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, 2025, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders beneficially owned 18.7% 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.

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.

From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, such as acquisitions of companies, asset purchases and out-licensing or in-licensing of products, drug candidates or technologies. Additional potential transactions that we may consider include a variety of different business arrangements, including spin-offs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. Any such transaction may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, may increase our near- and long-term expenditures and may pose significant integration challenges or disrupt our management or business, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, these transactions may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including: - exposure to unknown liabilities;- disruption of our business and diversion of our management's time and attention in order to develop acquired products, drug candidates or technologies;- incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay for any of these transactions;- higher-than-expected transaction and integration costs;- write-downs of assets or goodwill or impairment charges;- increased amortization expenses;- difficulty and cost in combining the operations and personnel of any acquired businesses or product lines with our operations and personnel;- impairment of relationships with key suppliers or customers of any acquired businesses or product lines due to changes in management and ownership; and - inability to retain key employees of any acquired businesses. Accordingly, although there can be no assurance that we will undertake or successfully complete any transactions of the nature described above, any transactions that we do complete may be subject to the foregoing or other risks, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or the Bribery Act, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business and may do business in the future. The FCPA, the Bribery Act and these other laws generally prohibit us, our officers, and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Compliance with the FCPA, in particular, is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. We may in the future operate in jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential FCPA or Bribery Act violations, and we may participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions could potentially subject us to liability under the FCPA, the Bribery Act or local anti-corruption laws. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted. If we expand our operations outside of the United States, we will need to dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and authorities in the EU, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions on countries and persons, customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as Trade Control Laws. In addition, various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, we will be required to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA, the Bribery Act or other legal requirements, including Trade Control Laws. If we are not in compliance with the FCPA, the Bribery Act and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control Laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA's accounting provisions. Any investigation of any potential violations of the FCPA, the Bribery Act, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control Laws by United States, United Kingdom or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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.

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.

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, 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 ACA, was enacted. The ACA 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 expanded 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 ACA 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, on 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. Since the enactment of the ACA, there have been judicial, congressional, and executive branch challenges to the act, which have resulted in delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the "individual mandate" was repealed by Congress. In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, was signed into law which, among other things, included policies that were designed to have a direct impact on drug prices and reduce drug spending by the federal government, which took effect in 2023. Under the IRA, 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 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 IRA also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $2,000 a year. In addition, the IRA permits the Department of Health & Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations. The prices of these ten drugs became effective starting January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, HHS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations by February 1, 2025. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies occurred during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of march-in rights, which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain whether that will continue under the new framework. It is unclear whether or how much such rights may be exercised. Several pharmaceutical companies, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have filed lawsuits against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA's drug price negotiation program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is otherwise unlawful. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and several federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. HHS has generally continued to win the substantive disputes in appeals, although certain cases continue to seek appellate review. Other legislative changes have also been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, resulted in reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In certain countries outside the United States, reimbursement for products that have not yet received marketing authorization may be provided through national managed access programs. We expect that the ACA, the IRA, and any other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Additionally, 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. The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions and proposals may, for example, include directives: (1) reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, or CMNI, to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration's executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Furthermore, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, which reduced funding to federal healthcare programs and imposed additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs. 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.

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 guidances regarding clinical trials for drug candidates treating diabetes or intended for weight reduction that may result in more stringent requirements for the clinical trials and regulatory approval of such drug candidates. This and any future guidance published by the FDA or that may result from 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 manufacturing, 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;- mandate modifications to promotional materials or require us to provide corrective information to healthcare practitioners, or require other restrictions on the labeling or marketing of such product;- seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or fines or seek disgorgement of revenue or profits;- suspend or modify any ongoing clinical trials or require us to conduct additional clinical trials;- refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or our collaborators;- withdraw any regulatory approvals;- suspend or impose restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements, or shut down our manufacturing operations; or - seize or detain products, refusing to permit the import or export of products or require a product recall. There remains substantial uncertainty as to how the current U.S. administration will seek to or continue to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. This uncertainty could present new challenges or potential opportunities as we navigate the clinical development and approval process for our product candidates. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine that required courts to give deference to regulatory agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes, could result in additional legal challenges to regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies, including the FDA, on which we rely. The Loper decision may result in increased regulatory uncertainty, inconsistent judicial interpretations and other impacts to the agency rule-making process, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action or as a result of legal challenges, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our business could be materially harmed.

