NewAmsterdam Pharma Company (NAMS) Risk Factors

We are developing obicetrapib as both a monotherapy and in combination with one or more approved therapies. For example, we are evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe, including the combination on top of high intensity statin therapy. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with any of those existing therapies. If the therapies we use in combination with our product candidate are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidate, the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own product, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially. We also may evaluate our product candidate or any future product candidates in combination with one or more therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell any product candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved therapy if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our product candidate currently in development, including the potential for serious adverse effects, lack of efficacy, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA, EMA, MHRA, PMDA or NMPA approval. If the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities do not approve these other therapies or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues arise with, the therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with our product candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any such product candidate.

We may elect to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of diseases. We also intend to evaluate additional potential indications for obicetrapib and may choose to in-license or acquire other product candidates or commercial products to treat patients suffering from other cardio metabolic or other diseases with significant unmet medical needs. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects, lack of efficacy, or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. In addition, we cannot assure you that any such products that are approved will be manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives. We may opportunistically pursue a strategy that would entail in-licensing additional product candidates or utilize a variety of types of collaboration, license, monetization, distribution and other arrangements with other third parties relating to the development or commercialization, once approved, of obicetrapib or future product candidates or indications. We may also become reliant on the research efforts of third parties for any such product candidates that we do not intend to conduct preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials for. If we do not successfully develop and begin to commercialize product candidates, we will face difficulty in obtaining product revenues in future periods, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and potential for growth and adversely affect the price of the Ordinary Shares.

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

We have invested almost all of our efforts and financial resources in the research and development of obicetrapib. Our future success, including our ability to generate revenue, depends on our ability to develop, commercialize, market and sell obicetrapib. However, obicetrapib has yet to receive marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities. We currently generate no revenue from the sale of any products, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. Obicetrapib's marketability and commercialization are subject to significant risks associated with successfully completing current and future clinical trials, including: - our ability to successfully complete our clinical trials, including timely patient enrollment and acceptable safety and efficacy data and our ability to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of obicetrapib;- unless we have received a deferral or waiver, our ability to complete successfully any pediatric clinical trials agreed pursuant to the Pediatric Research Equity Act or its EU equivalent;- that the Phase 3 clinical trials, even if successfully completed, will be sufficient to support a new drug application ("NDA") submission;- the prevalence and severity of adverse events ("AEs") associated with obicetrapib;- whether we are required by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, and the scope and nature of such studies or trials, prior to approval to market our product, such as a cardiovascular outcomes trial;- the timely receipt of necessary marketing approvals from the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authorities, including pricing and reimbursement determinations;- the ability to successfully commercialize obicetrapib, if approved, for marketing and sale by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities;- our ability and the ability of our third party manufacturing partners to timely and satisfactorily manufacture quantities of obicetrapib at quality levels necessary to meet regulatory requirements and at a scale sufficient to meet anticipated demand at a cost that allows us to achieve profitability;- our success in educating healthcare providers and patients about the benefits, risks, administration and use of obicetrapib, if approved;- acceptance of obicetrapib, if approved, as safe and effective by patients and the healthcare community;- the maintenance of an acceptable safety profile of our product following any approval;- the availability, perceived advantages, relative cost, safety and efficacy of alternative and competing treatments for the indications addressed by obicetrapib;- entering into, on favorable terms, any collaboration, licensing or other arrangements that may be necessary or desirable to develop, manufacture or commercialize obicetrapib;- the effectiveness of our and any current or future collaborators' marketing, sales and distribution strategy, and operations;- our ability to obtain, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights with respect to obicetrapib; and - our ability to implement strategies to minimize the impact of pandemics or other health epidemics to our business, including with respect to initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials of obicetrapib and addressing any potential disruption or delays to the supply of our product candidates. Many of these clinical, regulatory and commercial risks are beyond our control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to advance obicetrapib successfully through clinical development, or to obtain regulatory approval of, or commercialize, obicetrapib or any future product candidates. If we fail to achieve these objectives or overcome the challenges presented above, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize obicetrapib. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenues through the sale of obicetrapib to enable us to continue our business.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Trial costs have increased significantly following the COVID-19 pandemic. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. We do not know whether future clinical trials, if any, will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed, suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including failure to: - obtain allowance from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities in order to commence a trial;- identify, recruit and train suitable clinical investigators;- reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations ("CROs"), and clinical trial sites, and have such CROs and sites effect the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials;- obtain and maintain investigational review board ("IRB") or independent ethics committee ("EC") approval in foreign jurisdictions, at each clinical trial site;- identify, recruit and enroll suitable patients to participate in a trial;- have a sufficient number of patients complete a trial or return for post-treatment follow-up;- ensure patient compliance with the trial protocols;- ensure clinical investigators and clinical trial sites observe trial protocol or continue to participate in a trial;- address any patient safety concerns that arise during the course of a trial;- address any conflicts with new or existing laws or regulations;- add a sufficient number of clinical trial sites;- manufacture sufficient quantities at the required quality of obicetrapib for use in clinical trials; or - raise sufficient capital to fund a trial. Product candidates like obicetrapib in later stages of clinical trials, including large CVOTs, may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials. In addition to the safety and efficacy traits of any product candidate, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect and patient enrollment criteria. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and it is possible that we will as well. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us or the IRBs or ECs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the trial's data safety monitoring board (the "DSMB"), the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate one or more of our clinical trials due to a number of factors, including our failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable benefit-risk ratio, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience delays in the initiation, enrollment or completion of any clinical trial of obicetrapib, or if any clinical trials of obicetrapib are cancelled or fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of obicetrapib, the commercial prospects of obicetrapib may be materially adversely affected, and our ability to generate product revenues will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials may increase our costs and slow down our product candidate development and approval process. Any of these delays may significantly harm our business and financial condition. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of obicetrapib.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of subjects in our ongoing or future clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented. The enrollment of subjects depends on many additional factors, including: - the subject eligibility criteria defined in the protocol;- the general willingness of subjects to enroll in the trial;- patient compliance with the trial protocols;- the sample size of the subjects required for analysis of the trial's primary endpoints;- the proximity of subjects to trial sites;- the design of the trial;- our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;- clinicians' and subjects' perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new therapies that may be approved for the indications we are investigating;- the clinical site's ability to obtain and maintain subject consents; and - clinical trial participants may not comply with clinical trial protocol procedures and instructions. Our clinical trials may also compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that seek to treat cardio metabolic diseases, and this competition will reduce the number and types of subjects available to us, because some subjects who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a clinical trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of subjects who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites. Delays in subject enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of obicetrapib.

