.

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

OR

Commission file number 001-40407

Vera Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 770-0077

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s Class A common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2023, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $449.2 million based on the closing price of the Registrant’s Class A common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market of $16.05 per share.

As of March 20, 2024, the registrant had 54,452,029 shares of Class A common stock, $0.001 par value per share, and no shares of Class B common stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Annual Report) may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. These statements, which represent our current expectations or beliefs concerning various future events, may contain words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “estimate” or other words indicating future results, though not all forward-looking statements necessarily contain these identifying words. Such statements may include, but are not limited to, statements concerning the following:

Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. You should be aware that the occurrence of any of the events discussed under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report could substantially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition and that if any of these events occurs, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or a part of the value of your shares of our common stock.

The cautionary statements made in this Annual Report are intended to be applicable to all related forward-looking statements wherever they may appear in this Annual Report. We urge you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update our forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

SUMMARY OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

An investment in shares of our Class A common stock involves a high degree of risk. Below is a list of some of the material risks associated with our business. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks listed in this summary, as well as other risks that we face, are set forth under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a late clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing transformative treatments for patients with serious immunological diseases. IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is a B cell disorder with a kidney pathology. Our lead product candidate, atacicept, is an at home, self-administered transmembrane activator and CAML interactor (TACI)-Fc fusion protein that blocks both B-cell activating factor (BAFF) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL) with best-in-class potential for the treatment of IgAN. The Phase 2b ORIGIN clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of atacicept in participants with IgAN reported positive results at three timepoints: 24-week topline results in January 2023, 36-week results in June 2023, and 72-week results in January 2024. The trial remained blinded through 36 weeks, after which all participants were eligible for the open label extension portion of the study and received atacicept 150 mg through 96 weeks. At 24 and 36 weeks, respectively, atacicept met its primary endpoint with statistically significant reductions in urine protein creatinine ratio (UPCR) on atacicept 150 mg, and stable estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was observed for participants on atacicept, with clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference versus placebo. Participants treated with atacicept demonstrated reductions in galactose-deficient IgA1 (Gd-IgA1), the autoantigen produced by B cells in patients with IgAN, and a reduction in hematuria. The improvements in Gd-IgA1, hematuria, UPCR and eGFR represent the quartet of findings consistent with IgAN disease modification. The 72-week open label extension results showed consistent and sustained reductions in Gd-IgA1, hematuria, UPCR and continued eGFR stabilization. Additionally, atacicept’s safety profile was comparable to placebo. We advanced atacicept 150 mg in a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in IgAN in the second quarter of 2023. We believe that atacicept has pipeline in a molecule potential, with potential application in additional indications including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), a severe renal manifestation of SLE. We have designed and are poised to conduct a Phase 3 clinical trial of atacicept in LN, based on feedback from the FDA’s review of clinical results in a Phase 2 clinical trial of atacicept in SLE patients with high disease activity (HDA). We also hold worldwide, exclusive development and commercial rights to MAU868, a potentially first-in-class monoclonal antibody to treat reactivated BK virus (BKV) infections, for which we completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in 2022. In January 2023, we delayed enrollment in the pivotal Phase 3 trial for LN and commitment of resources to the MAU868 program. We believe that our current pipeline programs leverage the deep expertise of our team and have strong potential commercial synergies. We hold global developmental and commercial rights to all of our pipeline molecules.

Atacicept in IgAN

IgAN is a serious and progressive autoimmune disease of the kidney that is driven by the production of Gd-IgA1, which is associated with increased risk of kidney-related morbidity and mortality. We estimate there will be approximately 157,000 biopsy-confirmed IgAN patients in the United States, 136,000 in Europe, and 130,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales. Up to 50% of patients diagnosed with IgAN develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) within 20 years from initial diagnosis, requiring dialysis or kidney transplant. ESRD causes considerable morbidity and impact on patients’ lives and represents a significant health economic burden, which was estimated to be $49.2 billion in the United States in 2018. Despite this high level of morbidity, only two treatments have been approved for this indication: TARPEYO (budesonide, developed by Calliditas Therapeutics AB), a reformulated steroid, and FILSPARI (sparsentan, developed by Travere Therapeutics), a dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist. Neither of these agents are disease-modifying treatments in IgAN. The current standard of care continues to consist of off-label use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and, in some patients, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. We estimate the global market opportunity for novel, disease-modifying therapeutics in IgAN is approximately $6.0 billion to $10.0 billion annually, based on the disease prevalence and the segment of IgAN patients at high risk of progressing to ESRD.

Atacicept is a TACI-Fc fusion protein self-administered at home as a subcutaneous injection once weekly that blocks both BAFF and APRIL, which stimulate B cells and plasma cells to produce autoantibodies contributing to certain autoimmune diseases. We believe that atacicept’s mechanism has the potential to generate clinical success by measures designed to assess efficacy in IgAN and other immunologic diseases. BAFF inhibition has been clinically and commercially validated through the approval of Benlysta (belimumab) in both SLE and LN. Preclinical and clinical evidence support that atacicept’s mechanism of dual inhibition of BAFF and APRIL may provide improved clinical outcomes, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy, compared to inhibiting either signal alone. Atacicept has the potential to be the first disease-modifying therapy for IgAN due to its ability to modulate B cell and plasma cell activity, with reductions in Gd-IgA1, hematuria, and proteinuria – and stabilization of eGFR.

We have worldwide, exclusive rights to atacicept from Ares, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, pursuant to the Ares Agreement, which advanced atacicept in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials for several autoimmune diseases in over 1,500 patients, in which it was well tolerated. In IgAN, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a trial known as JANUS. Results from the JANUS trial showed a dose-dependent effect of atacicept 25 mg and 75 mg weekly on serum Gd-IgA1, proteinuria, and key biomarkers, including serum Ig levels. As reported at the

American Society of Nephrology (ASN) Kidney Week conference in 2022, atacicept is also the first therapeutic candidate in IgAN to show reduction in all first three hits of disease pathogenesis—serum Gd-IgA1, anti-Gd-IgA1 autoantibody, and immune complex levels.

We are conducting a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial in IgAN, which we refer to as ORIGIN 3, and completing the open label extension of our Phase 2b clinical trial in IgAN, which we refer to as ORIGIN 2b. The ORIGIN 3 trial is evaluating atacicept 150 mg by weekly subcutaneous injection at home versus placebo through 104 weeks. The primary endpoint is reduction in UPCR in a 24-hour urine collection versus placebo at 36 weeks to support potential accelerated approval. A significant reduction in proteinuria, as measured by UPCR in a 24-hour urine collection, is associated with improved renal outcomes in patients with IgAN. UPCR is a surrogate endpoint accepted by the FDA for primary glomerular diseases associated with significant proteinuria, including IgAN. Given the FDA’s recent approvals of TARPEYO and FILSPARI, we believe the use of proteinuria as a surrogate endpoint for accelerated approval has been validated. The key secondary endpoint is eGFR change up to week 104.

The ORIGIN 2b trial evaluated three subcutaneous weekly doses of atacicept (25 mg, 75 mg and 150 mg) and their impact on the reduction of proteinuria as measured by UPCR as the primary endpoint, with secondary endpoints including the difference in kidney function between treated and placebo participants as measured by eGFR and reduction in Gd-IgA1. We completed enrollment of the Phase 2b ORIGIN trial in mid-2022, enrolling a total of 116 participants at multiple global sites. In January 2023, we announced that atacicept met the primary endpoint: the pooled 75 mg and 150 mg arms achieved a statistically significant reduction in proteinuria versus placebo at 24 weeks. In June 2023, we announced positive results at 36 weeks in a late-breaking presentation at the European Renal Association (ERA) Conference. In a prespecified per-protocol (PP) analysis in which a blinded third-party CRO identified and excluded participants with protocol deviations, atacicept 150 mg achieved a 43% mean reduction in proteinuria versus placebo, and a 35% mean reduction in proteinuria versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Stable eGFR was observed for participants on atacicept 150 mg at 36 weeks, with an 11% mean eGFR change versus placebo, approximating to an absolute difference of 5.8 mL/min/1.73m2. Atacicept 150 mg reduced Gd-IgA1 64% from baseline. Hematuria was resolved in 80% of participants receiving atacicept 150 mg compared to 5% of those receiving placebo. Furthermore, Atacicept was well tolerated, and its safety profile in IgAN was comparable to placebo. The ORIGIN 2b trial remained blinded through 36 weeks, after which all participants were eligible to roll onto the open label portion of the trial and receive atacicept 150 mg once weekly through 96 weeks, allowing for the evaluation of long-term safety and durability of response of atacicept in IgAN. In January 2024, we announced positive results at 72 weeks at an R&D Day. Through 72 weeks, atacicept showed consistent and sustained UPCR reduction and eGFR stabilization. Atacicept also achieved consistent and sustained Gd-IgA1 reduction and reductions in percentage of participants with hematuria through 72 weeks. The open label extension adverse events profile was consistent with the randomized period. In aggregate, we believe these data provide evidence of long-term, comprehensive IgAN disease modification.

We anticipate full enrollment for the primary endpoint of ORIGIN 3 in the second half of 2024. With Phase 3 topline results expected in the first half of 2025, if positive, we expect to submit a biologics license application (BLA) for atacicept in IgAN to the FDA in the second half of 2025.

Pipeline

Beyond our lead indication in IgA nephropathy, we have several late-stage opportunities for potential patient benefit – consisting of both indication expansion opportunities for atacicept, and the development of MAU868 for BK viremia among kidney transplant recipients. We are currently evaluating these opportunities for future development.

For atacicept, we plan to evaluate the possibility of extended dosing intervals as part of our life cycle management strategy. There are also multiple indications in which blocking BAFF and APRIL may offer therapeutic benefit and offer an attractive commercial opportunity. Indications in which atacicept is Phase 3 ready based on feedback from regulators include LN and SLE. We have designed a Phase 3 clinical trial in LN. We believe that atacicept also has potential to initiate Phase 3 clinical trials in Sjogren’s syndrome, myasthenia gravis, and membranous nephropathy, pending alignment with regulatory authorities.

Regarding MAU868 for BK viremia among kidney transplant recipients, at ASN 2022, final results from the Phase 2 clinical trial of MAU868 versus placebo showed that MAU868 was well tolerated and demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in BK antiviral activity through 36 weeks in kidney transplant patients with BK viremia. Following feedback from the FDA on the Phase 2 clinical trial, we are evaluating strategies for continued development, including a potential next clinical trial.

Atacicept in LN

Based on feedback from the FDA’s review of clinical results in a Phase 2 clinical trial of atacicept in HDA SLE patients, we have designed a Phase 3 clinical trial of atacicept as a potential treatment for patients with LN. We estimate that there will be approximately 120,000 LN patients in the United States, 70,000 in Europe , and 21,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales. We estimate the market for novel LN therapeutics annually to be approximately $2.0 to $5.0 billion, $600 million and $200 million in United States, Europe and Japan, respectively. Significant unmet need for improved efficacy persists for these patients despite the recent approval of the first two LN-specific therapies. Fewer than half of patients treated for LN have a complete response to therapy, and among patients

without a complete response, over half will have non-functioning kidneys within five years. Benlysta (belimumab), a BAFF-only inhibitor, is one of the two therapies approved for patients with LN. Both BAFF and APRIL levels are increased in patients with SLE, suggesting that dual inhibition by atacicept may be more potent than blocking BAFF alone and has the benefit of targeting plasma cells in addition to B cells. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany previously initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial of atacicept in LN, the APRIL-LN trial, evaluating the efficacy and safety of atacicept 150 mg twice weekly for four weeks—then weekly—in participants with active LN. However, this trial was terminated early due to three participants developing hypogammaglobulinemia with induction therapy (mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and corticosteroids (CS)) which continued to worsen when initiating atacicept and subsequently two participants developed pneumonia. In prior Phase 2 clinical trials of atacicept in SLE also conducted by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, despite missing its primary endpoint in the broader SLE study population, atacicept achieved positive clinical data on multiple measures within the pre-specified patient segment with HDA (defined as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] ≥10 at screening), including reduction of renal flares, which we believe supports atacicept’s applicability in LN. Because both preclinical and clinical evidence suggest atacicept’s dual inhibition of BAFF and APRIL may provide improved clinical outcomes, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy, compared to inhibiting either signal alone, we believe there is a strong rationale to conduct a clinical trial of atacicept in LN.

Our currently designed Phase 3, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, multinational study plans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept vs placebo in participants with LN. The clinical trial consists of a 104-week double blind treatment period, followed by a 52-week open label treatment period and a 26-week safety follow-up period. The trial will assess once weekly subcutaneous injections of 150 mg atacicept versus placebo. The primary endpoint is complete renal response at 52 weeks.

MAU868 in BK viremia among kidney transplant recipients

We have exclusive worldwide rights, pursuant to the Novartis license, to MAU868, which is a potential treatment for reactivated BK infection in kidney transplant recipients. While up to 90% of healthy adults have been infected with BKV at some point in their lives, it remains latent except in severely immunocompromised populations such as kidney transplant recipients. BKV is a polyoma virus that can cause BKV nephropathy (BKVN), a condition in which BK infection, typically first identified as BK viremia, triggers inflammation, which then progresses to fibrosis and tubular injury; BKVN is a leading cause of allograft loss. Currently, there are no approved treatment options for BK viremia or BKVN. We estimate that approximately 80,000 kidney transplants are conducted globally each year, with approximately 20,000 in the United States, 20,000 in Europe, 1,500 in Japan, and 10,000 in China. Approximately 15% of kidney transplant recipients develop BK viremia; 3–4% of kidney transplant recipients develop BKVN. We estimate the market for a novel agent to treat reactivated BK infection in kidney transplant recipients to be a large commercial opportunity worldwide. We believe that MAU868 has the potential to become standard of care for the treatment of reactivated BK infection in order to prevent devastating consequences following kidney transplantation such as BKVN and graft loss.

Our business principles and strategy

Our goal is to develop and commercialize transformative treatments for patients suffering from severe immunological diseases. We believe the successful translation of biomedical science into innovative therapeutic products for patients with immunological diseases will enable outsized growth over the next decade and beyond. Specifically, our strategy is based on the following business principles:

These principles have guided us to the successful in-licensing of atacicept from Ares and obtaining the rights to MAU868 from Amplyx, in each case with worldwide rights for development and commercialization in all indications. We take a gated-capital raise

approach and scale product candidate investment and exposure in close step with key development milestones to ensure high return on development costs.

The near- and long-term objectives to achieve our goal include:

Atacicept in IgAN

We are developing atacicept as a potential treatment for patients with IgAN, a serious and progressive autoimmune disease of the kidney with a high unmet medical need and limited treatment options available. Up to 50% of confirmed IgAN patients progress to ESRD, requiring dialysis or kidney transplant. ESRD causes significant morbidity and impact on patients’ lives and represents a significant health economic burden estimated to be over $40 billion annually in the United States. Despite this high level of morbidity, the current standard of care consists of off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, increasingly includes the use of SGLT2 inhibitors, and potentially includes steroids. IgAN is driven by the production of pathogenic Gd-IgA1, and patients with elevated Gd-IgA1 are at increased risk of kidney-related morbidity and mortality. We reported positive topline 24-week results in January 2023, 36-week results in June 2023, and 72-week results in January 2024 from the Phase 2b ORIGIN trial. We initiated a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in the second quarter of 2023, which we refer to as ORIGIN 3, that is currently ongoing. We believe that atacicept has the potential to be the best-in-class and the leading B cell-targeted therapy for IgAN.

Pathophysiology of IgAN

The IgA antibody plays a key role in the immune system by protecting the body from foreign substances such as bacteria and viruses. Patients with IgAN produce elevated levels of Gd-IgA1. This abnormal glycosylation pattern of IgA1 is of central importance to the disease etiology.

As shown in Figure 1 below, a multi-step process leads to the ultimate development of progressive renal injury.

Figure 1: IgAN pathophysiology

Gd-IgA1 is central to the pathogenesis of IgAN

Gd-IgA1 is a subclass of IgA antibodies that lack units of galactose, a type of sugar, at the O-linked glycans of their hinge region. The hinge region is a stretch of amino acids in the IgA antibody. Circulating Gd-IgA1 antibodies have been shown to be the target of autoantigens for IgG antibodies with specificity for the hinge region.

