Viking Therapeutics (VKTX) Risk Analysis

If no active trading market for our common stock is sustained, you may be unable to sell your shares when you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider attractive or satisfactory. The lack of an active market may also adversely affect our ability to raise capital by selling securities in the future, or impair our ability to acquire or in-license other drug candidates, businesses or technologies using our shares as consideration.

As of December 31, 2024, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders beneficially owned 28.3% of our common stock. Therefore, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders have the ability to influence us through this ownership position. This concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price for our common stock because investors often perceive disadvantages in owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders. As a result, these stockholders, if they acted together, could materially influence all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combination transactions. These stockholders may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. The interests of these stockholders may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders. This may also prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our stockholders and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including seeking a premium value for their common stock, and might affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

The trading market for our common stock depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. In addition, if our operating results fail to meet the forecast of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

Some provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management. These provisions include: - authorizing the issuance of "blank check" preferred stock, the terms of which may be established and shares of which may be issued without stockholder approval;- limiting the removal of directors by the stockholders;- creating a classified board of directors;- providing that no stockholder is permitted to cumulate votes at any election of directors;- allowing the authorized number of our directors to be changed only by resolution of our board of directors;- prohibiting stockholder action by written consent, thereby requiring all stockholder actions to be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;- requiring the approval of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the votes that all our stockholders would be entitled to cast to amend or repeal specified provisions of our charter documents;- eliminating the ability of stockholders to call a special meeting of stockholders; and - establishing advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings. These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or the DGCL, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with an interested stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder, unless such transactions are approved in advance by our board of directors or ratified by our board of directors and certain of our stockholders. This provision could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control, whether or not it is desired by or beneficial to our stockholders. Further, other provisions of Delaware law may also discourage, delay or prevent someone from acquiring us or merging with us.

Our amended and restated bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (2) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee to us or our stockholders, (3) any action asserting a claim against us or our directors, officers or employees arising pursuant to any provision of our amended and restated bylaws, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or the DGCL, (4) any action asserting a claim against us or our directors, officers or employees that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, or (5) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of our amended and restated bylaws or our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. Any person purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to this provision of our amended and restated bylaws. This choice-of-forum provision may limit our stockholders' ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits. In addition, a stockholder that is unable to bring a claim in the judicial forum of its choosing may be required to incur additional costs in the pursuit of actions that are subject to these exclusive forum provisions, particularly if the stockholder does not reside in or near Delaware. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision of our amended and restated bylaws inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividend on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

We may seek collaboration arrangements with biopharmaceutical companies for the development or commercialization of our current and potential future drug candidates. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, execute and implement. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish and implement collaborations or other alternative arrangements should we choose to enter into such arrangements, and the terms of the arrangements may not be favorable to us. If, and when, we collaborate with a third party for development and commercialization of a drug candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that drug candidate to the third party. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. Disagreements between parties to a collaboration arrangement can lead to delays in developing or commercializing the applicable drug candidate and can be difficult to resolve in a mutually beneficial manner. In some cases, collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies and other third parties are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As a public company and particularly since becoming a "large accelerated filer" as of December 31, 2023, we have incurred and expect to continue to incur additional significant legal, accounting and other expenses. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC have imposed various requirements on public companies. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact (in ways we cannot currently anticipate) the manner in which we operate our business. We have a small management team that, along with other personnel, will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain our current levels of such insurance coverage. As a publicly traded company, we have incurred and will incur legal, accounting and other expenses associated with the SEC reporting requirements applicable to a company whose securities are registered under the Exchange Act, as well as corporate governance requirements, including those under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and other rules implemented by the SEC and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC. In addition, we expect that we will need to hire additional personnel in our finance department to help us comply with the various requirements applicable to public companies. The expenses incurred by public companies generally to meet SEC reporting, Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance, finance and accounting and corporate governance requirements have been increasing in recent years as a result of changes in, and the adoption of, new rules and regulations applicable to public companies.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a small number of employees, and our management systems currently in place are not likely to be adequate to support our future growth plans. Our ability to grow and to manage our growth effectively will require us to hire, train, retain, manage and motivate additional employees and to implement and improve our operational, financial and management systems. These demands also may require the hiring of additional senior management personnel or the development of additional expertise by our senior management personnel. Hiring a significant number of additional employees, particularly those at the management level, would increase our expenses significantly. Moreover, if we fail to expand and enhance our operational,financial and management systems in conjunction with our potential future growth, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In some countries, particularly member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we, or our future collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. 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 reimbursement of any product candidate approved for marketing is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.