From time to time, we have disclosed and may in the future publicly disclose preliminary or "topline" data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or clinical trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the "topline" or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. "Topline" data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the data we previously published. As a result, "topline" data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Additionally, we have disclosed and may in the future also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our Ordinary Shares. Further, others, including regulatory authorities and collaboration or regional partners, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of our particular program, the approvability or commercialization of obicetrapib or any future product candidate and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the interim, "topline," or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, obicetrapib may be harmed, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition to our Phase 3 lipid-lowering clinical trials for obicetrapib, we are currently conducting a CVOT, in patients with ASCVD. The completion of these clinical trials or any of our other ongoing or future clinical trials may be delayed for a number of reasons, including: - the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authority may not agree with the clinical trial design or overall program;- the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authority may place a clinical trial on hold;- delays in reaching or failing to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and clinical trial sites;- inadequate quantity or quality of a product candidate or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials;- difficulties or delays obtaining IRB or EC approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site or sites;- severe or unexpected drug-related side effects experienced by patients in a clinical trial, including instances of muscle pain or weakness or other side effects;- reports from preclinical or clinical testing of other cardio metabolic therapies that raise safety or efficacy concerns; and - difficulties retaining patients who have enrolled in a clinical trial but may be prone to withdraw due to rigors of the clinical trial, lack of efficacy, side effects, personal issues or loss of interest. In addition, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the FDA, the EMA, the IRBs or ECs at the sites where the IRBs or ECs are overseeing a clinical trial, a DSMB overseeing the clinical trial at issue or any other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including, among others: - failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols;- inspection of the clinical trial operations or clinical trial sites by the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authorities that reveals deficiencies or violations that require us to undertake corrective action, including the imposition of a clinical hold;- unforeseen safety issues;- changes in government regulations or administrative actions;- problems with clinical supply materials; and - lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Any such delays in our clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay, prevent or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approvals. Significant nonclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may materially harm our business and results of operations.