A histopathological hallmark of IgAN is deposition of Gd-IgA1 in the glomerular mesangium, either alone or in combination with IgG and/or IgM. Sampling of the serum of patients with IgAN has confirmed the presence of elevated levels of circulating immune complexes containing Gd-IgA1.

Clinical trials of patients with IgAN have correlated higher serum levels of Gd-IgA1 with greater severity of IgAN disease, suggesting that reduction in serum Gd-IgA1 may slow disease progression. Compared with healthy subjects, patients with IgAN have an increased proportion of Gd-IgA1 O-glycoforms in the serum. As published in Kidney International, in a prospective study of 275 patients with IgAN, higher serum levels of aberrantly glycosylated IgA1 demonstrated correlation with a higher likelihood of developing progressive renal failure, as shown in Figure 2 below. A separate clinical trial of patients with IgAN of varying severity found that higher titers of autoantibodies specific for Gd-IgA1 corresponded to both absolute renal risk score and risk of ESRD or death.

Figure 2: Renal survival by serum Gd-IgA1 quartiles in IgAN patients

In addition, high serum APRIL levels correlate with increased expression of serum Gd-IgA1 in IgAN patients and high serum BAFF levels are associated with more severe clinical features, as well as more severe histopathological features. For these reasons, we believe a fusion protein that blocks both BAFF and APRIL, which has the potential to reduce serum Gd-IgA1, would address the upstream source of IgAN, and represent the first disease-modifying approach for IgAN.

Disease burden, diagnosis, and predictors of disease progression

IgAN is a rare disease in the United States and Europe and is also the predominant cause of primary glomerulonephritis.

Patients with IgAN are diagnosed throughout life, but most commonly in the second and third decades. There are three common ways in which patients present:

Once IgAN is suspected based on clinical history and laboratory data, kidney biopsy, which is the gold standard for IgAN diagnosis, is performed.

IgAN market opportunity

We estimate there will be approximately 157,000 biopsy-confirmed IgAN patients in the United States, 136,000 in Europe, and 130,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales, and that growth in the diagnosed prevalent population is due to overall population growth. Underlying genetic differences may contribute to the significantly higher rate in Japan. As therapies become commercially available, however, an increase in diagnosis rate or longer time to progression, due to better treatments, may increase the diagnosed population over time.

Figure 3: Estimated IgAN epidemiology at estimated peak year of sales

Current standard of care for IgAN patients

Despite the high unmet medical need in IgAN, there are limited treatment options available. The following two general approaches are typically employed for the treatment of patients with IgAN:

Treatment is selected based on perceived risk of progressive kidney disease, and clinical measures such as hematuria, proteinuria, and eGFR are used to monitor patients while on treatment. The current standard of care is seen as insufficient by physicians and patients; these treatment approaches have limited clinical efficacy and are not well tolerated. Approximately 50% of patients fail to achieve controlled UPCR on ACE inhibitors, ARBS, or steroids. The use of steroids may cause significant side effects, including serious infections, high blood pressure, weight gain, diabetes, and osteoporosis. As such, there is a high unmet medical need for targeted therapies that impact the underlying disease pathophysiology and more tolerable, steroid-sparing treatment options for IgAN patients.

Emerging therapies in development

There are two agents approved for the treatment of IgAN and there are several treatments in clinical development. The multistep IgAN pathogenesis hypothesis offers potential target points and approaches for therapeutic intervention. Most therapeutic candidates in clinical development have employed various approaches to target inflammation and the downstream effects. Atacicept is the first agent in development for IgAN that has demonstrated a 64% reduction of Gd-IgA1, the upstream source of IgAN pathogenesis, after 36 weeks of treatment.

These agents can be grouped mechanistically into the following categories: glucocorticoid receptor agonists, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), complement inhibitors, B cell modulators, and a variety of other approaches that are earlier in development.

Glucocorticoid receptor agonists. Glucocorticoid receptor agonists are a well-known class of molecules that have broad anti-inflammatory effects, and well-established acute and chronic side effects. Though reduction in the risk of eGFR decline was shown in clinical trials, there is no consensus on whether glucocorticoids may improve renal survival. The glucocorticoid budesonide has been reformulated to concentrate steroid effects locally on the gut mucosa, theoretically suppressing the abnormal B cell activity and reducing systemic steroid toxicity. Reformulated budesonide is currently approved by the FDA and European Commission for reducing the loss of kidney function in adults with IgAN who are at risk for disease progression, though systemic steroid side effects have been observed in clinical trials.

ERAs. Aberrant endothelin signaling is implicated in structural podocyte changes and increased mesangial proliferation in chronic kidney diseases, including IgAN. ERAs block endothelin-induced cell proliferation and hence may reduce renal perfusion pressure and proteinuria. Since this mechanism of action works downstream of disease-related immune activities, it is not expected to reduce Gd-IgA1 or the resulting immune complexes that cause the disease. ERAs have previously been approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension and erectile dysfunction and make use of a vasodilatory effect. One ERA that is currently approved by the FDA has a boxed warning for hepatotoxicity and embryo-fetal toxicity and a REMS for liver toxicity, and another ERA is completing Phase 3 development. ERAs have been associated with edema, significant liver toxicity and increased risk of heart failure.

Complement inhibitors. Increased complement activation is commonly observed in patients with IgAN. It is hypothesized that immune-complex deposition in glomeruli may contribute to complement activation, though the exact mechanism is not well understood. Several agents that inhibit complement activation are in clinical development for IgAN. Modest reduction of proteinuria has been observed in early clinical trials. As complement inhibition works downstream of immune complex formation, these agents are not expected to impact the upstream cause of disease and reduce Gd-IgA1 or the resulting immune complexes that cause inflammation and complement activation in the kidney.

B cell modulators. B cell modulators, including atacicept, are an important category of emerging therapies for IgAN. The disease-causing Gd-IgA1 is predominantly produced by B cells and plasma cells. Therefore, control of B cell activation may reduce production of Gd-IgA1 and the downstream formation of autoantibodies and immune complexes. Preclinical models have shown that dual inhibition of BAFF and APRIL offers improved suppression of B cell activities over blocking BAFF or APRIL alone. Atacicept blocks both BAFF and APRIL and has shown substantial reduction (64% at 36 weeks) in Gd-IgA1. We believe that dual inhibition may also confer a potential dosing advantage versus APRIL-only inhibition.

Our solution: Atacicept

Atacicept is a fusion protein that blocks both BAFF and APRIL, which play key roles in the upstream pathway that causes IgAN, and is dosed once weekly via a 1-mL subcutaneous injection, self-administered at home. As a result, we believe atacicept has the potential to be the first disease-modifying therapy for IgAN. Through an integrated analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in multiple autoimmune diseases with over 1,500 participants to date, atacicept has a well-characterized clinical safety profile. In a Phase 2a clinical trial in participants with IgAN, atacicept substantially reduced Gd-IgA1 and demonstrated a clinically meaningful reduction in proteinuria and stable eGFR parameters at week 24. We completed enrollment of participants in the Phase 2b ORIGIN trial in 2022, and we reported positive results at 24 weeks in January 2023, 36 weeks in June 2023, and 72 weeks in January 2024.

Our approach to IgAN: Reducing Gd-IgA1, the source of autoantibodies

Atacicept is a fully humanized fusion protein that is designed to modulate the B cell and plasma cell pathway, which has well characterized implications in immunologic diseases. Specifically, as shown in Figure 4 below, atacicept contains the soluble extracellular domain of the TACI receptor fused with the inactivated Fc domain of IgG1. TACI is a native receptor for BAFF and APRIL, members of the tumor necrosis factor family that promote B cell survival and autoantibody production associated with IgAN and other immunologic diseases. Dual blockade of BAFF and APRIL by TACI has been shown to be more potent than blocking BAFF alone or APRIL alone and has the benefit of targeting long-lived plasma cells, in addition to B cells, thus reducing production of Gd-IgA1 and its autoantibodies. Therefore, atacicept is designed to modulate B cell and plasma cell activity by binding both BAFF and APRIL, and follows a long history of impactful agents that are logically designed Fc fusion proteins. This mechanism acts directly on the source of IgAN, which we believe will significantly mitigate the downstream effects of the disease.

Figure 4: Atacicept is the result of rational drug design

Atacicept’s specific actions on IgAN disease pathogenesis are shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Atacicept impact on IgAN pathogenesis

Atacicept’s disease-modifying mechanism addresses the upstream processes that cause IgAN, while most other molecules in development act downstream. Therefore, we believe that the clinical outcomes of atacicept, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy and durability, will be favorable over competitors, with a demonstrated tolerability profile. Once weekly 1 mL subcutaneous dosing also provides an attractive target product profile for patients.

Atacicept in IgAN: clinical development

Atacicept was the subject of a collaboration agreement between Ares and ZymoGenetics, Inc. in 2001, and was licensed on an exclusive basis to Ares in 2008. It was advanced by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, in clinical trials for several autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis, SLE, and IgAN, and in totality studied in double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials in over 1,500 participants to date. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy of the weekly 25 mg, 75 mg and 150 mg doses administered subcutaneously have been studied.

Atacicept is being studied in the Phase 2b ORIGIN clinical trial, a multinational, 36-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, with a 60-week open label extension (Figure 6). The ORIGIN Phase 2b trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept in participants with IgAN who continue to have persistent proteinuria and remain at high risk of disease progression despite being on a stable prescribed regimen of a RAAS inhibitor for at least 12 weeks that is at the maximum labeled or tolerated dose. The clinical trial consisted of a 36-week double-blind treatment period, followed by a 60-week open-label treatment period — which is currently ongoing — and a 26-week safety follow-up period. The trial assessed three doses (25 mg, 75 mg and 150 mg) of once weekly 1-mL subcutaneous injections of atacicept versus placebo on impact of renal function as measured by proteinuria. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in UPCR at 24 weeks based on 24-hour urine collection, with a secondary endpoint of UPCR at 36 weeks. Other endpoints include change from baseline in UPCR at 12, 48, and 96 weeks, change from baseline in eGFR at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 96 weeks, change from baseline in IgA, IgG, IgM, and Gd-IgA1 levels at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 96 weeks, number of participants with adverse events during the double-blind treatment period through 36 weeks, and the serum concentration of atacicept through study completion.

Figure 6: Phase 2b ORIGIN trial design

Vera reported positive results from the randomized phase of the Phase 2b ORIGIN clinical trial, which showed the following at 36 weeks:

In January 2024, Vera reported positive results from the open label phase of the Ph2b ORIGIN clinical trial at 72 weeks, which demonstrated consistent and sustained reductions in Gd-IgA1, hematuria and UPCR and consistent and stable eGFR (Figure 7 below). In aggregate, we believe these data provide evidence of long-term, comprehensive IgAN disease modification.

Figure 7: Phase 2b ORIGIN clinical trial 72-week results with atacicept

We initiated our ORIGIN 3 Phase 3 clinical trial in June 2023. We are using the same formulation as the Phase 2b trial, and have incorporated learnings from Phase 2b subgroup analyses into the design of our Phase 3 trial that aims to accurately assess treatment efficacy while minimizing potential confounders for proteinuria measure.

Atacicept safety and tolerability profile

In the randomized phase of the ORIGIN Phase 2b clinical trial, the clinical safety profile was similar between atacicept and placebo – and in the week 72 results, the safety profile observed was consistent with that of the randomized phase (Figure 8 below).

Figure 8: Phase 2b ORIGIN clinical trial adverse events profile

An integrated safety analysis of clinical trials in multiple indications with over 1,500 participants in a number of indications, atacicept was well tolerated, shown in Figure 9 below. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported in the highest proportions were those in infections and infestations (placebo 3.9% versus atacicept 4.4%), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (placebo 1.9% versus atacicept 1.3%), and nervous system disorders (placebo 2.1% versus atacicept 1.2%). The most frequently reported TEAE was pneumonia (placebo 1.2% versus atacicept 1.3%). We believe that this large and established data set is a competitive advantage for atacicept versus other approved and emerging therapies in development, many of which lack extensive safety data.

Figure 9: Integrated safety analysis: Summary of treatment-emergent adverse events > 5% in any arm, by dose

The safety profile of atacicept 25 mg, 75 mg and 150 mg has been characterized in healthy subjects and patients with RA, multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis, SLE, and B cell malignancies, and is considered acceptable in IgAN. Over 1,940 individuals have been enrolled in 22 clinical trials, of which over 1,425 individuals have received at least one dose of atacicept. In the three Phase 2/3 clinical trials, 590 participants with SLE and 11 participants with IgAN have received at least one dose of atacicept.

We believe the benefit-risk balance of atacicept to be favorable for further development in IgAN and certain additional autoimmune diseases, and we intend to explore additional immunologic diseases where BAFF and APRIL are abnormally elevated, or where autoantibodies play an important role.

UPCR is an accepted surrogate primary endpoint for clinical trials in IgAN, which potentially allows for a faster path to commercialization than rate of change/slope in eGFR, which is measured after two years. The recommendation for usage of this surrogate endpoint was put forward by the ASN, partnering with the FDA under the auspices of the Kidney Health Initiative, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and has now been implemented in five Phase 3 clinical trials in IgAN and in the two FDA approvals granted. Accelerated and/or conditional approval may be granted on the UPCR endpoint, with full approval to be granted upon longer-term data demonstrating stabilization of eGFR with treatment.

Ongoing Phase 3 ORIGIN 3 clinical trial

We advanced atacicept 150 mg into a pivotal Phase 3 trial in IgAN in the second quarter of 2023, using the same formulation from the Phase 2b trial and learnings from the Phase 2b subgroup analyses to reduce risk in the design of a Phase 3 trial that aims to accurately assess treatment efficacy while minimizing potential confounders for proteinuria measure.

Figure 10: Phase 3 ORIGIN 3 trial design

ORIGIN 3 is a Phase 3 global, multicenter, 104-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, with a 52-week open label extension and a 26-week safety follow-up period (Figure 10), in participants with IgAN who continue to have persistent proteinuria and remain at high risk of disease progression despite being on a stable prescribed regimen of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (ACE inhibitors or ARBs) for at least 12 weeks that is the maximum labeled or tolerated dose. The clinical trial consists of a 104-week double-blind treatment period which is currently ongoing, followed by a 52-week open-label treatment period and a 26-week safety follow-up period. The trial will assess once weekly 1-mL subcutaneous injections of atacicept 150 mg versus placebo on impact of renal function as measured by proteinuria and eGFR. The primary endpoint is change from baseline in UPCR at 36 weeks based on 24-hour urine collection and the key secondary endpoint is eGFR up to 104 weeks. Additional secondary endpoints are change in Gd-IgA1, change in eGFR up to 52 weeks, and time from randomization to first occurrence of composite kidney failure endpoint event.

With the ongoing data from the Phase 2b trial expected through 2024 and Phase 3 topline results expected in the first half of 2025, if positive, we expect to submit a BLA for atacicept in IgAN to the FDA in the second half of 2025.

Atacicept in LN: A severe renal manifestation of SLE

Based on discussions with the FDA following the review of Phase 2 data in SLE, we have designed a Phase 3 clinical trial of atacicept as a potential treatment for patients with LN, a severe renal manifestation of SLE. We estimate that there will be approximately 120,000 LN patients in the United States, 70,000 in Europe, and 21,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales. Significant unmet need for improved efficacy persists for these patients despite the recent approval of the first two LN-specific therapies. Fewer than half of patients treated for LN have a complete response to therapy, and among patients without a complete response, over half will have non-functioning kidneys within five years. Benlysta (belimumab), a BAFF-only inhibitor, is one of the two therapies approved for patients with LN. Both BAFF and APRIL levels are increased in patients with SLE, suggesting that dual inhibition by atacicept may be more potent than blocking BAFF alone and has the benefit of targeting plasma cells in addition to B cells. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany previously initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial of atacicept in LN, the APRIL-LN trial, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept at 150 mg twice weekly for four weeks—then weekly—in patients with active LN. However, this trial was terminated early due to three participants developing hypogammaglobulinemia with induction therapy (MMF and CS) which continued to worsen when initiating atacicept and subsequently two participants developed pneumonia. In prior Phase 2 clinical trials of atacicept in SLE also conducted by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, despite missing its primary endpoint of improved SLE responder index 4 (SRI-4) at week 24, in the broader SLE study population, atacicept achieved positive clinical data on multiple measures within the prespecified HDA patient segment, including reduction of renal flares, which we believe supports atacicept’s applicability in LN. Because both preclinical and clinical evidence suggests atacicept’s dual inhibition of BAFF and APRIL may provide improved clinical outcomes, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy, compared to inhibiting either signal alone, we believe there is a strong rationale to conduct a clinical trial of atacicept in LN.

