant individual performances related to successfully filing an NDAthe achievement of the corporate goals and having the FDA accept it for priority review.their individual goals.

Long-Term Equity Awards

Size of Equity Awards. In determining the size of the total equity compensation opportunity in 2016,2018, the Committee:

Equity Award Mix. The Committee determined that the equity awards granted to the NEOs inon February 20165, 2018 should consist of stock options, time-vesting RSU grants and performance-vesting PRSURSU grants, or PRSUs, as set forth in the

50

table below. The Committee determined these three types of equity awards provided the appropriate balance of long-term incentives for our executive officers. Specifically, PRSUs that vest based on objectively measurable performance goals focus executivesexecutive officers on achieving specific longer-term Company performance goals that are key to our business strategy and increasing stockholder value and RSUs that vest over time provide tangible value to executive officers and serve as an incentive and retention tool during a difficult operating or volatile business environment, while still being tied to our stockholder value. It is the Committee’s view that stock options are inherently performance oriented because the executive officer realizes no value from stock options unless and until the Company’s stock price increases over the strike price. The Committee believes it is important to evaluate the equity award mix each year to determine what types of equity awards should be granted. For example, in February 2017 the Committee did not award any performance-vesting PRSUs.

In setting the mix of the three types of equity awards for 2016,2018, the Committee determined that a substantial portion of the equity grants should consist of awards that vest based on our performance (in the form of specific and measurable performance goals), in addition to continued service over time. The mix between the three types of awards werewas determined based on market data of the equity award practices of peer group companies provided by the Committee’s consultant, with the aim that performance-based awards comprise a meaningful portion of each executive officer’s total award.consultant. Accordingly, the Committee structured the mix of equity such that the baseline award of options and RSUs would generally deliver value, as determined by the Black-Scholes value of stock options and the value of RSUs as if they were fully vested, to NEOs between approximately the 50^th75th and 75^th90th

51

percentiles of the market data with PRSUs providing the opportunity for above-market paycompensation if earned. The opportunity for higher performance-based compensation opportunity reflects our commitment to pay for performance, with compensation above the median of our peers for exceptional performance and compensation below this level if our performance goals are not reached.

20162018 Award Vesting Criteria. The Committee, in consultation with the independent members of the Board of Directors, determined with respect to the February 5, 20162018 equity grants that the use of both stock options which vest monthly, on apro-rata basis, over a four-year period and RSUs which vest annually, on apro-rata basis, over a four-year period were the appropriate time-vesting equity compensation vehicles.vehicles to use in combination with the PRSU awards. The Committee and Board of Directors believe that thethese long-term equity based compensation awards closely align stockholder and management interests.

In addition, theThe Committee on February 5, 2016, in consultation with the independent members of the Board of Directors, also carefully set the PRSU award goals to be rigorous and ultimately serve to align management and our stockholders’ interests. The 2016A portion of the 2018 PRSUs will vest upon 1) obtaining positive pivotal clinical trial data for the treatmentFDA approval of Tourette syndrome with valbenazine as determined by the Committeeopicapone within a specified time period, and 2) the FDA’s acceptancea portion of the Company’s NDA submission2018 PRSUs will vest upon achievement of valbenazine for the treatment of Tourette syndrome. Vesting of these awards would represent the culmination of several years of effort, including success in clinical development and the successful navigation of the regulatory submission process.specified revenue milestones within a specified time period. If the vesting criteria are achieved, we believe significant stockholder value will be created. Additionally, these PRSUs have a limited term of four yearsuntil March 15, 2021 for the Companyus to achieve the objectives required for vesting. The individual PRSUs either fully vest upon completion of the corporate objectives within such four-year periodby March 15, 2021 or never vest.

New Hire Awards. In connection with her commencement of employment, on January 8, 2018, Dr. Roberts was granted: (i) an initial stock option to purchase up to 70,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, 25% of which will vest on the first anniversary of the grant date, and the remainder of which will vest in equal monthly installments thereafter over three years and (ii) an RSU award covering 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock which vests in equal annual installments over four years, which has generally been the vesting schedule for all new hire grants. The Committee and Board of Directors structures the vesting schedules for new hire awards in order to serve as an effective tool for incentivizing and retaining our NEOs.

5152

Retirement Benefits

The Company’s matching contribution to the 401(k) Plan for 20162018 was 50% of eligible participant contributions, subject to applicable federal limits. Our NEOs are eligible for these benefits on the same basis as our other employees. The Company made no additional discretionary contributions to the 401(k) Plan in 2016.2018.