As with most pharmaceutical products, use of obicetrapib may be associated with side effects or AEs that can vary in severity and frequency. Side effects or AEs associated with the use of obicetrapib may be observed at any time, including in clinical trials or once a product is commercialized, and any such side effects or AEs may negatively affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval or market obicetrapib. We cannot assure you that we will not observe drug-related serious AEs in the future or that the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities will not determine them to be as such. Side effects such as toxicity or other safety issues associated with the use of obicetrapib could require us to perform additional trials or halt development or sale of obicetrapib or expose us to product liability lawsuits, which will harm our business. Furthermore, our current Phase 3 clinical trials for obicetrapib, especially our PREVAIL CVOT, involve a larger patient base than that previously studied, and the commercial marketing of obicetrapib, if approved, will further expand the clinical exposure of the drug to a wider and more diverse group of patients than those participating in the clinical trials, which may identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate that were not previously observed or reported. We may fail to report AEs that the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authority regulations require that we report certain information about adverse medical events if our product may have caused or contributed to those AEs. The timing of our obligation to report would be triggered by the date upon which we become aware of the AE as well as the nature and severity of the event. We may also fail to appreciate that we have become aware of a reportable AE, especially if it is not reported to us as an AE or if it is an AE that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of our product. If we fail to comply with our reporting obligations, the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authority could take action including enforcing a hold on or cessation of clinical trials, withdrawal of approved drugs from the market, criminal prosecution, the imposition of civil monetary penalties or seizure of our product. Additionally, in the event we discover the existence of adverse medical events or side effects caused by obicetrapib, a number of other potentially significant negative consequences could result, including: - our inability to file an NDA or similar application for obicetrapib because of insufficient benefit-risk profile, or the denial of such application by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities;- the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities suspending or withdrawing their approval of the product;- the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities requiring the addition of labeling statements, such as warnings or contraindications or distribution and use restrictions;- the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities requiring us to issue specific communications to healthcare professionals, such as letters alerting them to new safety information about our product, changes in dosage or other important information;- the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities issuing negative publicity regarding the affected product, including safety communications;- our being limited with respect to the safety-related claims that we can make in our marketing or promotional materials;- our being required to change the way the product is administered, conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, or restrict or cease the distribution or use of the product; and - our being sued and held liable for harm caused to patients. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving approval or market acceptance of obicetrapib and could substantially increase commercialization costs or even force us to cease operations. We cannot assure you that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related AEs to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authority in a timely manner or ever, which could harm our business, prospects and financial condition.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent prosecution process. When related patents are pursued concurrently in multiple jurisdictions, international treaties may impose additional procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions. Additionally, when inventions are made by joint inventors of different nationalities, or where inventive acts were performed in multiple countries, concurrent and potentially conflicting requirements imposed by the laws of multiple jurisdictions may be applicable. We may have failed to adhere to all such provisions during examination of our patent applications or following issuance. Periodic maintenance or annuity fees and various other governmental fees on any issued patent and/or pending patent applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of a patent or patent application. Our outside counsel have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside counsel and their third-party vendors to pay these fees. While an inadvertent lapse may sometimes be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are many situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications directed to our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than should otherwise have been the case, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and the European Union have made it difficult to pay required annual fees, or annuities, to maintain pending patent applications and granted patents in Russia, increasing the risk that our patents may not grant in Russia or, having granted, will lapse through nonpayment of annuities. In addition, the Russian government issued a decree in March 2022 that owners of Russian patents from countries that Russia considers to be unfriendly are no longer entitled to any compensation for compulsory licensing of their patents, increasing the risk that our competitors will be granted a compulsory license under our Russian patents, allowing them to infringe without making any payments to us.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its earliest priority US utility application was filed. Various extensions may be available; however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of our product candidates. If we encounter delays in our clinical trials or regulatory approval of obicetrapib, the period of time during which we could market obicetrapib under patent protection could be reduced. The patent application process, also known as patent prosecution, is expensive and time consuming, and we or any future licensors and licensees may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or any future licensors or licensees will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, these and any of our patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, etc., although we are unaware of any such defects that we believe are of material import. If we or any future licensors or licensees fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If any future licensors or licensees, are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business. The strength of patents in the pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. This uncertainty includes changes to the patent laws through either legislative action to change statutory patent law or court action that may reinterpret existing law in ways affecting the scope or validity of issued patents. The USPTO or other foreign patent offices may change their interpretation of existing statutes or regulations with potential retroactive effects. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or foreign countries with claims that cover our product candidates. Even if patents do successfully issue from the patent applications that we own or in-license, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. For example, patents granted by the European Patent Office may be challenged, also known as opposed, by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant. In addition, post grant review in the USPTO begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. Third parties can also challenge a patent in the USPTO by way of inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, derivation, or interference proceedings. Any successful challenge to our patents could deprive us of exclusive rights necessary for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents may not adequately protect our product candidates, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is challenged, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, or threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the "Hatch-Waxman Amendments") which amended the FDCA, a company may file an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") seeking approval of a generic version of an approved innovator product. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates and our technology, one or more of our U.S. patents that we may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. In countries in which we elect to pursue patent rights, the requirements for patentability may differ, particularly in developing countries. For example, China often applies a heightened requirement for patentability, with heightened requirements for experimental data in the patent application. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. For example, some foreign countries do not permit claims to therapeutic methods. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection in order to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement against infringing activities is inadequate. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, some countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if our patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to our patents to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Finally, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly on obtaining and enforcing patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and therefore, is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "AIA") which was passed on September 16, 2011, resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system. Further, U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. The significant changes to U.S. patent law under the AIA include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. For our U.S. patent applications that contain or contained at any time a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. The USPTO has developed and continues to develop regulations and procedures to govern administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business and financial condition. It is not clear what other, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a "first-to-file" system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued from applications filed before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard necessary to invalidate a patent claim in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal court, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO, and foreign patent offices, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways, including with potential retroactive effect, that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property, including our existing patents and patents that may issue to us in the future. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Further, we may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Generic drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for, and launch generic versions of our products. If we file an infringement action against such a generic drug manufacturer, that company may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our patents, requiring us to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. For example, if we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidates is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. In addition, within and outside of the United States, there has been a substantial amount of litigation and administrative proceedings, including inter partes review, post grant review, interference or derivation proceedings, and ex parte reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or other comparable proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions, regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. These proceedings bring uncertainty to the possibility of challenges to our patents in the future, including challenges by competitors who perceive our patents as blocking entry into the market for their products, and the outcome of such challenges. Such litigation and administrative proceedings could result in revocation of our patents or amendment of our patents such that they do not cover our product candidates. They may also put our pending patent applications at risk of not issuing, or issuing with limited and potentially inadequate scope to cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. Additionally, it is also possible that prior art of which we are aware, such as may arise during preclinical studies and clinical trials, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, may, nonetheless, ultimately be found by a court of law or an administration panel to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a negative impact on our business. Enforcing our intellectual property rights through litigation would be very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also divert technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, during the course of litigation or administrative proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price of our Ordinary Shares could be significantly harmed.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we may also rely on trade secret protection or confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how, technology and other proprietary information that may not be patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents may be difficult to obtain or enforce, and any other elements of our product candidates, and our product development processes (such as manufacturing and formulation technologies) that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, eroding our competitive position in the market. Trade secrets, confidential information, and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by requiring all of our employees, consultants, advisors, and any other third parties that have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of their relationships with us. We cannot be certain that we have or will obtain these agreements in all circumstances and we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary information. If the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating any trade secrets. Despite our efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets. In addition, in some situations, these confidentiality agreements may conflict with, or be subject to, the rights of third parties with whom our employees, consultants, or advisors have previous employment or consulting relationships. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use any intellectual property owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in any related or resulting know-how and inventions. Any misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could have an adverse effect on our business, impact our ability to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, or otherwise harm our business, operating results and financial condition. Furthermore, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements do not prevent competitors from independently developing substantially equivalent information and techniques and we cannot guarantee that our competitors will not independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. The FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA's disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. There is an increasing trend in the EU towards greater transparency and, while the manufacturing or quality information contained in an MAA is currently generally protected as confidential information, the EMA and national regulatory authorities may disclose much of the nonclinical and clinical information in MAAs, including the full clinical trial reports, in response to freedom of information requests after the marketing authorization has been granted. Similarly, as of January 31, 2022 under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, the EU clinical trials information system allows the public to access MAA data submitted to the EMA or national regulatory authorities (excluding any commercially confidential information). There may be a risk that information that we consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information becomes publicly available, including to our competitors, under such transparency requirements in the EU.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties, for example, the intellectual property rights of competitors. Our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents owned or controlled by third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our activities related to our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot assure you that our product candidates will not infringe existing or future patents. We may not be aware of patents that have already issued that a third party might assert are infringed by our product candidates. It is also possible that patents of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates, could nevertheless be found to be infringed by our product candidates. Nevertheless, we are not aware of any issued patents that we believe would prevent us or our licensee(s) from marketing our product candidates, if approved. There may also be patent applications that have been filed but not published that, when issued as patents, could be asserted against us. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that we may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties. Third parties making claims against us for infringement or misappropriation of their intellectual property rights may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, and would be a substantial diversion of management time and employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us by a third party, we may have to (i) pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to have willfully infringed the third party's patents; (ii) obtain one or more licenses from the third party; (iii) pay royalties to the third party; and/or (iv) redesign any infringing products. Redesigning any infringing products may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Further, we cannot predict whether any required license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. In the event that we could not obtain a license, we may be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would likely obligate us to pay license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Defending ourselves in litigation is very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise improperly used or disclosed confidential information or trade secrets of these third parties or our employees' former employers. Further, we may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. We may also be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, independent contractors, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging our right to and use of confidential and proprietary information. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose our rights therein. Such an outcome could have a negative impact on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of litigation proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Our future trademark applications in the United States and other foreign jurisdictions may not be allowed or may be subsequently opposed. Once filed and registered, our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. As a means to enforce our trademark rights and prevent infringement, we may be required to file trademark claims against third parties or initiate trademark opposition proceedings. This can be expensive and time-consuming, particularly for a company of our size. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