Pathophysiology of LN

LN is a severe renal manifestation of SLE (also referred to as lupus). SLE is a chronic and disabling autoimmune disease in which the body’s own immune system attacks itself. SLE predominantly affects women and is more prevalent in women of color. When LN is diagnosed in a patient, mortality risk dramatically increases.

LN pathogenesis involves a variety of disease-causing mechanisms, including the formation of immune deposits within the kidneys that are primarily due to anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, which atacicept has been shown to reduce in a dose-dependent manner. However, there are also instances in which induction of LN by anti-dsDNA may not require immune complex formation— autoreactive plasma cells in the kidney may be another cause of nephritis. Certain genes and genetic factors may also predispose patients.

LN disease burden and diagnosis

LN has a strong influence on morbidity and mortality within SLE, with up to 26% of patients progressing to ESRD within 15 to 20 years from initial diagnosis. LN is characterized by abnormal proteinuria, hematuria, and impaired kidney function.

Diagnosed SLE patients are routinely monitored by rheumatologists, who will refer to nephrologists upon suspicion of renal manifestations. In the United States and Europe, LN patients without a prior SLE diagnosis will typically first present to a primary care physician (U.S.) or internist (EU) with hematuria or proteinuria before ultimate referral to a nephrologist. For confirmatory diagnosis, nephrologists perform renal biopsy—of which the results are analyzed to determine histologic class and relevant treatment course.

LN patients are segmented in Classes I–VI based on histopathology and degree of renal impairment, and this classification drives treatment decisions. Class I, or Minimal mesangial LN, is rarely diagnosed as these patients have normal urinalysis and therefore biopsy is not typically performed. Class II, Mesangial proliferative LN, refers to microscopic hematuria and/or proteinuria. Patients with Class III, or Focal LN, tend to have both hematuria and proteinuria, and may have hypertension, decreased eGFR, and nephrotic syndrome. Class IV, or Diffuse LN, is the most commonly diagnosed and severe form of LN, with patients exhibiting hematuria, proteinuria, nephrotic syndrome, hypertension, and decreased eGFR. Patients with Class V, or lupus membranous nephropathy, tend to have nephrotic syndrome, and may have microscopic hematuria and hypertension, but normal UPCR. Class VI, or advanced sclerosing LN, refers to a slow progression of kidney dysfunction correlated with proteinuria.

As shown in Figure 11 below, LN typically develops early in the disease course, though the rate of SLE patients who develop LN increases over time.

Figure 11: LN progression

LN market opportunity

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are approximately 322,000 people living with SLE in the United States.

Approximately half of individuals living with SLE develop LN within 15 years of their initial diagnosis, as shown in Figure 11 above.

We estimate that there will be approximately 120,000 LN patients in the United States, 70,000 in Europe, and 21,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales. In the United States, higher prevalence rates occur in the heterogeneous population, as both SLE and LN occur more frequently among non-White patients—with the highest frequency of LN occurring in Black and Hispanic populations after adjustment for socioeconomic factors. In all three geographies, women account for the majority of LN cases.

Based on primary market research with physicians and payors and extensive secondary research, we estimate the market for novel LN therapeutics annually to be approximately $2.0 to $5.0 billion, $600 million and $200 million in United States, Europe and Japan, respectively.

Current standard of care for LN patients

Current LN treatment is largely cyclical, with induction versus maintenance therapy dictated by the severity of disease and frequency of flares. Treatment is driven by histologic class and can be influenced by the treatments that the patient has been on since SLE diagnosis. Class I and II LN do not generally need LN-specific treatment. Within Class III–V, patients tend to receive induction therapy for approximately one year to achieve complete or partial remission. Induction therapy for Class III–IV patients include several immunosuppressive agents, such as MMF ± CS or cyclophosphamide (CYC) ± CS in the first line of treatment, switching to either CYC or MMF in the second line, whichever was not administered first line. Third line induction therapy has generally consisted of rituximab for Class III–V patients. For induction therapy of Class V LN patients, patients typically receive MMF ± steroids in the first line, a calcineurin inhibitor in the second line, and rituximab for third line. Maintenance therapy, which typically consists of MMF, azathioprine (AZA), or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), is typically prescribed to well controlled patients after any line of induction to reduce flares. Immunosuppressive therapy is unlikely to be beneficial for Class VI, or advanced sclerosing LN.

Patients on maintenance still experience flares approximately every year, resulting in cycling back to induction therapy. Many of the therapies used in the treatment paradigm today have limited efficacy and poor tolerability profiles—and therefore there is significant unmet need for safe and specific therapies that have a direct impact on LN disease activity without a high risk of infection.

Recently approved and emerging therapies in development

Until relatively recently, there were no approved therapies for the treatment of LN. In December 2020, the FDA approved Benlysta (belimumab), an anti-BAFF antibody, for treatment of adult patients with active LN who are receiving standard therapy. In January 2021, the FDA approved Lupkynis (voclosporin), a calcineurin inhibitor, to be used in combination with a background immunosuppressive therapy regimen for adult patients with active LN. Clinical guidelines on how these two medicines may be incorporated into standard of care remain to be updated. In addition to Benlysta (belimumab) and Lupkynis (voclosporin), there are several other cytokine inhibitors and complement inhibitors in development for LN.

B cell Modulators. Benlysta (belimumab) is an anti-BAFF antibody, belonging to the class of B cell modulators. Within the B cell modulator class, there is a desire for different mechanisms to target the complex pathophysiology of LN. The results shared to date for these agents reveal statistically significant efficacy, but complete response rates are only achieved in fewer than 50% of the patients studied. Other B cell modulatory approaches under late-stage investigation include blocking the BAFF receptor and binding CD20.

Calcineurin Inhibition. Lupkynis (voclosporin) is a calcineurin inhibitor, a mechanism which has been commonly used in generic form as induction therapy for Class V patients. Calcineurin inhibition has been shown to reduce cytokine activation of T-cells and protect against proteinuria, however it may pose serious infection risks and nephrotoxicity is a known class effect.

Cytokine Inhibitors. The other cytokine inhibitors under investigation offer blockade of key pro-inflammatory cytokines (Type 1 IFNs, IL17A, IL23) involved in the pathogenesis of LN.

Complement Pathway Inhibitors. Complement pathway inhibitors are also early in their development, but unlikely to be disease-modifying, since complement activation is one result of the inflammation caused by immune-complex deposition in the kidneys, downstream of key steps in disease pathophysiology.

Our solution: Atacicept

Targeting both BAFF and APRIL is key to reduce autoantibodies produced by B cells and plasma cells in LN. Autoantibodies play a large role in the pathogenesis of LN. Autoantibodies target tissue or form immune complexes, leading to tissue and organ damage. Both short-lived and long-lived plasma cells are responsible for generating high levels of autoantibodies in LN.

Short-lived plasma blasts are the main B cell effector subset dependent on activation of various B cell receptors such as TACI, B cell maturation agent (BCMA) and BAFF. Therefore, B cell blocking agents such as Rituxan (rituximab; anti-CD20) and Benlysta (belimumab; anti-BAFF) can reduce short-lived plasma cells and the resulting autoantibody production.

Long-lived plasma cells are in bone marrow and inflammatory tissue niches, and form antibodies in the absence of B cell activation. Inflammatory tissue has high levels of BAFF and APRIL, which serve to maintain long-lived plasma cells. Inhibiting APRIL blocks long-lived nonproliferating plasma cell activities to further reduce autoantibody formations in LN.

Atacicept contains the soluble TACI receptor that binds to the cytokines BAFF and APRIL and prevents their interaction with TACI, BCMA and BAFF receptors (BAFF-R is also known as B cell activating factor receptor or BAFF-R). Atacicept thus inhibits survival of immature and mature B cells and antibody-producing plasma cells and prevents immunoglobulin class switching. In contrast to a range of available biologics directed at B cells only, we believe atacicept has a prompt and marked effect on antibody production by inhibiting both short-lived and long-lived plasma cells.

Preclinical evidence indicates that dual inhibition of BAFF and APRIL is superior to either BAFF or APRIL alone. Animal models of kidney disease have confirmed that atacicept reduces plasma cell numbers and reduces autoantibodies more effectively than BAFF and APRIL antibodies given individually. In a mouse model of collagen-induced arthritis, soluble atacicept inhibited development of collagen-specific antibodies and reduced the incidence of the disease better than BAFF agents alone. In a mouse model of SLE, soluble atacicept decreased the number of B cells, increased survival time and reduced severity of disease symptoms. Furthermore, in a mouse model of SLE, atacicept administered after onset of autoimmunity decreased the number of bone marrow plasma cells and slowed down further formation of autoantibodies. Atacicept prevented renal damage during a 12-week treatment period regardless of autoantibody levels, while the BAFF-only inhibitor did not. Atacicept also decreased established plasma cells in an immunization model better than single inhibitors of BAFF or APRIL.

In patients with active SLE, targeting BAFF and APRIL with atacicept appears to have improved clinical outcomes, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy, compared to BAFF alone (Benlysta (belimumab)). While atacicept and Benlysta (belimumab) have not been studied head-to-head in clinical trials, each has been studied in similar populations of patients with SLE, and results of a Phase 2 clinical trial of 150 mg of atacicept compared favorably to published reports on changes in SLE responder index (SRI-4) of belimumab. In a Phase 2 clinical trial of atacicept, the magnitude of efficacy as measured by the difference between treatment and placebo in SRI-4 at 24 weeks was approximately 39% (25% placebo, 64% atacicept 75 mg, 65% atacicept 150 mg, both p=0.005). For Benlysta (belimumab), in a Phase 3 clinical trial of SLE patients, a published analysis of participants with HDA and serologically active disease, clinical efficacy for Benlysta (belimumab) 10 mg/kg showed a difference between treatment and placebo in SRI-4 at 24 weeks of approximately 12%.

Figure 12: Evidence for atacicept performance in SLE

Atacicept consistently demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy, versus placebo in SLE patients with HDA (SLEDAI-2K ≥10) across additional clinical measures, and consistently across all SRI cut-offs, as well as using the separate clinical assessment, British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA). In the HDA population in ADDRESS II, the BICLA delta at week 24 was 20% (atacicept 150 mg 49%, placebo 29.2%, p=0.035), which compares very favorably to BICLA data from other late-stage SLE clinical trials, such as anifrolumab (week 24 BICLA in 16%). We believe that based on these results, an improved clinical benefit may be observed in patients with LN.

Prior clinical development of atacicept in LN

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial of atacicept in LN, the APRIL-LN trial, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept in patients with active LN. As per trial protocol, participants initiated high-dose CS (the lesser of 0.8 mg/kg/day or 60 mg/day prednisone) and MMF (1 g daily, increased by 1 g/day each week to 3 g daily) at the time of screening (day -14). From day 1, atacicept (150 mg, subcutaneously, twice weekly for four weeks, then weekly) was initiated with MMF along with a tapered dose of CS.

Four of the six enrolled LN patients developed decreases in serum IgG levels following the initiation of MMF and CS in the setting of significant proteinuria, which are contributing factors of hypogammaglobulinemia. After initiation of atacicept, serum IgG levels further declined; two participants developed severe hypogammaglobulinemia, defined as IgG <3 g/L, and pneumonia. These two participants recovered after treatment discontinuation and received antibiotics therapy. This trial was terminated. Based on the detailed assessment of results from this trial, plans to develop atacicept for the treatment of LN will explore alternatives to the induction regimen studied previously, including not dosing atacicept 150 mg twice weekly; clearly defining the dosing regimen for CS and MMF; and closely monitoring immunoglobulin levels during induction therapy.

Evaluation of safety and efficacy profile of atacicept in SLE

Atacicept 75 mg and 150 mg, dosed once per week with subcutaneous auto-injection, have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, measured by endpoints designed to assess efficacy, in patients with SLE in the Phase 2 APRIL-SLE and ADDRESS II trials. In these trials, autoantibody titers were significantly reduced, and prespecified and post hoc analyses revealed prevention of flare and reduction of active disease with atacicept treatment, despite the fact that the primary endpoints in these trials were not met.

In ADDRESS II, SLE patients with HDA (SLEDAI-2K ≥10) had an increase in SRI-6 response, attainment of low disease activity (LDA), or SLEDAI-2K ≤2, and a reduction of the risk of a first new severe flare (defined by SLEDAI Flare Index [SFI] or by BILAG A) when treated with atacicept 150 mg. Furthermore, the 024 long-term extension (LTE) trial showed durability of these effects through a median duration of treatment of 96 weeks.

Following the release of the HDA data, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany pursued the planning and initiation of a global Phase 3 registrational program for atacicept 150 mg once per week in SLE. This program, including two large Phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trials of atacicept 150 mg compared to placebo, were reviewed by FDA via end-of-phase-2 communication and scientific advice communication with EMA, prior to Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany terminating the SLE program and the IgAN program for business strategy reasons.

Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with SLE for 24 weeks

ADDRESS II, a Phase 2b SLE trial of 306 participants, evaluated the efficacy and safety of atacicept at two subcutaneous doses (150 mg and 75 mg) versus placebo over the course of 24 weeks, with an LTE arm continuing an additional 96 weeks.

Atacicept demonstrated consistent reductions in IgG, IgA, and IgM serum levels, and reductions in anti-dsDNA antibodies, as well as improvements in serum C3 and C4 levels, as shown in Figure 13 below.

Figure 13: Atacicept impact on key biomarkers in the phase 2 ADDRESS II trial

Though atacicept missed its primary endpoint of SRI-6 reduction versus placebo in all comers, in a prespecified analysis of HDA patients, which comprised approximately half of those enrolled, atacicept 150 mg showed improved clinical outcomes, measured by multiple endpoints designed to assess efficacy, including a 26% improvement (p=0.005) in SRI-6 versus placebo, flare risk reduction, and serologic marker normalization. SRI-6 response is defined as ≥6-point reduction in the SELENA-SLEDAI score, no new BILAG A organ domain score or two new BILAG B organ domain scores, and no worsening (<0.30-point increase) in Physician’s Global Assessment score. Also, among this HDA patient segment, significantly more participants on the atacicept 150 mg arm reached LDA, as measured by SLEDAI-2K ≤2, as shown in Figure 14 below.

Figure 14: SRI-6 response and LDA attainment among HDA patients in the phase 2 ADDRESS II trial

Furthermore, Figure 15 below demonstrates the durable clinical outcomes observed in the HDA segment: more participants reached LDA by multiple measures at both week 24 and week 48. Significantly more participants treated with atacicept 150 mg once weekly versus placebo demonstrated clinical improvement (as shown by SRI-6), achieved LDA, and remission.

Figure 15: Durable clinical outcomes observed in HDA patients in the phase 2 ADDRESS II trial

We believe that the clinical outcomes, measured by multiple endpoints designed to assess efficacy within the HDA segment of the SLE population in the ADDRESS II trial—and a favorable tolerability profile observed in ADDRESS II, as well as the integrated safety analysis in over 1,500 participants—provide the foundation of our rationale for developing atacicept further in LN, a severe renal manifestation of SLE.

Phase 3 clinical trial design

Our currently designed Phase 3, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, multinational study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept vs placebo in patients with LN. The clinical trial consists of a 104-week double blind treatment period, followed by a 52-week open label treatment period and a 26-week safety follow-up period. The trial, as shown in Figure 16 below, will assess atacicept 150 mg once weekly subcutaneous injections versus placebo. The primary endpoint is complete renal response at 52 weeks.