We have spent significant time, money and effort on the licensing and development of our core metabolic and endocrine disease assets, VK2735 subcutaneous, VK2735 oral, VK2809, VK0214, VK5211, VK0612 and our earlier-stage assets, our DACRA, DGAT-1 and EPOR programs. To date, no pivotal clinical trials designed to provide clinically and statistically significant proof of efficacy, or to provide sufficient evidence of safety to justify approval, have been completed with any of our drug candidates. All of our drug candidates will require additional development, including clinical trials as well as further preclinical studies to evaluate their toxicology, carcinogenicity and pharmacokinetics and optimize their formulation, and regulatory clearances before they can be commercialized. Positive results obtained during early development do not necessarily mean later development will succeed or that regulatory clearances will be obtained. Our drug development efforts may not lead to commercial drugs, either because our drug candidates fail to be safe and effective or because we have inadequate financial or other resources to advance our drug candidates through the clinical development and approval processes. If any of our drug candidates fail to demonstrate safety or efficacy at any time or during any phase of development, we would experience potentially significant delays in, or be required to abandon, development of the drug candidate. We do not anticipate that any of our current drug candidates will be eligible to receive regulatory approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities and begin commercialization for a number of years, if ever. Even if we ultimately receive regulatory approval for any of these drug candidates, we or our potential future partners, if any, may be unable to commercialize them successfully for a variety of reasons. These include, for example, the availability of alternative treatments, lack of cost-effectiveness, the cost of manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and competition with other drugs. The success of our drug candidates may also be limited by the prevalence and severity of any adverse side effects. If we fail to commercialize one or more of our current drug candidates, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to attain or maintain profitability, and our financial condition and stock price may decline.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, storage, record-keeping, advertising, promotion, export, marketing and distribution of our drug candidates are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other U.S. regulatory agencies, EMA or comparable authorities in foreign markets. In the U.S., neither we nor our collaborators are permitted to market our drug candidates until we or our collaborators receive approval of a new drug application, or an NDA, from the FDA or receive similar approvals abroad. The process of obtaining these approvals is expensive, often takes many years, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the drug candidates involved. Approval policies or regulations may change and may be influenced by the results of other similar or competitive products, making it more difficult for us to achieve such approval in a timely manner or at all. For example, the FDA has released draft guidance regarding clinical trials for drug candidates treating diabetes that may result in more stringent requirements for the clinical trials and regulatory approval of such drug candidates. This and any future guidance that may result from recent FDA advisory panel discussions on the topic of diabetes, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH/MASH, and other metabolic indications, may make it more expensive to develop and commercialize such drug candidates for such indications. Such increased expense could make it more difficult to obtain favorable terms in the collaborative arrangements we require to maximize the value of our programs seeking to develop new drug candidates for diabetes. In addition, as a company, we have not previously filed NDAs with the FDA or filed similar applications with other foreign regulatory agencies. This lack of experience may impede our ability to obtain FDA or other foreign regulatory agency approval in a timely manner, if at all, for our drug candidates for which development and commercialization is our responsibility. Despite the time and expense invested, regulatory approval is never guaranteed. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a drug candidate for many reasons, including: - a drug candidate may not be deemed safe or effective;- agency officials of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities may not find the data from non-clinical or preclinical studies and clinical trials generated during development to be sufficient;- the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities may not approve our third-party manufacturers' processes or facilities; or - the FDA, EMA or a comparable foreign authority may change its approval policies or adopt new regulations. Our inability to obtain these approvals would prevent us from commercializing our drug candidates.

In order to market any products outside of the U.S., we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process in other countries may include all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA approval in the U.S. as well as other risks. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. Failure to obtain regulatory approval in other countries or any delay seeking or obtaining such approval would impair our ability to develop foreign markets for our drug candidates.