Various of our activities may be subject to anti-bribery, export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the jurisdictions in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. These laws are complex and far-reaching in nature, and, as a result, we cannot assure you that our internal control policies and procedures will protect us from reckless or negligent acts committed by our intermediaries, or that we would not be required in the future to alter one or more of our practices to be in compliance with these laws or any changes in these laws or the interpretation thereof. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. Furthermore, because we engage, and expect to continue to engage, third parties in connection with our clinical trials and other development and commercialization activities, we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents or collaborators, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. Other companies in the biopharmaceutical field have faced criminal penalties under the FCPA for allowing their agents to deviate from appropriate practices in doing business with individuals in the public or private sector. Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction, involve significant costs and expenses, including legal fees, and could result in a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations or our reputation. We could also suffer severe penalties, including substantial criminal and civil penalties, imprisonment, disgorgement, reputational harm and other remedial measures.

We intend to seek approval to market our current and future product candidates in the United States, the EU and selected other foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some countries, particularly certain EU member states, the pricing of drugs is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures. In the EU, the requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely between EU member states. Some EU member states provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some EU member states may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Moreover, at the national level, EU member states may restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU member states may approve a specific price for a product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many EU member states have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as EU member states attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become significant. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products in the marketplace. Political, economic and regulatory developments in the EU may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states) can further reduce prices. Acceptance of any medicinal product for reimbursement may come with cost, use and often volume restrictions, which again can vary by country. In addition, results based rules of reimbursement may apply. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected. In April 2023, the EU Commission released proposals to amend the current EU pharmaceutical regulatory framework. The potential reforms, if adopted, and depending on their final form, may cause additional pressure on pricing issues across the EU. For example, certain additional periods of regulatory exclusivity will only be available to medicinal products that are released and continuously supplied in a sufficient quantity and in the presentations necessary to cover the needs of the patients in every member state within two years of authorization (for products authorized through the centralized procedure). The potential commercial value of such a benefit may disproportionately affect pricing negotiations in member states that may otherwise be lower priority markets. However, the EU Parliament and Council are yet to agree on the final wording of any proposed legislation. Depending on the progress of the EU Parliament and Council, any changes to EU pharmaceutical legislation are not expected to come into force until 2025 or 2026 at the earliest. Additional transitional periods mean that the changes will most likely not take effect until 2027 or 2028.

We are subject to rules and regulations by various governing bodies, including, for example, the SEC, who are charged with the protection of investors and the oversight of companies whose securities are publicly traded, and to new and evolving regulatory measures under applicable law. Our efforts to comply with new and changing laws and regulations have resulted in increased selling, general and administrative expenses. Moreover, because these laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance becomes available. This evolution may result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and additional costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to our disclosure and governance practices. If we fail to address and comply with these regulations and any subsequent changes, we may be subject to penalty and our business may be harmed. For example, as of December 31, 2024, we will no longer qualify as an emerging growth company and as a result will be subject to more stringent reporting and compliance requirements applicable to larger companies.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress or by governments in foreign jurisdictions that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory clearance or approval, manufacture, and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. In addition, FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory authority regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of obicetrapib or any of our other product candidates now or in the future. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation or policies, when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require: - changes to manufacturing methods;- change in protocol design;- additional treatment arm (control);- recall, replacement, or discontinuance of one or more of our products; and - additional recordkeeping. Each of these would likely entail substantial time and cost and could harm our business and our financial results. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for obicetrapib or any future products would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell obicetrapib profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the "ACA"), a law intended, among other things, to broaden access to health insurance, improve quality of care, and reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending. The ACA, among other things, imposed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, added a provision to increase the Medicaid rebate for line extensions or reformulated drugs, established annual fees on manufacturers and importers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, promoted a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service Act pharmaceutical pricing program; and imposed a number of substantial new compliance provisions related to pharmaceutical companies' interactions with healthcare practitioners. The ACA also expanded eligibility for Medicaid programs and introduced a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research and a new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending. Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. In December 2017, Congress repealed the tax penalty, effective January 1, 2019, for an individual's failure to maintain ACA-mandated health insurance as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the "Tax Act"). President Biden issued an Executive Order that instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. Further, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act ("IRA") into law, which sets forth meaningful changes to drug product reimbursement by Medicare. Among other actions, the IRA permits U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") to engage in price-capped negotiation to set the price of certain drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. The IRA contains statutory exclusions to the negotiation program, including for certain orphan designated drugs for which the only approved indication (or indications) is for the orphan disease or condition. Should our product candidates be approved and covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, and fail to fall within a statutory exclusion, such as that for an orphan drug, those products could, after a period of time, be selected for negotiation and become subject to prices representing a significant discount from average prices to wholesalers and direct purchasers. The IRA also establishes a rebate obligation for drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D covered drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. The inflation rebates may require us to pay rebates if we increased the cost of a covered Medicare Part B or Part D approved product faster than the rate of inflation. In addition, the law eliminates the "donut hole" under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees' prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. Our cost-sharing responsibility for any approved product covered by Medicare Part D could be significantly greater under the newly designed Part D benefit structure compared to the pre-IRA benefit design. Additionally, manufacturers that fail to comply with certain provisions of the IRA may be subject to penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA is anticipated to have significant effects on the pharmaceutical industry and may reduce the prices we can charge and reimbursement we can receive for our products, among other effects. In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. This 2% reduction was temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since been reinstated and, unless Congress and/or the Executive Branch take additional action, will begin to increase gradually starting in April 2030, reaching 4% in April 2031, until sequestration ends in October 2031. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 also introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or penalties based on new program quality standards. In November 2019, CMS issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Medicare Quality Payment Program. On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration's proposals. The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 30, 2020, HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The IRA delayed the implementation of the rule to January 1, 2032. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers; the implementation of these provisions has also been delayed by the IRA until January 1, 2032. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate price cap, currently set at 100% of a drug's average manufacturer price for single source and innovator multiple source products, beginning on January 1, 2024. Further, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order that included multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden's executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug price reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions by HHS. No legislative or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of the budget reconciliation process. Additionally, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated "maximum fair price" under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. If healthcare policies or reforms intended to curb healthcare costs are adopted, or if we experience negative publicity with respect to the pricing of obicetrapib, if approved, or any future product or the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs generally, the prices that we charge for any approved products may be limited, our commercial opportunity may be limited and/or our revenues from sales of our products may be negatively impacted. If we obtain regulatory approval and commence commercialization of obicetrapib or any of our future product candidates, these laws may result in additional reductions in healthcare funding, which could have an adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of obicetrapib or our future product candidates may be. Although we cannot predict the full effect on our business of the implementation of existing legislation or the enactment of additional legislation pursuant to healthcare and other legislative reform, we believe that legislation or regulations that would reduce reimbursement for, or restrict coverage of, obicetrapib, if approved, or any of our future products could adversely affect how much or under what circumstances healthcare providers will prescribe or administer our products. This could adversely affect our business by reducing our ability to generate revenues, raise capital, obtain licenses and market our products. In addition, we believe the increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States has and will continue to put pressure on the price and usage of pharmaceutical products, which may adversely impact product sales. In April 2023, the EU Commission released proposals to amend the current EU pharmaceutical regulatory framework. The potential reforms include shortening the periods of regulatory and/or marketing protections available for innovative products. Depending on the final wording of these reforms (if adopted), a reduction in the periods of regulatory and/or marketing protections available for obicetrapib or any of our future product candidates may adversely affect the commercial viability of such products in the EU. These changes could adversely affect our business by reducing our protection against generic competitors entering the EU market. Depending on the progress of the EU Parliament and Council, changes to EU pharmaceutical legislation are not expected to come into force until 2025 or 2026 at the earliest and additional transitional periods mean that the changes will most likely not take effect until 2027 or 2028.