Figure 16: Phase 3 clinical trial design

MAU868 in reactivated BK infection among kidney transplant recipients

We have exclusive worldwide rights, pursuant to the Novartis license, to MAU868, which is a potential treatment for reactivated BK infection in kidney transplant recipients. While up to 90% of healthy adults have been infected with BKV at some point in their lives, it remains latent in everyone except severely immunocompromised populations such as kidney transplant recipients. There are approximately 80,000 kidney transplants annually worldwide, with approximately 20,000 in the United States. Approximately 225,000 kidney allograft recipients are living in the United States. Waitlists to receive kidneys are long: approximately 3–5 years and 75,000 people long in the United States. Up to 12% of transplants per year are re-transplants, which further limits organ availability for new patients. BKV is a polyoma virus that is tropic to the kidney and bladder tissue and can reactivate with the immunosuppression required for kidney transplant. This reactivation can cause BKVN, a condition in which BK infection, typically first identified as BK viremia, triggers inflammation, which then progresses to renal fibrosis and tubular injury; as shown in Figure 17, BKVN is a leading cause of allograft loss, a devastating outcome for kidney transplant recipients.

Figure 17: Graft survival (%) in kidney transplant patients is worse with BKVN

Currently, there are no approved treatment options for BK viremia or BKVN. We shared full Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 results in 2022 from the Phase 2 trial conducted by Amplyx. Following feedback from the FDA on the Phase 2 clinical trial, we are evaluating strategies for continued clinical development, including a potential next clinical trial. We believe that MAU868 has the potential to become standard of care for the treatment of BK viremia in order to prevent devastating consequences such as BKVN.

Pathophysiology of BK virus in kidney transplant

BKV has a worldwide seroprevalence of up to 90%. Primary BK infection is typically acquired during childhood, after which the virus establishes lifelong infection in the kidney and bladder tissue. Most people do not experience any known adverse effects from either primary or persistent infection. Control of infection is dependent on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell immunity, which can be displaced by immunosuppressants. In the setting of kidney transplant and related immunosuppression, latent virus can be reactivated or new virus can be transmitted via the donor kidney. BKV reactivation is marked first by viruria—or detection of virus in the urine, and then viremia—detection of viral DNA in the blood, and most commonly occurs within the first year of transplant.

Viremia typically occurs in 15% of kidney transplant recipients, after which BKVN may occur. Approximately 3-4% of kidney transplant recipients develop BKVN.

BKVN disease burden and diagnosis

BKVN may lead to allograft injury and in some cases, allograft loss. Up to 24–60% of all graft losses are due to BKV-associated disease. The average cost of a kidney transplant in the United States is over $440,000. Pre-transplant, recipients are typically on dialysis, for which the cost is approximately $90,000 per year; there is an approximate 450% increase in annual medical cost to treat transplant recipients who experience graft loss.

Most institutions monitor for BK in both the urine, through PCR and urinalysis, and plasma, via PCR. It is common practice to screen kidney transplant recipients for BK viremia via PCR test monthly in the first six months post-transplant and then every three months until two years post-transplant, after which patients are typically screened annually. Also, at any sign of allograft dysfunction, physicians will test for BK viremia. Viral load levels >1000 copies/mL are considered positive for BK viremia, and levels >10,000 copies/mL are considered presumptive BKVN. Kidney allograft biopsy is considered the gold standard for diagnosing BKVN. Late diagnosis of BKV can lead to irreversible renal function decline and poor treatment outcomes.

Kidney transplant market opportunity

An estimated 80,000 kidney transplants are conducted globally each year, with approximately 20,000 in the United States, 20,000 in Europe, 1,500 in Japan, and 10,000 in China. Approximately 225,000 kidney allograft recipients are living in the United States. Waitlists to receive kidneys are long: 3–5 years and 75,000 people deep in the United States. Up to 12% of transplants per year are re-transplants, which further limits organ availability for new patients. Approximately 15% of kidney transplant recipients develop BK viremia. Patients can be risk stratified for BK viremia based on the degree of immunosuppression employed, which is related to the degree of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) match between the graft and recipient; the greater the mismatch, the more intense immunosuppression required, which increases the risk of BKV reactivation.

We estimate the market for a novel agent to treat reactivated BK infection in kidney transplant recipients to be a large commercial opportunity. We believe that MAU868 has the potential to become standard of care for the treatment of reactivated BK infection in order to prevent devastating consequences following kidney transplantation such as BKVN and graft loss.

Current standard of care for kidney transplant patients with BK viremia

Currently, there is no approved treatment specific to BKV. Upon detection of BK viremia, physicians’ first line of defense is to reduce immunosuppression with the goal of restoring CD4+ and CD8+ T cell immunity without causing acute rejection. Initial modification will typically consist of lowering MMF by 50% followed by a reduction in tacrolimus by 50%. If no improvement is observed, use of MMF and tacrolimus will be stopped and dose of prednisone will be increased. Other agents such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), leflunomide, and cidofovir, are occasionally used—but all have limited data and both leflunomide and cidofovir have serious safety concerns. After development of BKVN, patients have limited options and may continue to receive antivirals or IVIG. Physicians are not satisfied with current treatment options for BKV and highlight that there is a significant unmet need for a viable therapy.

Emerging therapies in development

Despite the high level of unmet need in treating BK viremia and preventing devastating consequences, there is limited development in the space. Allovir’s posoleucel (formerly known as ALVR-105 and Viralym-M), a multi-virus specific T-cell therapy, has paused in its development following a Phase 2 clinical trial. While this approach may have the potential to treat BKV and other opportunistic infections, logistics and distribution are likely to render this approach less feasible than a monoclonal antibody, for instance. Therefore, posoleucel may be reserved for second line of therapy and/or treatment of presumptive BKVN rather than BK viremia. Memo Therapeutics is also developing a BKV neutralizing monoclonal antibody, though limited supporting data is available.

Our solution: MAU868 / scientific rationale

MAU868 is a human monoclonal antibody (IgG1/l isotype subclass) directed against the major viral capsid protein of BKV, VP1, which is essential for binding to and infection of new cells, as shown in Figure 18. MAU868 neutralizes all four serotypes of BKV at sub-nanomolar concentrations and has a high barrier to resistance in vitro (resistant isolates of BKV were not selected in vitro at any of the concentrations of MAU868 investigated). MAU868 is being developed for the treatment of BKV disease in kidney transplant recipients (BKV nephropathy) and being considered for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients (BKV-associated hemorrhagic cystitis). MAU868 also has neutralizing activity in vitro against the closely related JC virus, the cause of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Figure 18: MAU868 blocks BK virion binding

Clinical development of MAU868

Phase 1

A first-in-human, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of MAU868 following IV or SC administration to healthy adult subjects was performed. Administration of up to 100 mg/kg MAU868 IV and 3 mg/kg MAU868 SC were well tolerated. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported, and there were no adverse events that led to the discontinuation of the drug or the study.

Phase 2

We completed a Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of MAU868 for the treatment of allograft-threatening BKV infection in kidney (or kidney-pancreas) transplant recipients in 2022. Two sequential cohorts enrolled a total of 28 participants with BK viremia. As shown in Figure 19, each cohort was designed to randomize approximately 12 participants (8 to MAU868 and 4 to placebo), for which Cohort 1 (1350 mg IV approximately every 28 days for a total of 4 doses) and Cohort 2 (6750 mg IV on Day 1, 1350 mg IV every 28 days for 3 additional doses) have completed dosing.

The primary objective of the clinical trial was to assess the safety and tolerability of MAU868, with secondary objectives to assess the impact of MAU868 on BKV related outcomes. MAU868 has been shown in an interim analysis of week 12 data from Cohorts 1 and 2 to be well-tolerated and showed a greater proportion of participants with decrease in BK plasma viral load versus placebo.

At ASN 2022, final results from the Phase 2 clinical trial of MAU868 versus placebo showed that MAU868 was well tolerated and demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in BK antiviral activity through 36 weeks in kidney transplant patients with BK viremia.

Figure 19: MAU868 phase 2 clinical trial design

Future clinical trials

Following feedback from the FDA on the Phase 2 clinical trial, we are evaluating strategies for continued development, including a potential next clinical trial.

Exclusive license agreement with Ares Trading S.A.

On October 29, 2020, we entered into the Ares Agreement with Ares, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, pursuant to which Ares granted us an exclusive worldwide license to certain patents and related know-how to research, develop, manufacture, use and commercialize therapeutic products containing atacicept or any other compound that is covered by a claim of such licensed patents. Pursuant to the Ares Agreement, Ares also transferred inventory of licensed product to us for use in our clinical development of atacicept.

Per the Ares Agreement, we have obligations to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop at least one licensed product, to launch at least one licensed product in a major market country within a specified time frame after receiving marketing approval for such product and to maintain sufficient resources to manufacture and supply licensed products to meet the market demand in each country for which a licensed product has received marketing approval.

In consideration for the rights granted under the Ares Agreement, we issued 22,171,553 shares of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock to Ares at the time of the initial closing of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock financing in October 2020, representing ownership of approximately 10% on a fully diluted basis. As additional consideration under the Ares Agreement, we paid Ares $25.0 million upon delivery and initiation of the transfer of specified information and supply of drug product and drug substance and we are required to pay Ares aggregate milestone payments of up to $ 176.5 million upon the achievement of specified BLA filing or regulatory approvals in the United States, Europe and Japan (the first of which consists of a $15.0 million payment upon filing of the BLA), and aggregate milestone payments of up to $515.0 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. Commencing on the first commercial sale of licensed products, we are obligated to pay tiered royalties of low double-digit to mid-teen percentages on annual net sales of the products covered by the license. Our obligation to pay royalties will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the latest of (i) 15 years after the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country; (ii) the expiration of the last valid claim of a licensed patent that covers such licensed product in, or its use, importation or manufacture with respect to, such country; and (iii) expiration of all applicable regulatory exclusivity periods in such country with respect to such licensed product. In the event we sublicense our rights under the Ares Agreement, we are obligated to pay Ares a percentage ranging from the mid single-digit to the low double-digits of specified sublicensing income received.

The term of the Ares Agreement will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of our obligation to pay royalties to Ares with respect to such licensed product in such country. We have the right to terminate the Ares Agreement at will upon a specified notice period, provided that such termination is not within two years of the effective date of the Ares Agreement. Ares has the right to terminate the Ares Agreement in the event we challenge the validity of the licensed patents. Additionally, either party can terminate the Ares Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach or bankruptcy.

Asset purchase agreement with Amplyx and exclusive license with Novartis

On December 16, 2021, we entered into an asset purchase agreement (the Amplyx Agreement) with Amplyx, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

Pursuant to the terms of the Amplyx Agreement, we acquired all of Amplyx’s right, title and interest in and to certain assets of Amplyx related to MAU868, a monoclonal antibody that was under development by Amplyx for the treatment of BKV infections (the Purchased Assets). The Purchased Assets include an investigational new drug application filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, patents, contracts, including the Novartis License, chemical and biological materials, and development and regulatory files, documentation, data, results and other electronic records related to MAU868. We also assumed certain liabilities of Amplyx arising out of the Purchased Assets. We and Amplyx have made customary representations and warranties and agreed to customary

covenants in the Amplyx Agreement. Subject to certain limitations, each of we and Amplyx has also agreed to indemnify the other for breaches of representations and warranties and other specified matters.

In partial consideration for the Asset Acquisition, we made an upfront initial payment of $5.0 million to Amplyx. In addition, we are also obligated to make certain milestone payments to Amplyx in an aggregate amount of up to $7.0 million based on certain regulatory milestones. Further, we are required to pay Amplyx low single digit percentage royalties based on net sales on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis.

MAU868 is subject to the Novartis License, which was assigned to us by Amplyx. Pursuant to the terms of the Novartis License, we obtained a worldwide, exclusive license from Novartis to develop, manufacture and commercialize MAU868, subject to certain retained rights for research and development by Novartis, provided that Novartis may not develop or sell products incorporating monoclonal antibody targeting BKV and treating BKV disease within a certain period. We will be solely responsible for all research, development, regulatory, manufacturing and commercialization activities of MAU868. Pursuant to the Novartis License, we are obligated to make certain milestone payments to Novartis in an aggregate amount of up to $69.0 million based on certain clinical development, regulatory and sales milestones. Further, we are required to pay Novartis mid- to high-single digit percentage royalties based on net sales on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Unless terminated earlier, the Novartis License will remain in effect with respect to each MAU868 product until the expiration of the royalty term for such product. We may terminate the Novartis License for convenience with 60 days’ prior written notice. We or Novartis may terminate the Novartis License for the other party’s uncured material breach. Novartis may terminate the Novartis License for our insolvency. Upon termination, any license granted by Novartis to us will terminate.

Intellectual property

Our success depends in part upon our ability to protect our core technology and intellectual property. To protect our intellectual property rights, we rely on patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secret laws, confidentiality procedures, and employee disclosure and invention assignment agreements. Our intellectual property is critical to our business and we strive to protect it through a variety of approaches, including by obtaining and maintaining patent protection in the United States and internationally for our product candidate, and other inventions that are important to our business. For our product candidates, we generally intend to pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter, including new formulations, methods of making and methods of use. As we continue the development of our product candidates, we intend to identify additional means of obtaining patent protection that would potentially enhance commercial success, including through claims covering additional methods of use.

As of December 31, 2023, we have licensed, including pursuant to sublicenses, from Ares, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, a patent portfolio related to atacicept that contains approximately six issued U.S. patents, as well as certain foreign counterparts of a subset of these patents in foreign countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, South Africa, and countries within the European Patent Convention and the Eurasian Patent Organization. The issued patents include claims covering methods of purifying atacicept, formulations and various methods of treatment, and are expected to expire between 2027 and 2029, without considering any patent term extension.

There is also a pending U.S. application as well as certain foreign counterparts directed to treatment of IgAN and proteinuria. The 20-year expiration date for patents that issue in this family is expected to be in 2041.

Because atacicept is a biologic, marketing approval would also provide 12 years of market exclusivity from the approval date of a BLA in the United States. We are currently seeking orphan drug designation for atacicept in IgAN from the FDA and EMA, which, if secured, would provide seven and ten years, in the United States and European Union, respectively, of regulatory exclusivity protection from the approval date.

As of December 31, 2023, our patent portfolio licensed from Novartis and covering MAU868 includes three issued U.S. patents with claims covering the composition of matter of MAU868, and methods of neutralizing BKV or JC virus as well as methods of treating or reducing the likelihood of BKV or JC virus associated disorders. Corresponding foreign counterparts are granted in countries within the European Patent Convention, Australia, China, Japan, India, Israel, Mexico, Macau and Taiwan, and pending in Canada. The 20-year expiration date for patents in this family is in 2036.

In addition, an application co-owned with and licensed from Novartis that is directed to dosing regimens for MAU868 is pending as a U.S. application as well as certain foreign counterparts. The 20-year expiration date for patents in this family is in 2041.

In addition to patents, we may rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors, and non-solicitation, confidentiality, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot

guarantee, however, that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties, such agreements will not be breached, or that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary rights. For more information, see “Risk factors—Risks related to our intellectual property.”

Furthermore, we seek trademark protection in the United States and internationally where available and when we deem appropriate.

Manufacturing and supply

We manage a number of external CMOs to develop and manufacture our product candidates.

Atacicept is a fully humanized fusion protein that impacts the B cell pathway, which has well characterized implications in immunologic diseases. The human IgG1-Fc was modified to reduce the Fc binding to the C1q component of complement and the interaction with Fc receptors.

Atacicept is manufactured following cGMPs using a process that is similar to that used routinely for production of monoclonal antibodies.

The atacicept drug product is available as a ready-to-use injection solution in a prefilled syringe (PFS) at strengths of 25 mg/mL, 75 mg/mL, or 150 mg/mL of trial drug. Each atacicept PFS is designed to deliver a 1 mL solution of drug product. All formulation components are pharmacopeia grade. An atacicept prefilled syringe/autoinjector combination is in late-stage development and will be introduced into future clinical trials when appropriate.

The Ares Agreement includes the transfer of all existing inventory of atacicept drug substance and drug product, for our use in planned and future clinical trials.

We acquired approximately 35,000 PFS of atacicept, representing all three strengths, 25 mg, 75 mg and 150 mg, of atacicept and approximately 25,000 PFS of placebo, as part of the Ares Agreement. This drug product was used to initiate the Phase 2b ORIGIN trial. Additionally, we acquired 6 kg of atacicept drug substance which has subsequently been converted into drug product to supply both the ongoing Phase 2b ORIGIN trial and to support our future clinical trials through the first quarter of 2026.