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.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law and extended many of the tax law provisions that were set to expire in 2025. Further changes to the tax laws or changes to the administrative or judicial interpretations of such laws are possible and may apply with retroactive effect. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense. In addition, many countries in Europe, as well as a number of other countries and organizations (including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission), have proposed, recommended, or (in the case of countries) enacted or otherwise become subject to changes to existing tax laws or new tax laws that could significantly increase our tax obligations in the countries where we do business or require us to change the manner in which we operate our business.

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel. As of December 31, 2025, we had fifty-three full-time employees and a small number of consultants, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. The loss of any of our key personnel could delay or prevent the development of our drug candidates. These personnel are "at-will" employees and may terminate their employment with us at any time; however, each of our current chief executive officer and current chief financial officer has agreed to provide us with at least 60 days' advance notice of his respective resignation pursuant to his employment agreement with us. The replacement of key personnel likely would involve significant time and costs, and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives. We do not maintain "key person" insurance on any of our employees. From time to time, our management seeks the advice and guidance of certain scientific advisors and consultants regarding clinical and regulatory development programs and other customary matters. These scientific advisors and consultants are not our employees and may have commitments to, or consulting or advisory contracts with, other entities that may limit their availability to us. In addition, our scientific advisors may have arrangements with other companies to assist those companies in developing products or technologies that may compete with ours. Competition for qualified personnel is intense, especially in the greater San Diego, California area where we have a substantial presence and need for highly skilled personnel. We may not be successful in attracting qualified personnel to fulfill our current or future needs. Competitors and others have in the past attempted, and are likely in the future to attempt, to recruit our employees. While our employees are required to sign standard agreements concerning confidentiality and ownership of inventions, we generally do not have employment contracts or non-competition agreements with any of our personnel. In addition, we may experience employee turnover as a result of the ongoing "great resignation" occurring throughout the U.S. economy, which has impacted job market dynamics. New hires require training and take time before they achieve full productivity. New employees may not become as productive as we expect, and we may be unable to hire or retain sufficient numbers of qualified individuals. The loss of the services of any of our key personnel, the inability to attract or retain highly qualified personnel in the future or delays in hiring such personnel, particularly senior management and other technical personnel, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators and contract laboratories to conduct studies and monitor and manage data for our licensed ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. Nevertheless, we maintain responsibility for ensuring that each of our clinical trials and preclinical studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with good clinical practices, or GCP, and good laboratory practice, or GLP, which are a collection of laws, regulations and related requirements enforced by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities for all of our drug candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of preclinical study and clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators, preclinical study and clinical trial sites, and other contractors. If we or any of our CROs or vendors fail to comply with applicable regulations, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign authorities may require us to perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced consistent with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations. The failure by us, or our third-party vendors, to comply with these regulations may subject us or them to enforcement or other legal actions or other consequences, such as requiring us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the development and regulatory approval processes. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. If CROs or other vendors 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 data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our drug candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our business, financial condition, results of operations and the commercial prospects for our drug candidates could be materially and adversely affected, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. Switching or adding additional CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories involves additional cost and requires management's time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO or other third party commences work replacing a previous CRO. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business, including our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, service providers, manufacturers or other partners and there is a risk that one or more would not survive or be able to meet their commitments to us under such circumstances. There can be no assurances that deterioration in the credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. For example, U.S. debt ceiling and budget deficit concerns have increased the possibility of additional credit-rating downgrades and economic slowdowns, or a recession in the United States. Although U.S. lawmakers passed legislation to raise the federal debt ceiling on multiple occasions, including a suspension of the federal debt ceiling in June 2023, ratings agencies have lowered or threatened to lower the long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States. The impact of this or any further downgrades to the U.S. government's sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions. Absent further quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, these developments could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise, which may negatively impact our results of operations or financial condition. Moreover, disagreement over the federal budget has caused the U.S. federal government to shut down for periods of time. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business. Furthermore, the current U.S. administration has substantially departed from prior U.S. government international trade policy and has commenced activities to renegotiate, or potentially terminate, certain existing bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements and treaties with foreign countries. In addition, the current U.S. administration has initiated and is continuing to consider imposing additional tariffs on certain foreign goods. Related to this action, certain foreign governments, including China, have instituted or are considering imposing reciprocal tariffs on certain U.S. goods. It remains unclear what the current U.S. administration or foreign governments will or will not do with respect to tariffs or other international trade agreements and policies. A trade war or other governmental action related to tariffs or international trade agreements or policies has the potential to disrupt our research activities, affect our suppliers, increase the cost of materials purchased to manufacture our products, impact our ability to sell our products outside the United States or to sell our products outside the United States at competitive prices and/or to affect the United States or global economy or certain sectors thereof and, thus, could adversely impact our business and financial condition.