We may currently be or may become subject to various federal, state and foreign healthcare laws, including those intended to prevent healthcare fraud and abuse. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including, but not limited to, cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced price items and services. Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU member states. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Payments made to physicians in certain EU member states must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician's employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU member states. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. Federal false claims laws, including the FCA and civil monetary penalties law impose penalties against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false or fraudulent or making a false record or statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The FCA has been used to, among other things, prosecute persons and entities submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. The FCA includes a whistleblower provision that allows individuals to bring actions on behalf of the federal government and share a portion of the recovery of successful claims. Many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes and regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. State and federal authorities have aggressively targeted medical technology companies for, among other things, alleged violations of these anti-fraud statutes, based on improper research or consulting contracts with doctors, certain marketing arrangements that rely on volume-based pricing, off-label marketing schemes, and other improper promotional practices. HIPAA among other things, imposes criminal liability for knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Our operations will also be subject to the federal transparency requirements under the ACA, which require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the CMS an agency within HHS information related to payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians, teaching hospitals, certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and certain non-physician providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified-nurse midwives). On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump's Most Favored Nation ("MFN") executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. As a result of litigation, challenging the MFN model on August 10, 2021, CMS published a proposed rule that seeks to rescind the MFN model interim rule. In addition, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate price cap, currently set at 100% of a drug's average manufacturer price for single source and innovator multiple source products, beginning on January 1, 2024. Further, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order that included multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden's executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug price reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions by HHS. No legislative or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of the budget reconciliation process. Additionally, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated "maximum fair price" under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. We may also be subject to federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products, and similar laws in other jurisdictions.

The ability of the FDA to review and clear or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA's ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA's ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new products or modifications to be approved by government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process its regulatory submissions or provide feedback with respect to our planned clinical trials, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health crises prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for obicetrapib or future product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, risk mitigation and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, and we may be required to include labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or significant safety warnings, including boxed warnings. Such requirements could negatively impact us by reducing revenues or increasing expenses, and cause the approved product not to be commercially viable. Absence of long-term safety data may further limit the approved uses of our product, if any. If the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authority approves obicetrapib, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration requirements and continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices ("cGMPs") and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. For certain commercial prescription drug products, manufacturers and other parties involved in the supply chain must also meet chain of distribution requirements and build electronic, interoperable systems for product tracking and tracing and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or other products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. The EU similarly has in force falsified medicines rules, which require appropriate packaging, labeling, registration and tracking of certain medicinal products to ensure the detection of counterfeit medicinal products, and associated reporting requirements. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things: - suspension or imposition of restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements;- restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary product recalls;- fines, untitled or warning letters or holds on clinical trials;- refusal by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authority to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us, or suspension or revocation of product approvals;- product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; and - injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product's approved labeling. Comparable restrictions apply in the EU, where, in addition, the advertising of prescription only medications to the general public is prohibited. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize obicetrapib, and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the policies of the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA and other comparable regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of obicetrapib. Costs arising out of any regulatory developments could be time-consuming and expensive and could divert management resources and attention and, consequently, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