MAU868 is an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to BKV protein VP1. It is manufactured according to cGMP using a high expression CHO cell and a standard antibody manufacturing process that is completely free from animal or human derived raw materials. The MAU868 manufacturing supply chain is fully established using contract manufacturing organizations with contracts that are assignable to Vera Therapeutics

The fully formulated MAU868 drug product is provided as a 3 mL fill in a 6 mL vial which can be combined with multiple vials to prepare infusions at different dosage strengths for use in clinical trials. The drug product formulation is composed of MAU868 as the active substance, a buffering agent, and both a sugar and a surfactant as stabilizing agents.

The Amplyx Agreement includes the transfer of all existing inventory and work-in-process of MAU868 drug product for use in clinical trials. This includes 2,777 unlabeled vials and work-in-process expected to yield approximately 5,300 vials with release targeted for March 2022. These materials will support both the completion of the ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial and initiation of a future clinical trial.

Commercialization plans

Atacicept

We estimate the market opportunity for novel therapeutics in IgAN to be approximately 157,000 patients in the United States, 136,000 patients in Europe and 130,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales, based on our assumptions, secondary research, and primary market research with physicians and payors. In order to capitalize on this opportunity, we plan to build a specialty commercial infrastructure focused on IgAN, engaging treating physicians, including nephrologists, educating and engaging patients, and ensuring market access for patients.

For novel therapeutics in LN, we estimate the market opportunity will be approximately 120,000 LN patients in the United States, 70,000 in Europe, and 21,000 in Japan, at estimated peak year of sales. If we receive regulatory approval for atacicept in both IgAN and LN, we plan to assess call point overlap for the two indications and selectively build out our future commercial infrastructure to address any gaps to optimize our coverage of LN treating physicians. We also plan to build out LN-specific patient and market access programs, leveraging synergies where possible.

Through the Ares Agreement, we were granted worldwide rights to the development and commercialization of atacicept in all indications. We intend to commercialize atacicept ourselves in the United States and other key markets, if approved. Within certain ex-U.S. markets, we may consider strategic collaborations to facilitate commercialization.

MAU868

We plan to develop MAU868 for the treatment of BK viremia in kidney transplant as an initial indication, which we believe has strong potential commercial synergies with our plans for atacicept. We believe that the prescribing physicians for MAU868 in renal transplant, if approved, will be a subset of the IgAN treating physicians, and plan to conduct an assessment of call point overlap. The launch of this indication, if prior to the atacicept launch, would require a smaller specialty commercial infrastructure build focused on educating and engaging treating physicians, including transplant nephrologists, partnering with kidney transplant organizations, and ensuring market access for patients. If prior to the atacicept launch, we would plan to leverage this infrastructure for eventual atacicept sales and marketing activities.

Through the Amplyx Agreement, we obtained worldwide rights to the development and commercialization of MAU868 in all indications.

Similar to our plans with atacicept, we intend to commercialize MAU868 ourselves in the United States and other key markets, if approved.

We also may consider strategic collaborations to facilitate commercialization in certain ex-U.S. markets.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly changing technologies, significant competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. This is also true for the development and commercialization of treatments for immunologic diseases. Though we believe that our focus, experienced team, scientific knowledge, and intellectual property provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from a number of sources, including large and small biopharmaceutical companies, universities, and other research institutions.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, human and other resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market technologically superior products. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking nonclinical studies and human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products and in obtaining regulatory approvals of human therapeutic products. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA approval for superior products. Many of our competitors have established distribution channels for the commercialization of their products, whereas we have no such channel or capabilities. In addition, many competitors have greater name recognition and more extensive collaborative relationships. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we do or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their products. If we are unable to compete effectively against these companies, then we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates or achieve a competitive position in the market. This would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue. Our competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Atacicept in IgAN

Despite a high level of morbidity for IgAN, the current standard of care consists of off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and potentially steroids. Atacicept, if and when approved and successfully commercialized, may compete with these existing approaches and with any new therapies that may become available in the future. SGLT2 inhibitors, including AstraZeneca plc’s (AstraZeneca) Farxiga, which is approved for chronic kidney disease, are becoming the standard-of-care in some geographies including the United States. Among emerging therapies, we consider our most direct competitors with respect to atacicept in IgAN to be approved products: the reformulated steroid from Calliditas Therapeutics AB, and endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist from Travere Therapeutics, Inc.; programs in Phase 3 clinical development: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Novartis, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Roche/Ionis; and the following companies with programs in Phase 2 of clinical development: Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., , AstraZeneca, HI-Bio, Inc., Eladon Pharmaceuticals, and DiaMedica Therapeutics, Inc.

Atacicept in LN

In LN, prior to December 2020, there had been no approved therapies, and the standard-of-care has consisted of a number of non-specific therapies, including MMF, steroids, CYC, rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, AZA, and HCQ, dependent on class of disease and whether a patient was cycling through the induction or maintenance phase of therapy. Paradigms are evolving with the FDA approvals

of GlaxoSmithKline plc’s Benlysta (belimumab) and Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Lupkynis (voclosporin), both of which we consider to be direct competitors. Our competitors include: Roche Holding AG, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and AstraZeneca, each of which have programs in Phase 3 clinical development; and BeiGene Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Alexion), Omeros Corporation, Kezar Life Science Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Amgen Inc., and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, each of which have programs in Phase 2 clinical development.

MAU868

There are currently no anti-BKV therapies approved, either in the kidney transplant or HSCT setting. The standard of care in both settings is to reduce immunosuppression as a first line, and potentially to offer IVIG in kidney transplant recipients or antivirals with limited clinical evidence, including leflunomide and cidofovir, in either setting. There are few industry-sponsored programs in development for these indications; we consider our most direct competitors to be Allovir’s multi-virus specific T-cell therapy, posoleucel, which is currently paused after a Phase 2 clinical trial for BK viremia in kidney transplant recipients, and Memo Therapeutics AG’s AntiBKV, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody in a Phase 2/3 clinical trial.

Government regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, such as our investigational medicines and any future investigational medicines. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

Regulatory approval in the United States

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post- approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Biological products used for the prevention, treatment or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to regulation under the FDCA, except the section of the FDCA that governs the approval of a new drug application (NDA). Biological products are approved, or licensed, for marketing under provisions of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) via a BLA. The application process and requirements for approval of BLAs for originator biological products are similar to those for NDAs for new chemical entities, and biologics are associated with similar approval risks and costs as drugs. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs or BLAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

Our investigational medicines and any future investigational medicines must be approved by the FDA pursuant to a BLA before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical studies

Before testing any biological product candidates in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies.

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, an IND must be submitted to the FDA and the FDA must allow the IND to proceed. An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA allowance that such investigational product may be administered to humans in connection with such trial. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration. In support of a request for an IND, applicants must submit a protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND sponsor must also submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated in the trial. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee (DSMB). This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study.

There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial.

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

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3:

These Phases may overlap or be combined. For example, a Phase 1/2 clinical trial may contain both a dose-escalation stage and a dose-expansion stage, the latter of which may confirm tolerability at the recommended dose for expansion in future clinical trials.

A single Phase 3 or Phase 2 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness (generally subject to the requirement of additional post-approval studies).

In some cases, FDA may require, or firms may voluntarily pursue, post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other studies, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the investigational medicines do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

FDA review processes

Following completion of the clinical trials, the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic or drug may be marketed in the United States.

The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), each BLA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are

available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication. The applicant under an approved BLA is also subject to an annual program fee.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review to determine if it is substantially complete before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, pure and potent, for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to ensure its continued safety, purity and potency.

Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA for a new molecular entity and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process can be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre -approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications.

The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the data supporting safety and efficacy. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process.

After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the BLA and may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing in order for FDA to reconsider the application. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months, depending on the type of information included. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, including to subpopulations of patients, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Furthermore, as a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require a REMS to help ensure that the benefits of the biologic outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure a product’s safe use (ETASU). An ETASU can include, but is not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing the product, dispensing the product only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient-specific registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy.

Orphan drug designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation on its own does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications

to market the same product for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or in instances of drug supply issues. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective. Further, competitors may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication. In the latter case, because healthcare professionals are free to prescribe products for off-label uses, the competitor’s product could be used for the orphan indication despite another product’s orphan exclusivity.

Expedited development and review programs

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

Fast track designation may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new biologic candidate can request the FDA to designate the candidate for a specific indication for fast track status concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the candidate. The FDA must determine if the biologic candidate qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s BLA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval.

Breakthrough therapy designation may be granted for products that are intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the breakthrough therapy program, the sponsor of a new biologic candidate may request that the FDA designate the candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the submission of the IND for the biologic candidate. The FDA must determine if the biological product qualifies for breakthrough therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process, providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval, involving more senior staff in the review process, assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Priority review may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Under priority review, the FDA’s goal is to review an application in six months once it is filed, compared to ten months for a standard review. Priority review designation does not change the standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Accelerated approval may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and that generally provide a meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments. A product eligible for accelerated approval may be approved on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions or survives. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long, and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Use of the accelerated approval pathway entails submission of a BLA with the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint data while continuing to conduct the trial(s) to completion and is contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to complete and/or conduct additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence and, in some cases, the FDA may require that the trial be designed, initiated and/or fully enrolled prior to approval. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation,

breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process.

Additional controls for biologics

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Combination products

A combination product is a product comprised of two or more regulated components, e.g., drug and medical device, that are physically combined and produced as a single entity, packaged together in a single package, or packaged separately but intended to be labeled for use together. Atacicept in a prefilled autoinjector would be such a combination of therapeutic and delivery device.

FDA is divided into various branches, or Centers, by product type. Different Centers typically review drug, biologic, or device applications. In order to review an application for a combination product, FDA must decide which Center should be responsible for the review. FDA regulations require that FDA determine the combination product’s primary mode of action (PMOA), which is the single mode of a combination product that provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product. The Center that regulates that portion of the product that generates the PMOA becomes the lead evaluator. If there are two independent modes of action, neither of which is subordinate to the other, FDA makes a determination as to which Center to assign the product based on consistency with other combination products raising similar types of safety and effectiveness questions or to the Center with the most expertise in evaluating the most significant safety and effectiveness questions raised by the combination product. When evaluating an application, a lead Center may consult other Centers but still retain complete reviewing authority, or it may collaborate with another Center, by which the Center assigns review of a specific section of the application to another Center, delegating its review authority for that section. Typically, FDA requires a single marketing application submitted to the Center selected to be the lead evaluator, although the agency has the discretion to require separate applications to more than one Center. We believe that our prefilled autoinjector would have a biologic PMOA.

Pediatric information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), BLAs or supplements to BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the biological product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA generally does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) provides a six-month extension of any exclusivity—patent or non-patent—for a biologic if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new biologic in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Post-approval requirements

Once a BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. Biologics may be marketed only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the provisions of the approved labeling. Although physicians may prescribe products for off-label uses as the FDA and other regulatory authorities do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or

their sales force with respect to off-label uses of products for which marketing clearance has not been issued. Companies may only share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic safety summary reports is required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, biological product manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Biologic manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects a biologic product’s manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with required regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

U.S. marketing exclusivity

The BPCIA created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency.

Regulatory approval in the European Union

The EMA is a decentralized scientific agency of the European Union. It coordinates the evaluation and monitoring of centrally authorized medicinal products. It is responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for EU marketing authorizations, as well as the development of technical guidance and the provision of scientific advice to sponsors. The EMA decentralizes its scientific assessment of medicines by working through a network of about 4,500 experts throughout the European Union, nominated by the Member States. The EMA draws on resources of over 40 national competent authorities of European Union Member States.

The process regarding approval of medicinal products in the European Union follows roughly the same lines as in the United States and likewise generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

Preclinical studies

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animal studies, in order to assess the quality and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant international, E.U. and national legislation, regulations and guidelines. The results of the preclinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA.

Clinical trials

In the European Economic Area (EEA), comprising the European Union Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after a related marketing authorization (MA), has been granted. To obtain an MA for a product in the EEA, an applicant must submit a MAA under one of four procedures: the centralized authorization procedure, administer by the EMA, or one of the procedures administered by the competent authorities of EEA countries, the mutual recognition procedure, the decentralized procedure or a national procedure. Since our products by their virtue of being antibody-based biologics fall under the centralized procedure, only this procedure will be described here.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, certain drugs, including medicinal products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must be approved via the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization. The centralized procedure is also mandatory for orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (i.e., gene-therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, and indicated for the treatment of other diseases, or for products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, authorization through the centralized procedure is optional on related approval

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of human medicinal products on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each member state’s national drug authority, with one of them appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co-ordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the CHMP acting as a Co-Rapporteur. The CHMP is required to issue an opinion within 210 days of receipt of a valid application, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report is produced. If the CHMP concludes that the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicinal product is sufficiently proven, it adopts a positive opinion. The CHMP’s opinion is sent to the European Commission, which uses the opinion as the basis for its decision whether or not to grant a marketing authorization. The European Commission’s decision is issued within 67 days of receipt of the CHMP’s opinion. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on

which this conclusion was reached. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization.

Review and approval

Authorization to market a product in the EEA, comprising the European Union Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized authorization procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure or a national procedure. Since our products by their virtue of being antibody-based biologics fall under the centralized procedure, only this procedure will be described here.

Certain drugs, including medicinal products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must be approved via the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization. The centralized procedure is also mandatory for orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (i.e. gene-therapy, somatic cell -therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health. A successful application under the centralized authorization procedure results in a marketing authorization from the European Commission, which is automatically valid throughout the EEA. The other European Economic Area Member States (namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) are also obligated to recognize the European Commission decision. The EMA and the European Commission administer the centralized authorization procedure.

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of human medicinal products on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each member state’s national drug authority, with one of them appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co-ordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the CHMP acting as a Co-Rapporteur. After approval, the Rapporteur(s) continue to monitor the product throughout its life cycle. The CHMP is required to issue an opinion within 210 days of receipt of a valid application, though the clock is stopped if it is necessary to ask the applicant for clarification or further supporting data. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of a marketing authorization application considerably beyond 210 days. The process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the regulatory authorities of Member States and a number of experts. Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report is produced. If the CHMP concludes that the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicinal product is sufficiently proven, it adopts a positive opinion. The CHMP’s opinion is sent to the European Commission, which uses the opinion as the basis for its decision whether or not to grant a marketing authorization. The European Commission’s decision is issued within 67 days of receipt of the CHMP’s recommendation. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on which this conclusion was reached

After a drug has been authorized and launched, it is a condition of maintaining the marketing authorization that all aspects relating to its quality, safety and efficacy must be kept under review. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to adhere to the conditions of the marketing authorization. In extreme cases, the authorization may be revoked, resulting in withdrawal of the product from sale.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the EU, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized MAs (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized MAs will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized MA were automatically converted to Great Britain MAs on January 1, 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain MA. A separate application will, however, still be required.

Alternative approvals, accelerated assessment and PRIME

In the EU, in accordance with Article 14(7) of Regulation (EC) 726/2004, a “conditional” marketing authorization may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The European Commission may grant a conditional marketing authorization for a medicinal product if it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the medicinal product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; (iii) the medicinal product fulfils an unmet medical need; and (iv) the benefit of the immediate availability to patients of the medicinal product is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. The conditional marketing authorization is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once any pending studies are provided, the conditional marketing authorization can be converted into a traditional marketing authorization. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA and approved by the European Commission, the marketing authorization will cease to be renewed.

A marketing authorization may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data

may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional marketing authorization, a marketing authorization granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard marketing authorization. However, unlike the conditional marketing authorization, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data. Although the marketing authorization “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually, and the marketing authorization will be withdrawn if the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in respect of a drug for human use targeting an unmet medical need which is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. In these circumstances, the applicant may request an accelerated assessment procedure pursuant to Article 14(9) of Regulation (EC) 726/2004, which must be substantiated. If the CHMP accepts the request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days for the CHMP’s opinion is reduced to 150 days excluding clock stops. The CHMP may, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. We believe that some of the disease indications in which our product candidates are currently being or may be developed in the future may qualify for this provision, in which case, we intend to submit related applications for accelerated assessment as appropriate.