If any of our drug candidates receive regulatory approval, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of the drug candidates or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and trials. In addition, regulatory agencies subject a product, its manufacturer and the manufacturer's facilities to continual review and periodic inspections. If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, our collaborators or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. Our drug candidates will also be subject to ongoing FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities' requirements for the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information on the drug. If our drug candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may: - issue warning letters or other notices of possible violations;- impose civil or criminal penalties or fines or seek disgorgement of revenue or profits;- suspend any ongoing clinical trials;- refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or our collaborators;- withdraw any regulatory approvals;- impose restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements, or shut down our manufacturing operations; or - seize or detain products or require a product recall.

The FDA, EMA and comparable foreign authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as our drug candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities as reflected in the product's approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our drug candidates for our proposed indications, physicians may nevertheless use our products for their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, if the physicians personally believe in their professional medical judgment that our products could be used in such manner. However, if we are found to have promoted our products for any off-label uses, the federal government could levy civil, criminal or administrative penalties, and seek fines against us. Such enforcement has become more common in the industry. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities could also request that we enter into a consent decree or a corporate integrity agreement or seek a permanent injunction against us under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our drug candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of adopted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-marketing activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any of our drug candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In the U.S., the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could limit the coverage and reimbursement rate that we receive for any of our approved products. While the MMA only applies to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the PPACA, was enacted. The PPACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The PPACA increased manufacturers' rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate amount for both branded and generic drugs and revised the definition of "average manufacturer price," or AMP, which may also increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates manufacturers are required to pay to states. The legislation also expanded Medicaid drug rebates and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products that is intended to increase the rebates due on those drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, also has proposed to expand Medicaid rebates to the utilization that occurs in the territories of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Further, beginning in 2011, the PPACA imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products and required manufacturers to provide a discount, equal to 70% off, effective as of 2019, the negotiated price of prescriptions filled by beneficiaries in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, referred to as the "donut hole." Legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced at both the state and federal level to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. We also expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates, if approved for commercialization. In Europe, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on January 31, 2020, and entered into a transition period that expired on December 31, 2020. A significant portion of the previous regulatory framework in the United Kingdom was derived from the regulations of the European Union. In 2021, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, released guidance explaining the new regulatory framework. We cannot predict the consequences or impact that the new regulatory framework will have on our future operations, if any, in these jurisdictions. In addition, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was signed into law which, among other things, includes policies that are designed to have a direct impact on drug prices and reduce drug spending by the federal government, which took effect in 2023. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress authorized Medicare beginning in 2026 to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars. This provision is limited in terms of the number of pharmaceuticals whose prices can be negotiated in any given year and it only applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years. Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition are categorically excluded from price negotiation. Further, the new legislation provides that if pharmaceutical companies raise prices in Medicare faster than the rate of inflation, they must pay rebates back to the government for the difference. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $2,000 a year.