The research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, approval, promotion, advertising, storage, recordkeeping, marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and export and import of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. These regulations differ from country to country. We have not yet obtained regulatory approval to market obicetrapib in the United States or any other country, but plan to seek approval of obicetrapib in the United States, the EU, the United Kingdom, Japan and China. To gain approval to market obicetrapib, we must provide clinical trial data that adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product for the intended indication. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of any of our future preclinical testing and studies, if any, on obicetrapib. We cannot be sure that the FDA, local regulatory authorities in the EU or other comparable regulatory authorities (including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom ("MHRA"), the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in Japan ("PMDA") and the China National Medical Products Administration in China ("NMPA")) will accept the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies as sufficient to support the submission of an IND, clinical trial authorizations ("CTAs") or similar applications for any of our programs which may result in us being unable to submit INDs, CTAs or similar applications or result in FDA, local regulatory authorities in the EU or other comparable regulatory authority refusing to allow clinical trials to begin. Furthermore, Phase 3 clinical trials often produce unsatisfactory results even though prior clinical trials were successful. Moreover, the results of clinical trials may be unsatisfactory to the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities even if we believe those clinical trials to be successful. The FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may suspend one or all of our clinical trials or require that we conduct additional clinical, preclinical, manufacturing, validation or drug product quality studies and submit that data before considering or reconsidering any NDA or comparable foreign regulatory application that we may submit. Depending on the extent of these additional studies, approval of any applications that we submit may be significantly delayed or may cause the termination of such programs, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. The FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidate for many reasons, including: - our inability to satisfactorily demonstrate that obicetrapib is safe and effective for the target indication;- the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial protocol, the interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials, or adequate conduct and control of clinical trials;- the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities for approval;- the population studied in the clinical trials may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assess safety in the patient population for which we seek approval;- the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities for approval;- our inability to demonstrate that clinical or other benefits of obicetrapib outweigh any safety or other perceived risks;- determination by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities that additional preclinical studies or clinical trials are required or that additional data must be included;- the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may fail to approve of the formulation, labeling or the specifications of obicetrapib;- the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may fail to accept the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract;- the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies or such processes or facilities may not pass a pre-approval inspection;- the potential for approval policies or regulations of the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities to significantly change or differ from another in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval; or - resistance to approval from the FDA's advisory committee for any reason including safety or efficacy concerns. The FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities may also approve obicetrapib for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of obicetrapib. To the extent we seek regulatory approval in other foreign countries, we may face challenges similar to those described above with regulatory authorities in applicable jurisdictions. We and our collaborator(s) are not permitted to market or promote obicetrapib before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for obicetrapib to allow us to successfully commercialize our product candidate. If we do not receive regulatory approval with the necessary conditions to allow successful commercialization, we will not be able to generate revenue from obicetrapib in the United States or other countries in the foreseeable future, or at all. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval for obicetrapib would delay or prevent commercialization of our obicetrapib and could thus negatively impact our business, results of operations and prospects.

As a company, we have never progressed a product candidate through to regulatory approval. We have not previously submitted an NDA, an EU marketing authorization application ("MAA") or any similar drug approval filing to the FDA, the EMA or any comparable regulatory authority for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that obicetrapib will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, obicetrapib may not receive regulatory approval even if it is successful in clinical trials. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market our product candidate, our revenues will be dependent, to a significant extent, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights or share in revenues from the exercise of such rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved. Further, our clinical trials may require more time and incur greater costs than we anticipate. We cannot be certain that our planned clinical trials will begin or conclude on time, if at all. Large-scale trials require significant financial and management resources. Third-party clinical investigators do not operate under our control. Any performance failure on the part of such third parties could delay the clinical development of obicetrapib or delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing obicetrapib or future product candidates, depriving us of potential product revenue and resulting in additional losses.

Approval of a product candidate by one regulatory authority in any jurisdiction does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. Even if one regulatory authority grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of other countries also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for any product candidates, if approved, is also subject to approval. Obtaining approval for obicetrapib or any future product candidate in the EU from the European Commission following the opinion of the EMA or in other foreign jurisdictions, if we choose to submit a marketing authorization application there, would be a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may limit the indications for which the drug may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the drug labeling or require expensive and time-consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of obicetrapib or any future product candidate in certain countries.

We determined on June 30, 2023 that we no longer satisfied the requirements for retaining our foreign private issuer status which means that as of January 1, 2024 we are required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. The Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, including periodic reporting requirements and the U.S. federal proxy rules, are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We were required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and Nasdaq rules. We were also required to begin preparing our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP which resulted in financial statements that are different than our historical financial statements and which may make it difficult for investors to compare our financial performance over time. Our officers, directors and principal shareholders became subject to the reporting and short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. As a U.S. listed public company that is not a foreign private issuer, we expect to incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a foreign private issuer. We also expect that complying with the rules and regulations applicable to United States domestic issuers may make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our management team and Board of Directors. Complying with the Exchange Act rules applicable to a domestic company will require additional time from management and could divert their attention away from the day-to-day management of our business, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. may also distract our management team and impact our operations.