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines scheme (PRIME), which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that target unmet medical needs. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicinal product will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

Validity of marketing authorizations

A marketing authorization is initially valid for five years and may then be renewed on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the national competent authority of the authorizing Member State (where the centralized procedure is not used). To this end, the marketing authorization holder shall provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document providing up-to-date data in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least nine months before expiry of the initial five year period. Once renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the relevant national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EEA market (if the centralized procedure is used) or on the market of the authorizing Member State (if the centralized procedure is not used) within three years after authorization shall cease to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Pediatric development

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that all MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (PIP), agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (PDCO). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the medicinal product for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures provided in the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the marketing authorization is obtained in all EU Member States and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-month extension to the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC), if any is in effect at the time of authorization or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of orphan market exclusivity.

Manufacturing regulation in the EU

In addition to a marketing authorization, various other requirements apply to the manufacturing and placing on the EU market of medicinal products. The manufacturing of medicinal products in the EU requires a manufacturing authorization and import of medicinal products into the EU requires a manufacturing authorization allowing for import. The manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including EU cGMP standards. Similarly, the

distribution of medicinal products within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of EU Member States. Marketing authorization holders and/or manufacturing and import authorization, or marketing authorization holders and/or distribution authorization holders may be subject to civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including suspension of manufacturing authorization, in case of non-compliance with the EU or EU Member States’ requirements applicable to the manufacturing of medicinal products.

Data and market exclusivity

The EU provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to marketing authorizations. Upon receiving a marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

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

Orphan drug designation

Regulation (EC) 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) 847/2000 states that a drug can be designated as an orphan drug if its sponsor can establish (i) that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (ii) either such condition affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or, without incentives, it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (iii) that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Regulation (EC) 847/2000 sets out provisions for the implementation of the criteria for the designation of orphan drugs. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the submission of an MAA. A marketing authorization for an orphan medicinal product may only include indications designated as orphan. For non-orphan indications treated with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, a separate marketing authorization has to be sought. Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure.. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a 10-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify continued market exclusivity. In addition, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period of market exclusivity on an individual basis in very select cases, such as with consent from the marketing authorization holder, if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the authorized product or if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products.

Post-authorization requirements

Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. The holder of an MA must

establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports (PSURs).

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan (RMP) describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk- minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in EU law. However, the details are governed by regulations in individual EU Member States and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), which may require approval by the competent national authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU.

Combination products

The EU regulates medical devices and medicinal products separately, and through different legislative instruments. Products that are a combination of a medicinal product and a medical device may be regulated as either a medicinal product, a medical device or, subject to certain requirements, on the basis of both sets of rules. The applicable requirements governing placing a drug-device combination on the EU market will vary depending on the type of drug-device combination product and on which of the components of the combination has the primary mode of action. Drug-device combination products that form a single integral product that is not reusable and for which the action of the medicinal product is principal to that of the medical device are governed by the regulatory framework applicable to medicinal products. However, the General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on Medical Devices (MDR) will be applicable to the safety and performance of the medical device part of the product in the context of its use with the medicinal product. Drug-device combination products that form a single integral product that is not reusable and for which the action of the medicinal products is ancillary to that of the medical device are governed by the regulatory framework applicable to medical devices in accordance with the MDR. Where a medical device incorporates a medicinal product as an integral part as a single use drug delivery system, which is intended exclusively for use in the given combination and which is not reusable, it is regulated as a medicinal product. In this case, the relevant GSPRs of the MDR will apply to the safety and performance of the device element. By contrast, drug-device combination products which do not form a single integral product will be regulated separately. This may include, for example a drug-device combination product where a medical device and a medicinal product are co-packaged and the medical device is intended solely to be used for the administration of the co-packaged medicinal product.

Brexit

The United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal from the EU on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit, has changed the regulatory relationship between the UK and the EU. The MHRA is now the UK’s standalone regulator for medicinal products and medical devices. Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) is now a third country to the EU. Northern Ireland will, with regard to EU regulations, continue to follow the EU regulatory rules for now.

The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which is derived from the Clinical Trials Directive (EU) 2001/20 (CTD), as implemented into UK national law through secondary legislation. On January 17, 2022, the MHRA launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials, and which aimed to streamline clinical trials approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials transparency, enable greater risk proportionality, and promote patient and public involvement in clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023 confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation. These resulting legislative amendments will determine how closely the UK regulations will align with the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). In October 2023, the MHRA announced a new Notification Scheme for clinical trials which enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to initial clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and low-risk Phase 3 clinical trial applications.

Marketing authorizations in the UK are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. Since January 1, 2021, an applicant for the EU centralized procedure marketing authorization can no longer be established in the UK. As a result, since this date, companies established in the UK cannot use the EU centralized procedure and instead must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures to obtain a marketing authorization to market products in the UK. All existing EU marketing authorizations for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into UK marketing authorization, effective in Great Britain only, free of charge on January 1,

2021, unless the marketing authorization holder opted-out of this possibility. Northern Ireland currently remains within the scope of EU authorizations in relation to centrally authorized medicinal products. Accordingly, until the Windsor Framework is implemented in Northern Ireland on January 1, 2025, products falling within the scope of the EU centralized procedure can only be authorized through UK national authorization procedures in Great Britain.

The MHRA has also introduced changes to national marketing authorization procedures. This includes introduction of procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment route, a rolling review procedure and the International Recognition Procedure. Since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure (IRP) when reviewing certain types of marketing authorization applications. This procedure is available for applicants for marketing authorization who have already received an authorization for the same product from a reference regulator. These include the FDA, the EMA, and national competent authorities of individual EEA countries. A positive opinion from the EMA and CHMP, or a positive end of procedure outcome from the mutual recognition or decentralized procedures are considered to be authorizations for the purposes of the IRP.

There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation for medicinal products in the UK. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding marketing authorization application. The criteria are essentially the same as those in the EU, but have been tailored for the market. This includes the criterion that prevalence of the condition in Great Britain, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization with orphan status, the medicinal product will benefit from up to 10 years of market exclusivity from similar products in the approved orphan indication. The start of this market exclusivity period will be set from the date of first approval of the product in Great Britain.

European and United Kingdom data collection and processing

The collection, receipt, storage, generation, transfer, access, protection, securing, disposal, transmittal, sharing, use, disclosure and other processing (commonly referred to as processing) of health-related and other personal data about clinical trials participants and other individuals in Europe is governed by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR), and in the UK, is governed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR). The EU GDPR and UK GDPR require companies to, among other things, give detailed disclosures about how they are processing personal data; ensure any consents relied on to process personal data (including special categories of personal data, such as health information) meet the strict EU GDPR requirements; contractually impose data protection measures on vendors entrusted with personal data; maintain adequate data security measures; notify regulators and affected individuals of certain data breaches; meet extensive privacy governance and documentation requirements; honor individuals’ data protection rights, including their rights to access, correct and delete their personal data; and refrain from transferring personal data from Europe or the UK to most other countries unless specific safeguards can be implemented. Companies that violate the EU GDPR or UK GDPR can face private litigation, prohibitions on data processing and heavy fines. Complying with the EU GDPR and UK GDPR may be costly and require us to limit our activities in Europe. If our efforts to comply are not successful, we may face litigation, reputational harm, significant penalties and other liabilities.

Marketing

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, as described below, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians and other health care professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the E.U. Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. Infringement of related laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual European Union Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the European Union Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

International regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States and Europe, a variety of foreign regulations govern clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country and the time to approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA or European Commission approval.

Other healthcare laws and regulations and legislative reform

Healthcare laws and regulations

Healthcare providers and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our operations, including any arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws that may affect the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct research and would market, sell and distribute our products. The healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other current or future healthcare laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or comparable foreign programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, if any of the physicians or other healthcare professionals or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Legislative reform

We operate in a highly regulated industry, and new laws, regulations and judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws, regulations and decisions, related to healthcare availability, the method of delivery and payment for healthcare products and services could negatively affect our business, financial condition and prospects. There is significant interest in promoting healthcare reforms, and it is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and the governments of other countries will continue to consider changes to existing healthcare legislation.

For example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. The Affordable Care Act, among other things, increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts (increased to 70 percent, effective as of January 1, 2019) off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected expanded the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

There have been executive, judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act as well as efforts to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the

Affordable Care Act. In addition, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the IRA) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act.

In addition, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. In 2011, the U.S. Congress enacted the Budget Control Act, which included provisions intended to reduce the federal deficit. The Budget Control Act resulted in the imposition of 2% reductions in Medicare payments to providers beginning in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will remain in effect through 2032, absent additional congressional action. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. If government spending is further reduced, anticipated budgetary shortfalls may also impact the ability of relevant agencies, such as the FDA, to continue to function at current levels, which may impact the ability of relevant agencies to timely review and approve research and development, manufacturing and marketing activities, which may delay our ability to develop, market and sell any product candidates we may develop. In addition, any significant spending reductions affecting Medicare, Medicaid or other publicly funded or subsidized health programs that may be implemented, or any significant taxes or fees that may be imposed on us, as part of any broader deficit reduction effort or legislative replacement to the Budget Control Act, could have an adverse impact on our anticipated product revenues.

Furthermore, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several congressional inquiries and proposed legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs that will be subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare drug price negotiation program is currently subject to legal challenges. It is unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. 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 if that will continue under the new framework. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. It is difficult to predict the future legislative landscape in healthcare and the effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. However, we expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, particularly in light of the new presidential administration.

Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations

We and our third-party contractors are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous chemicals, including flammable and biological materials, are involved in certain aspects of our business, and we cannot eliminate the risk of injury or contamination from the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In particular, our product candidates use PBDs, which are

highly potent cytotoxins that require special handling by our and our contractors’ staff. In the event of contamination or injury, or failure to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, fines and penalties associated with such liability could exceed our assets and resources. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent. We may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.

Pharmaceutical coverage, pricing and reimbursement

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by governmental and private third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive medical treatments. In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of our product candidates will depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered by third- party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors decide which products will be covered and establish reimbursement levels for those products.

Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage approval and reimbursement for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost- effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement at a satisfactory level. If coverage and adequate reimbursement of our future products, if any, are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, such as may result where alternative or generic treatments are available, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability. Adverse coverage and reimbursement limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in our product candidates, even if such product candidates obtain regulatory approval.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. There is no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement in the United States and, as a result, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the CMS, which decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often, but not always, follow the CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement. It is difficult to predict what third-party payors will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for that product. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our product candidates. There can be no assurance that our product candidates will be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. Therefore, it is possible that any of our product candidates, even if approved, may not be covered by third-party payors or the reimbursement limit may be so restrictive that we cannot commercialize the product candidates profitably.

Reimbursement authorities in Europe may be more restrictive than payors in the United States. In Europe, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. For example, some countries provide that products may be marketed only after an agreement on reimbursement price has been reached. Such pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. In addition, the European Union provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union Member States may approve a specific price for a product, may adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for product but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. In addition, some EU Member States may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies.

Reference pricing used by various European Union Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. Furthermore, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceutical products, and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on

healthcare costs in general, and prescription products in particular, has become increasingly intense. As a result, there are increasingly higher barriers to entry for new products. There can be no assurance that any country that has reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries. Accordingly, the reimbursement for any products in Europe may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Furthermore, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of foreign and domestic governments as well as private third-party payors. The prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments and private third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably. We also expect to experience pricing pressures due to the trend towards managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. These and other cost-control initiatives could cause us to decrease the price we might establish for products, which could result in lower-than-anticipated product revenues. In addition, the publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if coverage and adequate reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues and the potential profitability of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

Employees and human capital resources

As of December 31, 2023, we had a total of 51 full-time employees. We employ physicians, professionals in research and development, clinical, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, finance and legal and other functions that are important to our business. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreements. We use temporary workers such as consultants and advisors in certain instances when we think it is in the best interests of our business.

Attracting, developing, and retaining highly qualified individuals are key to our success. To do so, we believe we offer competitive compensation packages—inclusive of base salary, bonus, and equity, and benefits. We also sought to establish a values-based culture centered around our core values of collaboration, accountability, and empathy for patients to enhance the working environment for our current employees and to attract our desired candidates.

Facilities

We are occupying 9,885 square feet of office space at 8000 Marina Boulevard in Brisbane, California though November 2024. We also have leased 24,606 square feet of office and lab space at 170 Harbor Way in South San Francisco, California. This space is currently subleased through the term of the lease, ending September 2025.

Company information

We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in May 2016. Our principal executive offices are located at 8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 120, Brisbane, California 94005.

Legal proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings. Regardless of outcome, such proceedings or claims can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of resources and other factors, and there can be no assurances that favorable outcomes will be obtained.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

An investment in shares of our Class A common stock (common stock) involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report, including our financial statements and the related notes and the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” before deciding whether to purchase, hold or sell shares of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the risks described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, growth prospects, and/or stock price or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements we have made in this Annual Report and those we may make from time to time. You should consider all of the risk factors described when evaluating our business.

Risks related to our financial position and need for additional capital

We have not completed any clinical trials for our lead product candidate, atacicept, and have no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability.

We are a late clinical-stage biotechnology company and we have no products approved for commercial sale, have not generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred losses since inception. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to our research and development efforts, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, establishing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, hiring personnel, raising capital and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any clinical trials with respect to our product candidates, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. As a result, it may be more difficult to accurately predict our future success or viability than it could be if we had a longer operating history.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by late-stage biotechnology companies in rapidly evolving fields. We may face difficulty transitioning from a company with a research focus to a company capable of successfully executing drug development activities and supporting commercial operations. If we do not adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our research and drug development programs of our product candidates or future commercialization efforts.

Developing treatments for immunological and inflammatory diseases, including conducting nonclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception, and we expect our expenses will increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue to conduct clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. We anticipate incurring significant costs associated with the development of our product candidates. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, or any comparable foreign regulatory authority to perform clinical trials or nonclinical studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Other unanticipated costs may also arise. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for atacicept or MAU868, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to drug sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Because the design and outcome of our planned and anticipated clinical trials are highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of any product candidate we develop. We also will continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations.

As of December 31, 2023, we had $160.7 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. In December 2021, the Company entered into a non-revolving loan and security agreement (the Loan Agreement) with borrowing capacity of up to $50.0 million. At the closing of the Loan Agreement in December 2021, $5.0 million was funded, and an additional $20.0 million was funded in November 2022. In December 2023, the Company borrowed the remaining $25.0 million from the Loan Agreement. As of December 31, 2023, the Company’s outstanding borrowing under the Loan Agreement was $50.0 million. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operations and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Annual Report. Our estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to estimate with certainty our future expenses given the dynamic nature of our business and the macroeconomic and geopolitical environment generally. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Advancing the development of atacicept, MAU868 and any future product candidates we may develop will require a significant amount of capital. Our working capital and available credit will not be sufficient to fund all of the activities that are necessary to complete the development of our product candidates through approval and commercial launch.

In January 2023, we delayed enrollment in the pivotal Phase 3 trial for LN and commitment of resources to the MAU868 program.

We will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources, which may dilute our stockholders or restrict our operating activities. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic developments, such as the recent and potential future disruptions in access to bank deposits and lending commitments due to bank failures, ongoing military conflicts, related sanctions, actual and anticipated changes in interest rates, economic inflation and the responses by central banking authorities to control such inflation, could affect our ability to access capital as and when needed. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed, or on acceptable terms, would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our research-stage programs, clinical trials or future commercialization efforts.

We have incurred net losses since inception, and we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future. In addition, we may be unable to continue as a going concern over the long-term.

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since the commencement of our operations and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We had net losses of $96.0 million and $89.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $309.1 million as of December 31, 2023. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure, a significant portion of which were incurred resulting from our efforts to develop gamma-PNA chemistry and triplex gene editing for therapeutic use, which we discontinued in September 2020. Our product candidates are in clinical development. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing our product candidates in one or more indications, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we continue the clinical development programs for our product candidates in other indications.