In the U.S., we are subject to various federal and state healthcare "fraud and abuse" laws, including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws and other laws intended, among other things, to reduce fraud and abuse in federal and state healthcare programs. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer, or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug, or other good or service for which payment in whole or in part may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Although we seek to structure our business arrangements in compliance with all applicable requirements, these laws are broadly written, and it is often difficult to determine precisely how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that our practices may be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from, among other things, knowingly presenting or causing to be presented for payment to the government, including the federal healthcare programs, claims for reimbursed drugs or services that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services that were not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we are prohibited from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services to obtain money or property of any healthcare benefit program. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal or civil sanctions, including penalties, fines or exclusion or suspension from federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states. Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payors. In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties. Neither the government nor the courts have provided definitive guidance on the application of fraud and abuse laws to our business. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing these laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If we are found in violation of one of these laws, we could be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from governmental funded federal or state healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If this occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues from any of our drug candidates that are ultimately approved for commercialization. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to generate revenues from product sales, our potential for achieving profitability will be diminished and our need to raise capital to fund our operations will increase.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or the EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, which includes the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal data and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to 4% of global revenues or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own additional laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. The European Data Protection Board continues to release guidelines for industries and impose fines related to the GDPR, some of which have been very significant. To improve coordination among EU supervisory authorities, the European Commission has proposed a new regulation that would help to streamline enforcement of the GDPR in cross-border cases. Meanwhile, there continues to be persistent uncertainty relating to the transfer of personal data from Europe to the U.S., or other non-adequate countries, following the Schrems II decision. On July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, or DPF. The decision, which took effect on the day of its adoption, concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EEA to companies certified to DPF. However, it remains too soon to tell how the future of DPF will evolve and what impact it will have on our international activities. At least one challenge to the DPF is pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Further, Brexit has led and could also lead to legislative and regulatory changes that may increase our compliance costs. As of January 1, 2021 and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the UK and the EU, data processing in the UK is governed by a UK version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision for the UK, allowing for the relatively free exchange of personal data between the EU and the UK (as the UK correspondingly allows transfers back to the EU). However, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the UK no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection. A bill to amend the existing UK framework has been reintroduced (in a different form) by the new UK Government and was announced as a bill which will be introduced into Parliament at the King's Speech on July 17, 2024. At this time, there is no specific clarity on the provisions of the bill, or the extent to which it will amend the UK framework, beyond general descriptions on its intended purpose. Similar actions are either in place or under way in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection and breach notification laws that are applicable to our activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. Each of these laws is subject to varying interpretations and the legislative landscape is constantly evolving and the Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. At the federal level, for example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which establishes privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, or protected health information, and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information. We may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. Requirements for compliance under HIPAA are also subject to change, as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights issued a proposed rule that would amend certain security compliance requirements for covered entities and business associates. Additionally, new laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels and several states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by the GDPR, though the CCPA does exempt certain clinical trial data. The California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, amended and expanded the CCPA, and also created a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CRPA. The CCPA and the CRPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and we cannot yet predict the impact of the CCPA or the CRPA on our business. Similar laws passed in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah took effect in 2023 while laws in Oregon, Montana and Texas went into effect in 2024. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Tennessee have adopted privacy laws, which took or will take effect from January 1, 2025 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the CPRA), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2023 and 2024, Nevada's Consumer Health Data Privacy Law, which became effective in 2024, and Connecticut's amendments to its privacy law to address health data, which became effective in 2023. Additionally, a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal data could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, CROs, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the EU. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal data from our clinical trials, and access to certain data such as the European Health Data Space Regulation, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal data could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

Our officers and certain employees are parties to employment agreements that contain change in control and severance provisions in the event of a termination of employment in connection with a change in control of our company providing for cash payments for severance and other benefits and acceleration of vesting of stock options and shares of restricted stock. The accelerated vesting of options and shares of restricted stock could result in dilution to our existing stockholders and lower the market price of our common stock. The payment of these severance benefits could harm our financial condition and results. In addition, these potential severance payments may discourage or prevent third parties from seeking a business combination with us.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at other biopharmaceutical companies. Although we have no knowledge of any such claims against us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of our employees' former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees. To date, none of our employees have been subject to such claims.

Our business is substantially dependent upon technology licensed from Ligand. Pursuant to the Master License Agreement, we have been granted exclusive worldwide rights to VK2809, VK0214, VK5211, VK0612 and preclinical programs for metabolic disorders and anemia. Selective androgen receptor modulators, such as the one used in our VK5211 program, are key compounds used by us in the development and commercialization of our drug candidates. Most of the intellectual property related to our drug candidates is currently owned by Ligand, and we have the rights to use such intellectual property pursuant to the Master License Agreement. Therefore, our ability to develop and commercialize certain of our drug candidates depends entirely on the effectiveness and continuation of the Master License Agreement. If we lose the right to license any of these key compounds, our ability to develop existing and new drug candidates would be harmed. Ligand has the right to terminate the Master License Agreement under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) in the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, (2) if we do not pay an undisputed amount owing under the Master License Agreement when due and fail to cure such default within a specified period of time, or (3) if we default on certain of our material obligations and fail to cure the default within a specified period of time.