Our workers are classified as either employees or independent contractors, and if employees, as either exempt from overtime or non-exempt (and therefore overtime eligible). The tests governing whether a service provider is an independent contractor or an employee are typically highly fact sensitive and can vary by governing law. Laws and regulations that govern the status and misclassification of independent contractors are also subject to divergent interpretations by various authorities, which can create uncertainty and unpredictability. Regulatory authorities and private parties have recently asserted within several industries that some independent contractors should be classified as employees and that some exempt employees should be classified as nonexempt based upon the applicable facts and circumstances and their interpretations of existing rules and regulations. If we are found to have misclassified employees as independent contractors or non-exempt employees as exempt, we could face penalties and have additional exposure under tax (including federal and state tax), workers' compensation, unemployment benefits, labor, employment and tort laws, including for prior periods, as well as potential liability for employee overtime and benefits and tax withholdings. Legislative, judicial or regulatory (including tax) authorities could also introduce proposals or assert interpretations of existing rules and regulations that would change the classification of a number of independent contractors doing business with us from independent contractor to employee and a number of exempt employees to non-exempt. A reclassification in either case could result in an increase in employment-related costs such as wages, benefits and taxes. The costs associated with employee misclassification, including any related regulatory action or litigation, could therefore have an adverse effect on our results of operations and our financial position.

We generally include non-competition provisions as part of our agreements with our officers, employees and consultants. These agreements generally prohibit our officers, employees or consultants, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors for a limited period. We may be unable to enforce these provisions under the laws of the jurisdictions in which our officers, employees or consultants work and it may be difficult for us to restrict our competitors from benefitting from the expertise our former officers, employees or consultants developed while working for us.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, clinical investigators, CROs, consultants and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct, breach of contract or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates regulations of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information; manufacturing standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws; or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately. Specifically, research, sales, marketing, education and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, education, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics and train our employees on these topics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, even if we are successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and reputation. Violations of such laws subject us to numerous penalties, including, but not limited to, the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct many of our clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct clinical trials on obicetrapib. Third parties play a significant role in the conduct of our clinical trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that any such third party will devote to our clinical trials. If our CROs or any other third parties upon which we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical trials do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, or if they otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize obicetrapib. We and the third parties upon whom we rely are required to comply with GCP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by regulatory authorities around the world for products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or our third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and our submission of marketing applications may be delayed or the regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, a regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply or complied with applicable GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with material produced under current cGMP regulations, which are enforced by regulatory authorities. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be impacted if our CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws. In order for our clinical trials to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that our CROs and other third parties communicate and coordinate with one another. Moreover, our CROs and other third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. Our CROs and other third parties may terminate their agreements with us immediately under certain circumstances, such as upon 30 days' notice or immediately upon a material breach. If our CROs or other third parties conducting our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols or GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials or enter into new arrangements with alternative CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties. We may be unable to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Switching or adding CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties can involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Although we carefully manage our relationship with our CROs, clinical investigators and other third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter such challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a negative impact on our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Although we have hired a chief commercial officer, we do not have a complete sales or marketing infrastructure and, as a Company, have limited experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization or enter into collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize such product candidate. In the United States, we intend to build a commercial organization to target areas with the greatest incidence of high cardiovascular risk with residual elevation of LDL-C and recruit experienced sales, marketing and distribution professionals. The development of sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities will require substantial resources, will be time-consuming and could delay any product launch. We may decide to work with regional specialty pharmacies, distributors and/or multi-national pharmaceutical companies to leverage their commercialization capabilities to commercialize any product candidate for which we may obtain regulatory approval outside of the United States or certain areas of Europe. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and distribution capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization costs. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In addition, we may not be able to hire a sales force in the United States that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise to target the areas that we intend to target. If we are unable to establish a sales force and marketing and distribution capabilities, our operating results may be adversely affected. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our drugs on our own include: - our inability to recruit, train, and retain adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel;- the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future products;- the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies with more extensive product lines;- unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization; and - unforeseen costs and limitations with regard to setting up a distribution network. If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in the United States and other jurisdictions in which obicetrapib or any future product candidates are approved, other than in the jurisdictions covered by the Menarini License, we will be required to enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. As a result, our revenues and profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to sell, market and distribute any product candidates that we develop ourselves. We may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have limited control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing any product candidates.

The FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drug products, such as obicetrapib, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities as reflected in the product's approved labeling. For example, if we receive marketing approval for obicetrapib for cardiometabolic disease, physicians, in their professional medical judgment, may nevertheless prescribe obicetrapib to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label use, we may become subject to significant liability under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA") and other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would harm our business. In addition, management's attention could be diverted from our business operations, significant legal expenses could be incurred and our reputation could be damaged. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we are deemed by the FDA to have engaged in the promotion of our products for off-label use, we could be subject to prohibitions on the sale or marketing of our products or significant fines and penalties, and the imposition of these sanctions could also affect our reputation with physicians, patients and caregivers, and our position within the industry. Physicians may also misuse our products or use improper techniques, potentially leading to adverse results, side effects or injury, which may lead to product liability claims. If our products are misused or used with improper technique, we may become subject to costly litigation. Product liability claims could divert management's attention from our core business, be expensive to defend, and result in sizable damage awards against us that may not be covered by insurance. We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials with policy limits that we believe are customary for similarly situated companies and adequate to provide us with coverage for foreseeable risks. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Furthermore, the use of our products for conditions other than those approved by the FDA may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of obicetrapib or any future product candidate, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would harm our reputation and negatively impact our financial condition.