We expect to continue to incur increased expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our research and development efforts and seek to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our working capital. In any particular period, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations. As a development stage company, we expect to incur significant and increasing losses until regulatory approval is granted for our product candidates. Regulatory approval is not guaranteed and may never be obtained. As a result, these conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern over the long-term.

We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with our collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, atacicept, MAU868 and any future product candidates we may develop. We do not anticipate generating revenue from product sales for the next several years, if ever. Our ability to generate revenue from product sales depends heavily on our and our current and potential future collaborators’ success in:

Even if atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidate that we may develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform clinical trials or nonclinical studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved products, we may not be able to reach or sustain profitability, and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

The terms of our loan agreement place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, the terms of any new debt could further restrict our ability to operate our business.

The Loan Agreement provides us with up to $50.0 million of borrowing capacity. At the closing of the Loan Agreement in December 2021, $5.0 million was funded and an additional $20.0 million was funded in November 2022. In December 2023, the Company borrowed the remaining $25.0 million from the Loan Agreement. As of December 31, 2023, the Company’s outstanding borrowing under the Loan Agreement was $50.0 million. Our overall leverage and certain obligations and affirmative and negative covenants contained in the related documentation could adversely affect our financial health and business and future operations by limiting our ability to, among other things, satisfy our obligations under the Loan Agreement, refinance our debt on terms acceptable to us or at all, plan for and adjust to changing business, industry and market conditions, use our available cash flow to fund future acquisitions and make dividend payments, and obtain additional financing for working capital, to fund growth or for general corporate purposes, even when necessary to maintain adequate liquidity.

If we default under the Loan Agreement, Oxford may accelerate all of our repayment obligations and exercise all of their rights and remedies under the Loan Agreement and applicable law, potentially requiring us to renegotiate our agreement on terms less favorable to us. Further, if we are liquidated, the lenders’ right to repayment would be senior to the rights of the holders of our

common stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. Oxford could declare a default upon the occurrence of customary events of default, including events that they interpret as a material adverse change as delineated in the Loan Agreement, payment defaults or breaches of certain affirmative or negative covenants, thereby requiring us to repay the loan immediately. Any declaration by the lender of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. Additionally, if we raise any additional debt financing, the terms of such additional debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

Risks related to the discovery, development and commercialization of our product candidates

We are substantially dependent on the success of our product candidates, atacicept and MAU868, which are currently in the clinical development stage. If we are unable to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates in one or more indications and in a timely manner, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Our future success is heavily dependent on our ability to timely complete clinical trials, obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize our product candidates. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenses over the next several years will be devoted to the development of atacicept in our ongoing clinical trials of atacicept in patients with IgAN and LN, as well as our efforts to evaluate atacicept in MAU868 in kidney transplant recipients. In the near-term, we plan to prioritize and focus our current resources on our pivotal Phase 3 trial of atacicept in IgAN. As a result, we are delaying enrollment in the pivotal Phase 3 trial for LN and any commitment of resources to the MAU868 program.

We plan to invest significant efforts and financial resources in the research and development of our product candidates, which will require additional clinical development, evaluation of clinical, nonclinical and manufacturing activities, marketing approval from regulatory authorities, and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We are not permitted to market or promote our product candidates before we receive marketing approval from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such marketing approvals. Should our planned clinical development of atacicept in patients with IgAN and LN or MAU868 in kidney transplant recipients fail to be completed in a timely manner or at all, we will need to rely on clinical development of atacicept or MAU868 in additional indications, which will require more time and resources to obtain regulatory approval and proceed with commercialization, and may ultimately be unsuccessful. We cannot assure you that our planned clinical development programs for our product candidates will be completed in a timely manner, or at all, or that we will be able to obtain approval for atacicept or MAU868 from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. If we are unable to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates in one or more indications and in a timely manner, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. We have never completed a clinical trial or submitted a BLA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of nonclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of subsequent clinical trials. We have a limited operating history and to date have not demonstrated our ability to complete large scale clinical trials.

Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. For example, atacicept has been the subject of clinical trials by prior sponsors, including a Phase 2 trial in SLE, that missed its primary endpoint in the overall study population. In the future, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect and patient enrollment criteria. A number of companies in the biotechnology industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we or any potential future collaborator may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Any future delays or abandonment could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we cannot be certain that their results will support our proposed indications.

Our future clinical trials may not be successful. If any product candidate is found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for it and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in composition of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the dropout rate among clinical trial participants. Patients treated with

our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments and may be using other approved products or investigational new drugs, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidates. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates.

We do not know whether our clinical trials will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. If we are unable to bring our product candidates to market, our ability to create long-term shareholder value will be limited.

In addition, we may rely in part on nonclinical, clinical and quality data generated by CROs and other third parties for regulatory submissions. While we have or will have agreements governing these third parties’ services, we have limited influence over their actual performance. If these third parties do not make data available to us, or, if applicable, make regulatory submissions in a timely manner, our development programs may be significantly delayed, and we may need to conduct additional studies or collect additional data independently. In either case, our development costs would increase.

Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in nonclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret trial results as we do, and more trials could be required before we are able to submit an application seeking approval of our product candidates. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use, which may also limit commercial potential. Furthermore, the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval, which may lead to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, limiting or denying approval of a product candidate.

Delays in clinical trials are common and have many causes, and any delay could result in increased costs to us and jeopardize or delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commence product sales.

We may experience delays in clinical trials of our product candidates. Our planned clinical trials may not begin on time, have an effective design, enroll a sufficient number of participants, or be completed on schedule, if at all. Our clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled participants in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down development and approval processes and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues.

In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval.

Any delays in our clinical trials that occur as a result could shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize atacicept, MAU868 or any other product candidates and our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of atacicept, MAU868 or other product candidates could be significantly reduced. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Enrollment and retention of participants in clinical trials is an expensive and time-consuming process and could be made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control, including difficulties in identifying patients with IgAN, the availability of competitive products, and significant competition for recruiting participants in clinical trials.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical trials is critical to our success. We may encounter delays in enrolling, or be unable to enroll, a sufficient number of participants to complete any of our clinical trials, and even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of participants to complete any of our trials. In particular, as a result of the inherent difficulties in diagnosing IgAN, the availability of competitive products such as TARPEYO and FILSPARI, and the significant competition for recruiting the limited number of patients who have the diseases for which our product candidates are being developed, there may be delays in enrolling the participants we need to complete clinical trials on a timely basis, or at all. Although we have engaged certain third-party investigators to assist with participant enrollment, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain our relationships with such third parties or that such third parties will be successful in helping us identify patients.

Factors that may generally affect participant enrollment include:

In addition, if any significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our future clinical trials or other sponsor development programs of similar mechanism of action that may result in a drug class effect, it may make it more difficult for us to recruit patients to our clinical trials and participants may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates altogether. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of participants for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, which would increase our costs and have an adverse effect on our company.

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

We have limited financial and human resources, which has in the past and may in the future cause us to make prioritization and resource allocation decisions. For example, in January 2023, we announced our plan to prioritize and focus our current resources on the advancement of our pivotal Phase 3 trial of atacicept in IgAN. As a result, we delayed enrollment in the pivotal Phase 3 trial for LN and any commitment of resources to the MAU868 program. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

We may develop atacicept, MAU868 and potentially future product candidates, in combination with other therapies, which exposes us to additional risks.

We may develop atacicept, MAU868 and future product candidates in combination with one or more currently approved therapies. Even if atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we develop, were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States could revoke or modify approval of the therapy used in combination with our product candidate or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. This could result in our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We may also evaluate atacicept, MAU868 or any other future product candidates in combination with one or more other therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. We will not be able to market and sell atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. If the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States do not approve these other drugs or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with atacicept, MAU868 or any other product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market atacicept, MAU868 or any other product candidate we develop.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates in specific indications are based on estimates and third-party sources. If the market opportunities for atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidate we may develop, if and when approved, are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability might be materially and adversely affected.

Periodically, we make estimates regarding the incidence and prevalence of target patient populations for particular diseases based on various third-party sources and internally generated analysis and use such estimates in making decisions regarding our drug development strategy, including acquiring or in-licensing product candidates and determining indications on which to focus in nonclinical or clinical trials.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates in specific indications are based on estimates and third-party sources. These estimates may be inaccurate or based on imprecise data. For example, the total addressable market opportunity will depend on, among other things, acceptance of our drugs by the medical community and patient access, drug pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients in the addressable markets may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our drugs, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to. If the market opportunities for atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidate we may develop, if and when approved, are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve and sustain profitability might be materially and adversely affected.

Interim, initial, “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more participant data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data from our nonclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more participant data become available or as participants from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.

Further, others, including regulatory authorities, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of our particular program, the approvability or commercialization of our particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

If the interim, top-line, or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We face significant competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than us.

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our competitors include multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions. The current standard-of-care for IgAN consists of treatment with off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, to control blood pressure, or steroids with or without other immunosuppressive agents to non-specifically reduce inflammation. SGLT2 inhibitors, including AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, which is approved for chronic kidney disease, is becoming the standard-of-care in some geographies including the United States. Among emerging therapies, we consider our most direct competitors with respect to atacicept in IgAN to be approved products: the reformulated steroid from Calliditas Therapeutics AB, and endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist from Travere Therapeutics, Inc.; programs in Phase 3 clinical development: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Novartis, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Roche/Ionis; and the following companies with programs in Phase 2 of clinical development: Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, HI-Bio. Inc., Eladon Pharmaceuticals and DiaMedica Therapeutics, Inc.

In LN, prior to December 2020, there had been no approved therapies, and the standard-of-care has consisted of a number of non-specific therapies, including MMF, steroids, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, and hydroxychloroquine, dependent on class of disease and whether a patient was cycling through the induction or maintenance phase of therapy. Paradigms are evolving with the FDA approvals of GlaxoSmithKline plc’s Benlysta (belimumab) and Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Lupkynis (voclosporin), both of which we consider to be direct competitors. Our competitors include: Roche Holding AG, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and AstraZeneca, each of which have programs in Phase 3 clinical development; and BeiGene Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, Alexion, Omeros Corporation, Kezar Life Science Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Amgen Inc. and Novartis, each of which have programs in Phase 2 clinical development.

In the kidney transplant or HSCT setting, there are currently no anti-BKV therapies approved. The standard of care in both settings is to reduce immunosuppression as a first line, and potentially to offer intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) in kidney transplant recipients or antivirals with limited clinical evidence, including leflunomide and cidofovir, in either setting. There are few industry sponsored programs in development for these indications; for example, Memo Therapeutics AG’s MTX-005, a monoclonal antibody targeting BKV is in Phase 1 clinical trials.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, human and other resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market technologically superior products. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking nonclinical studies and human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical

products and in obtaining regulatory approvals of human therapeutic products. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA or comparable approval for superior products. Many of our competitors have established distribution channels for the commercialization of their products, whereas we have no such channel or capabilities. In addition, many competitors have greater name recognition and more extensive collaborative relationships. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we do or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their products. If we are unable to compete effectively against these companies, then we may not be able to commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates or achieve a competitive position in the market. This would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue. Our competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and participant registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Changes in methods of manufacturing or formulation of our product candidates may result in additional costs or delays.

As our product candidates progress through preclinical to late-stage clinical trials to marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, and manufacturing sites are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield, manufacturing batch size, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and generate revenue.

Risks related to regulatory approval and other legal compliance matters

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions.

Applications for atacicept or MAU868 could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, even if we obtain approval of our product candidates for a lead indication, regulatory authorities may not approve them for other indications, may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings, or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Certain regulatory authorities may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or may approve them with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for successful commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, if we are unable to obtain regulatory approval, or if regulatory approval results in a limited label, our business, financial condition, results of operation and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Even if approved, our product candidates may not achieve adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may not gain adequate market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates would depend on a number of factors, including:

Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and accessible to patients. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare professionals, government agencies, regulatory authorities or private insurers will determine that our product is safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidate is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by such parties, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from such product candidate and may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability.

Our business entails a significant risk of product liability and if we are unable to obtain sufficient insurance coverage, such inability could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our business exposes us to significant product liability risks inherent in the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic treatments. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in

marketing products, such claims could result in an FDA or other regulatory authority investigation of the safety and effectiveness of our product, our manufacturing processes and facilities or our marketing programs. FDA or other regulatory authority investigations could potentially lead to a recall of our product or more serious enforcement action, limitations on the approved indications for which it may be used or suspension or withdrawal of approvals. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may also result in decreased demand for our product, injury to our reputation, costs to defend the related litigation, a diversion of management’s time and our resources and substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients. We currently have product liability insurance that we believe is appropriate for our stage of development and may need to obtain higher levels prior to marketing any product candidate, if approved. Any insurance we have or may obtain may not provide sufficient coverage against potential liabilities. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses caused by product liability claims that could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our product candidates may cause significant adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that may result in a safety profile that could inhibit regulatory approval, prevent market acceptance, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with the use of atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany previously conducted APRIL-LN, a study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atacicept in patients with active LN, receiving newly initiated CS and MMF. Two weeks before the initiation of atacicept, significant decreases in immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels began unexpectedly with initiation of MMF and high-dose CS, and persisted upon initiation of atacicept, which led to trial termination. The drug-related side effects could affect participant recruitment or the ability of enrolled participants to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If product candidates we develop are associated with undesirable side effects or have unexpected characteristics in nonclinical studies or clinical trials when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. Treatment-related side effects could also affect participant recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete a trial, or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Participants in our ongoing and planned clinical trials may in the future suffer significant adverse events or other side effects not observed in our nonclinical studies or previous clinical trials. Our product candidates may be used as chronic therapies or be used in pediatric populations, for which safety concerns may be particularly scrutinized by regulatory authorities. In addition, if atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop, are used in combination with other therapies, atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop may exacerbate adverse events associated with the therapy and it may not be possible to determine whether it was caused by our product or the one with which it was combined. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation, chemotherapy or other treatments, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidates, but may still impact the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of patients with advanced disease in our clinical trials may result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to other therapies or medications that such patients may be using or due to the gravity of such patients’ illnesses.

If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our current or future clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting participants to the clinical trials, participants may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of that product candidate altogether. We, the FDA, other comparable regulatory authorities or an IRB or Ethics Committee may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance due to its tolerability versus other therapies. Any of these developments could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Further, toxicities associated with our products not seen during clinical testing may also develop after any approval, if obtained, and lead to a requirement to conduct additional clinical safety trials, additional contraindications, warnings and precautions being added to the drug label, significant restrictions on the use of the product or the withdrawal of the product from the market. We cannot predict whether our product candidates will cause toxicities in humans that would preclude or lead to the revocation of regulatory approval based on nonclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. For example, even if the FDA or other foreign regulatory authority grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the marketing approval of the product candidate in their countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our product is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product in certain countries. If we or any future collaborator fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Even if any product candidate we develop receives regulatory approval, it could be subject to significant post-marketing regulatory requirements and will be subject to continued regulatory oversight.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the marketed product, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS in order to approve atacicept or MAU868, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician training and communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authorities approve atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we develop in the future, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as on-going compliance with cGMPs and GCP for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory authority discover previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. In addition, failure to comply with FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory requirements may subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize atacicept, MAU868, or any product candidate we may develop in the future, and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we may develop in the future. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. If these actions impose constraints on FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, it may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are currently seeking orphan drug designation for atacicept for the treatment of IgAN, but even if designated we may not ultimately realize the potential benefits of orphan drug designation.

We are currently seeking orphan drug designation from the FDA for atacicept for the treatment of IgAN. We are required to provide evidence that IgAN meets the orphan criteria as specified by the FDA and the EU. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States but where there is no reasonable expectation to recover the costs of developing and marketing a treatment drug in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and application fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. However, orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time nor regulatory review time of a product candidate nor gives the candidate any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity for the orphan patient population. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may also be unavailable if we or our collaborators seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care.

Similarly, in the EU, a medicinal product may receive orphan designation under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000. This applies to products that are intended for a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition and either (1) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (2) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would be unlikely to generate sufficient returns in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development. Moreover, in order to obtain orphan designation in the EU it is necessary to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or, if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a 10-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify continued market exclusivity. In addition, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period of market exclusivity on an individual basis in very select cases, such as with consent from the marketing authorization holder, if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the authorized product or if the

second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products.