Equity Ownership Guidelines

In MarchSince 2014, the Committee approvedwe have maintained equity ownership guidelines for our executive officers. The Committee amended these guidelines in November 2018 to increase the guideline for our Chief Executive Officer from three to six times his base salary. The equity ownership guidelines are designed to further align the interests of the executive officers with those of our stockholders by ensuring that our executive officers have a meaningful financial stake in the Company’s long-term success. The equity ownership guidelines establish a minimum equity ownership level by position, with such values determined based on the value of our ordinary sharescommon stock owned by such persons as of certain measurement dates. All shares directly or beneficially owned by the executive officer, including the net exercisable value of outstanding vested stock options (where the market price of our common sharesstock exceeds the strike price of such option) are included in determining the value of equity owned under our equity ownership guidelines. The equity ownership requirements are as follows:

New executive officers are granted a five-year period to reach the equity ownership requirements set forth in the guidelines;guidelines and are expected to make annual progress toward the equity ownership requirements during this five-year period. When an executive officer does not meet the equity ownership requirements set forth in the guidelines, he/she is restricted from selling any held shares until such requirements are met. Additionally, should an executive officer who does not meet the equity ownership requirements choose to exercise a stock option or vest in any RSUs, he or she is required to retain all shares acquired through those transactions, aside from any shares necessary to fulfill such transaction related tax obligations, until full compliance with the equity ownership guidelines is attained.

Annual compliance with the equity ownership guidelines is assessed during the first quarter of each year. As of March 31, 2017,1, 2019, each of our NEOsexecutive officers is in compliance with the equity ownership guidelines.

Equity Trading Policies and Procedures

The Company has policies and procedures to prohibit direct or indirect participation by employees of the Company in transactions involving trading activities in Company common stock which by their aggressive or speculative nature may give rise to an appearance of impropriety. Such prohibited activities would include the purchase of put or call options, or the writing of such options as well as short sales, hedging transactions such as “cashless” collars, forward sales, equity swaps and other related arrangement which may indirectly involve short-sale and any other transactions designed for profit from short-term movement in the Company’s stock price.

Additionally, transactions in which In addition, no officer, director or employee of the Company may margin, or make any offer to margin, any Company common stock, is margined or pledged to secure a loan must be pre-approved by the Company’s Chief Financial Officer or Chief Legal Officer based on guidelines adopted by the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee.including without limitation, borrowing against such stock, at any time.

To the Company’s knowledge, there were no transactions involving hedging, pledging or margining Company common stock during 2016,2018, nor were there any such transactions as of the Record Date.

The Company also requires directors and executive officers and directors to complete all equity related open-market purchase and sale transactions via a10b5-1 plan. The10b5-1 plans typically cover, among other transactions, direct sales and purchases of Company stock, as well assame-day-sales related to option exercises and sales of stock for tax payments upon the vesting of restricted stock units. All10b5-1 plans are required to have a 90-day

52

waiting period from the election date to the date of the first transaction. Additionally, Company policy restricts the executive officers and directors from amending, canceling, suspending or otherwise modifying any making certain changes to10b5-1 trading plan subsequent to adoption of the plan.

53

Compensation RecoveryRecoupment Policy

In February 2017, we adopted a clawback policy, even though the SEC has not yet issued final rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requirement. Our policy currently provides that, in the event that (i) we are required to prepare an accounting restatement for any fiscal quarter or year due to our material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement and (ii) it is determined that misconduct contributed to the noncompliance that resulted in the obligation to restate our financial statements, we may take action to recover from any officer whose misconduct contributed to the noncompliance which resulted in the obligation to restate our financial statements, the incentive compensation that was paid or vested to such officer during the twelve-month period preceding the restatement obligation. We will also comply with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and will modify our policy to the extent required by law once the SEC adopts final regulations on the subject.

2019 Named Executive Officer Compensation Decisions

Base Salary

In February 2019, our Committee reviewed and determined the 2019 base salaries and target cash bonus for each of the NEOs as set forth in the table below. In making these 2019 decisions, the Committee considered the market data for each individual NEO’s position, as well as the individual’s historical salary levels, our then-current budget for employee salary adjustments, anticipated role and responsibilities for the coming year, along with the other factors described under “Compensation Philosophy and Overall Compensation Determination Process” set forth above. Although the Committee does not have a specific target compensation level for each NEO, the NEOs’ salaries are generally within the 25^th to 50^th percentiles of the market data.

Long-Term Equity Awards

In February 2019, our Committee approved a grant of options and RSUs to each of the NEOs as set forth in the table below. The stock options vest monthly, on apro-rata basis, over a four-year period and the RSUs vest annually, on apro-rata basis, over a four-year period.The Committee determined that these two types of equity awards provided the appropriate balance of long-term incentives for our executive officers. The mix between the two types of awards was determined based on market data of the equity award practices of peer group companies provided by the Committee’s consultant. Accordingly, the Committee structured the mix of equity such that the baseline award of options and RSUs would generally deliver value, as determined by the Black-Scholes value of stock options and the value of RSUs as if they were fully vested, to NEOs between approximately the 75th and 90th percentiles of our peer group. The opportunity for higher performance-based compensation opportunity reflects our commitment to pay for performance, with compensation above the median of our peers for exceptional performance and compensation below this level if our performance goals are not reached.

54

Tax Considerations

Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)

The Committee considers the potential impact under Internal Revenue CodeUnder Section 162(m) whereby we can only deduct up to $1.0 million of the compensation we pay to named executive officers each taxable year unless such compensation is “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. The Committee has determinedCode (“Section 162(m)”), compensation paid to any publicly held corporation’s “covered employees” that exceeds $1 million per taxable year for any gain relatedcovered employee is generallynon-deductible. Prior to the exerciseenactment of a stock option granted under any of our stockholder-approved stock option plans with an exercise price at least equal to the fair value of our common stock on the date of grant qualifies under the Internal Revenue Code asTax Cuts and Jobs Act, Section 162(m) provided a performance-based compensation and therefore isexception, pursuant to which the deduction limit under Section 162(m) did not subjectapply to the $1.0 million limitation. However, deductibility is not the sole factor used by the Committee in ascertaining appropriate levels or manner ofany compensation and corporate objectives may not necessarily align with the requirements for full deductibilitythat qualified as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m). Accordingly, we may enter intoPursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) was repealed with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, except that certain transition relief is provided for compensation paid pursuant to a written binding contract which was in effect on November 2, 2017 and which is not modified in any material respect on or after such date.

Compensation paid to each of the Company’s “covered employees” in excess of $1 million per taxable year generally will not be deductible unless it qualifies for the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) pursuant to the transition relief described above. Because of certain ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m), as well as other factors beyond the control of the Committee, no assurance can be given that any compensation paid by the Company will be eligible for such transition relief and be deductible by the Company in the future. Although the Committee will continue to consider tax implications as one factor in determining executive officer compensation, arrangements underthe Committee also looks at other factors in making its decisions and retains the flexibility to provide compensation for the Company’s NEOs in a manner consistent with the goals of the Company’s executive officer compensation program and the best interests of the Company and its stockholders, which payments aremay include providing for compensation that is not deductible by the Company due to the deduction limit under Section 162(m). The Committee also retains the flexibility to modify compensation that was initially intended to be exempt from the deduction limit under Section 162(m) if it determines that such modifications are consistent with the Company’s business needs.

Internal Revenue Code Section 409A

Section 409A governs deferred compensation arrangements. The Committee structures our deferred compensation programs with the assistance of our external counsel to be exempt from, or compliant with, Section 409A.

Accounting Considerations

The Company accounts for equity compensation paid to our employees under the FASB ASC Topic 718, which requires us to estimate and record an expense over the service period of the equity award. Our cash compensation is recorded as an expense at the time the obligation is incurred. The accounting impact of our compensation programs are one of many factors that the Committee considers in determining the structure and size of our executive officer compensation programs.

Risk Analysis of Our Compensation Program

Our Committee has reviewed our compensation policies as generally applicable to our employees and believes that our policies do not encourage excessive or inappropriate risk taking and that the level of risk that they do encourage is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. As part of its assessment, the Committee considered, among other factors, the allocation of compensation among base salary

53

and short- and long-term compensation, our approach to establishing Company-wide and individual financial, operational and other performance targets, our bonus structure of payouts at multiple levels of performance (including maximum payout caps and payments for performance below target levels) and the nature of our key performance metrics. We believe these practices encourage our employees to focus on sustained, long-term Company growth, which we believe will ultimately contribute to the creation of stockholder value.

55

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND OTHER INFORMATION

Summary Compensation TableThe following table sets forth the compensation paid by the Company for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014, 20152016, 2017 and 20162018 to the NEOs named below.

Summary Compensation Table