If we do not receive or maintain orphan drug designation for atacicept for the treatment of IgAN, it could limit our ability to realize revenues.

Even though MAU868 has Fast Track designation from FDA for the prevention of BK viremia in renal transplant and hematopoietic stem cell transplant, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and will not increase the likelihood that MAU868 will receive marketing approval.

If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need, the product may qualify for FDA Fast Track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Although we have received Fast Track designation for the investigation of MAU868 for the prevention of BK viremia in renal transplant and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may attempt to secure approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of accelerated approval pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw any accelerated approval.

We may in the future seek an accelerated approval for atacicept, MAU868 or future product candidates we may develop. For example, if the results from our Phase 3 trial of atacicept in patients with IgAN are positive, we may seek accelerated approval with the FDA based on this trial, which we may not be granted. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. For example, UPCR is an accepted surrogate primary endpoint for clinical trials in IgAN, which could allow for a faster path to commercialization than rate of change/slope in eGFR. We may seek accelerated approval based on the UPCR endpoint. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. Use of the accelerated approval pathway would entail submission of a BLA under Subpart E of the FDA regulations with week 36 UPCR surrogate endpoint data while completing the Phase 3 trial to collect eGFR data to demonstrate improvement in kidney function. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to complete ongoing trials and/or conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verity and describe the drug’s clinical benefit and to report regulatory to the FDA on progress on such trials. Additionally, unless and until converted to full approval at the time of satisfying the conditions of any accelerated approval letter, the sponsor must submit any promotional materials for the accelerated approval drug to FDA at least 30 days prior to use. Third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage or reimbursement for the drug until the confirmatory studies are complete. Additionally, if such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug.

Prior to seeking accelerated approval for atacicept or MAU868, we intend to seek feedback from the FDA and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA, for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent FDA feedback we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or receive an expedited regulatory designation (e.g., breakthrough therapy designation) for atacicept, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for atacicept or MAU868 would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of atacicept or MAU868 and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Biosimilars to our product candidates may provide competition sooner than anticipated.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act), signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

In the European Union, upon receiving a marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and ten years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until ten years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. In the EU, there is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided in support of an application for marketing authorization. Guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product.

If any approved products are subject to biosimilar competition sooner than we expect, we will face significant pricing pressure and our commercial opportunity will be limited.

Any product candidate we develop may become subject to unfavorable third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, as well as pricing regulations.

We intend to seek approval to market atacicept and MAU868 in both the United States, in the EU and in certain foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for atacicept or MAU868, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the EU, the pricing of drugs is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of atacicept or MAU868. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of a product candidate will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for the product candidate and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

The availability and extent of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers, managed care organizations and other third-party payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. If we obtain marketing approval of a product candidate, sales of such product will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of the product will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at inadequate levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidates we develop. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize an adequate return on our investment. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing

approval. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, for example, principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private third-party payors often follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement to a substantial degree. However, one third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product candidate does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product candidate. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. As a result, the coverage determination process is often time-consuming and costly. This process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Governmental payors, as well as other third-party payors, including pharmacy benefit managers, have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular products and requiring substitutions of generic products and/or biosimilars. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Further, such payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of medical product candidates. There may be especially significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific product candidates on an approved list, known as a formulary, which might not include all FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of our product. Nonetheless, atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop. In many countries, particularly the countries of the EU, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study that compares the cost-effectiveness of atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. In December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the EU. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 will apply as of January 2025. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation will permit EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix

their own prices for products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for any product that we commercialize may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

If we are unable to establish or sustain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any product candidates that we commercialize from third-party payors, the adoption of those products and potential sales revenue would be adversely affected, which, in turn, could adversely affect the ability to market or sell those product candidates, if approved. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for a product for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

We may face difficulties from changes to current regulations and future legislation.

Existing regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, 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, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability.

For example, the Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of January 1, 2019) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Moreover, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021 and remained open through August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. Further, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges in the future. It is also unclear how any healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will affect the Affordable Care Act and our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. In addition, Congress is considering additional health reform measures.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the

relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, in July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although the Medicare drug price negation program is currently subject to legal challenges. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has issued and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but it is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. On February 14, 2023, in response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. 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 if that will continue under the new framework. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement-constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, the IRA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in 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, achieve and sustain profitability or commercialize atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidates we may develop.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for biotechnology products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of any product candidates we develop, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

In addition, FDA and comparable foreign regulations and guidance may be revised or reinterpreted by the competent authorities in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or guidance, or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations or guidance, may impose additional costs or lengthen review times for atacicept, MAU868 or future product candidates we may develop. We cannot determine how changes in regulations, statutes, policies, or interpretations when and if issued, enacted or adopted, may affect our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require:

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the clinical trial approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials in relation to which application for approval was made on the basis of the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. The CTR will apply to clinical trials from an earlier

date if the related clinical trial application was made on the basis of the CTR or if the clinical trial has already transitioned to the CTR framework before January 31, 2025. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. In light of the entry into application of the CTR on January 31, 2022, we may be required to transition clinical trials for which we have obtained regulatory approvals in accordance with the CTD to the regulatory framework of the CTR. Transition of clinical trials governed by the CTD to the CTR will be required for clinical trials which will have at least one site active in the E.U. on January 30, 2025. A transitioning application would need to be submitted to the competent authorities of E.U. Member States through the Clinical Trials Information Systems and related regulatory approval obtained to continue the clinical trial past January 30, 2025. This would require financial, technical and human resources. If we are unable to transition our clinical trials in time, the conduct of those clinical trials may be negatively impacted. It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU in the future. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK MHRA launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023 confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation. These resulting legislative amendments will determine how closely the UK regulations will align with the CTR. Failure of the UK to closely align its regulations with the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization for the Company's product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the United Kingdom.

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Such changes would likely require substantial time and impose significant costs, or could reduce the potential commercial value of atacicept, MAU868 or future product candidates we may develop, and could materially harm our business and our financial results. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for any other products would harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs and third-party payors in connection with our current and future business activities may be subject to federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws, which could expose us to, among other things, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, exclusion from governmental healthcare programs, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare professionals and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our product for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Some state and foreign laws require biotechnology companies to comply with the biotechnology industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare professionals or marketing expenditures. Some state and foreign laws require biotechnology companies to report information on the pricing of certain drug products. Some state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Outside the United States, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are also governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians and other healthcare professionals to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals are governed by strict laws, such as national anti-bribery laws of European countries, national sunshine rules, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. Infringement of related laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians and other healthcare professionals in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians and other healthcare professionals may require prior notification or approval by the physician’s or other health care professional’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve on-going substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, or comparable foreign programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare professionals or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

We are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations and rules, contractual obligations, industry standards, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class claims) and mass arbitration demands; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business consequences.

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and

confidential business information, trade secrets, intellectual property, information we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials, and sensitive third-party information (collectively, sensitive information). Our data processing activities subject us to numerous obligations relating to data privacy and security, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual obligations and other obligations relating to data privacy and security.

Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations and industry standards govern data privacy and security. For example, the EU GDPR and UK GDPR (collectively, GDPR), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Australia’s Privacy Act, India’s Information Technology Act, and South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act impose strict requirements for processing of personal data, including clinical trials participants and other individuals. For instance, companies that violate the GDPR can face private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests, temporary or definitive prohibitions on data processing and other corrective actions, fines of up to the greater of 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR / 17.5 million pounds under the UK GDPR, or 4% of their worldwide annual revenue, whichever is higher.

In addition, we may be unable to transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries due to data localization requirements or limitations on cross-border data flows. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework). These mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as the EEA and/or UK) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data out of the EEA for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators individual litigants and activist groups.

In the United States federal, state and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), other similar laws (e.g. wiretapping laws). For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

Additionally, in the past few years, numerous U.S. states—including California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah—have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA,=), (collectively, the CCPA), applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires covered businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA also provides for fines of up to $7,500 per violation and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data under the CCPA, the CCPA increases compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. While these states, like the CCPA, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely.

Our employees and personnel use generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to perform their work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in generative AI technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations. Governments have passed and are likely to pass additional laws regulating generative AI. Our use of this technology could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and lawsuits. If we are unable to use generative AI, it could make our business less efficient and result in competitive disadvantages.

In addition to data privacy and security laws, we are contractually subject to industry standards adopted by industry groups and may become subject to such obligations in the future. We are also bound by other contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful.

We also publish privacy policies, marketing materials, and other statements, such as compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, regarding data privacy and security. If these policies, materials, or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators, or other adverse consequences.

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumers’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs that are likely to increase over time, may require us to modify our information processing practices and policies, divert resources from other initiatives and projects, including increased costs related to insurance, cybersecurity and information technology, and could restrict the way products and services involving data are offered, all of which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our effort to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites) may fail (or be perceived to have failed) to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or our third-party partners fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences. These consequences may include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-related claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process sensitive information or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or commercialization efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Our business activities may be subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws of other countries in which we operate, as well as U.S. and certain foreign export controls, trade sanctions, and import laws and regulations. Compliance with these legal requirements could limit our ability to compete in foreign markets and subject us to liability if we violate them.

If we expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate. The FCPA generally prohibits companies and their employees and third-party intermediaries from offering, promising, giving or authorizing the provision of anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action or otherwise obtain or retain

business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls.

Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, hospitals owned and operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees would be considered foreign officials under the FCPA. Recently the SEC and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents or contractors, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers or our employees, disgorgement, and other sanctions and remedial measures, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our product in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international activities, our ability to attract and retain employees and our business.

In addition, our product and activities may be subject to U.S. and foreign export controls, trade sanctions and import laws and regulations. Governmental regulation of the import or export of our product, or our failure to obtain any required import or export authorization for our product, when applicable, could harm our international sales and adversely affect our revenue. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the export of our product may create delays in the introduction of our product in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our product to some countries altogether. Furthermore, U.S. export control laws and economic sanctions prohibit the shipment of certain products and services to countries, governments, and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. If we fail to comply with export and import regulations and such economic sanctions, penalties could be imposed, including fines and/or denial of certain export privileges. Moreover, any new export or import restrictions, new legislation or shifting approaches in the enforcement or scope of existing regulations, or in the countries, persons, or product targeted by such regulations, could result in decreased use of our product by, or in our decreased ability to export our product to existing or potential customers with international operations. Any decreased use of our product or limitation on our ability to export or sell access to our product would likely significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are subject to various laws relating to foreign investment and the export of certain technologies, and our failure to comply with these laws or adequately monitor the compliance of our suppliers and others we do business with could subject us to substantial fines, penalties and even injunctions, the imposition of which on us could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to U.S. laws that regulate foreign investments in U.S. businesses and access by foreign persons to technology developed and produced in the United States. These laws include Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018, and the regulations at 31 C.F.R. Parts 800 and 801, as amended, administered by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States; and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which is being implemented in part through Commerce Department rulemakings to impose new export control restrictions on “emerging and foundational technologies” yet to be fully identified. Application of these laws, including as they are implemented through regulations being developed, may negatively impact our business in various ways, including by restricting our access to capital and markets; limiting the collaborations we may pursue; regulating the export our products, services, and technology from the United States and abroad; increasing our costs and the time necessary to obtain required authorizations and to ensure compliance; and threatening monetary fines and other penalties if we do not.

Risks related to employee matters, managing our growth and other risks related to our business

Unfavorable geopolitical and global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy, the global financial markets, and adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic developments. U.S. and global market and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile due to many factors, including recent and potential future disruptions in access to bank deposits and lending commitments due to bank failures, supply chain challenges, ongoing military conflicts, related sanctions, changes in U.S.-China relations, increasing inflation rates and the responses by central banking authorities to control such inflation, among others. General business and economic conditions that could affect our business, financial condition or results of operations include fluctuations in economic growth, debt and equity capital markets, bank failures, liquidity of the global financial markets, the availability and cost of credit, investor and consumer confidence, and the strength of the economies in which we, our manufacturers and our suppliers operate.

A severe or prolonged global economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business. For example, inflation rates, particularly in the United States, have increased recently to levels not seen in years, and increased inflation may result in increases in our operating costs (including our labor costs), reduced liquidity and limits on our ability to access credit or otherwise raise capital on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, the U.S. Federal Reserve has raised, and may again raise, interest rates in response to concerns about inflation, which, coupled with reduced government spending and volatility in financial markets may have the effect of further increasing economic uncertainty and heightening these risks. Recent bank failures have caused significant disruption in certain

companies’ access to bank deposits and lending commitments and may continue to do so. 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.

In response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the United States, United Kingdom and EU, along with others, imposed significant new sanctions and export controls against Russia, Russian banks and certain Russian individuals and may implement additional sanctions or take further punitive actions in the future. The full economic and social impact of the sanctions imposed on Russia (as well as possible future punitive measures that may be implemented), as well as the counter-measures imposed by Russia, in addition to the ongoing military conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which could conceivably expand into the surrounding region, remains uncertain; however, both the conflict and related sanctions have resulted and could continue to result in disruptions to trade, commerce, pricing stability, credit availability, supply chain continuity and reduced access to liquidity in both Europe and globally, and has introduced significant uncertainty into global markets. As a result, our business and results of operations, including conduct of global clinical trials with sites in eastern Europe and western Asia, may be adversely affected by the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia and related sanctions, particularly to the extent it escalates to involve additional countries, further economic sanctions or wider military conflict.

Tensions between the United States and China have increased over the past few years as a result of disputes in areas including trade policy, intellectual property, cybersecurity and data privacy, as well as due to geopolitical conflicts such as the war between Ukraine and Russia. We conduct manufacturing and clinical development activities in China. Any unfavorable government policies on cross-border relations or international trade, changes to law, executive orders, tariffs, treaties or trade agreements, or deterioration in U.S.-China relations or international trade may adversely affect the import or export of our drug candidates and materials required for manufacturing or otherwise delay our product development activities, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our success is highly dependent on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled executive officers and employees and key consultants.

To succeed, we must recruit, retain, manage and motivate qualified clinical, scientific, technical and management personnel, and we face significant competition for experienced personnel. We are highly dependent on the management, research and development, clinical, financial and business development expertise of our executive officers, as well as the other members of our scientific and clinical teams, including certain key consultants.

Furthermore, although we have employment offer letters with each of our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for all of our executives or employees. If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining qualified personnel, particularly at the management level, it could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. In particular, the loss of one or more of our executive officers could be detrimental to us if we cannot recruit suitable replacements in a timely manner. The competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the future success of our business. We could in the future have difficulty attracting experienced personnel to our company and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our employee recruitment and retention efforts.

Many of the other biotechnology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better prospects for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can discover, develop and commercialize atacicept, MAU868 or any other product candidate will be limited and the potential for successfully growing our business will be harmed.

If we are unable to establish sales or marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell or market atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we may develop in the future, we may not be able to successfully sell or market atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidate we may develop in the future that obtained regulatory approval.

In order to commercialize any product candidates, if approved, we must build marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services for each of the territories in which we may have approval to sell or market atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidate we may develop. We may not be successful in accomplishing these required tasks.

Establishing an internal sales or marketing team with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we may develop in the future will be expensive and time-consuming, and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities could adversely impact the commercialization of atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we may develop in the future that we obtain approval to market, if we do not have arrangements in place with third parties to provide such services on our behalf. Alternatively, if we choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third

parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems, we will be required to negotiate and enter into arrangements with such third parties relating to the proposed collaboration. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize atacicept, MAU868 or any product candidate we may develop in the future which may receive regulatory approval or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our approved product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

We have never commercialized a product candidate before and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize any products on our own or together with suitable collaborators.

As an organization, we have never commercialized a product candidate, and we currently have limited marketing and no sales force, market access or distribution capabilities. To achieve commercial success for a product candidate, which we may license to others, we will rely on the assistance and guidance of those collaborators. For any product candidates for which we retain commercialization rights, we will have to develop our own sales, marketing and supply organization or outsource these activities to a third party.

As an organization, we have never commercialized a product candidate. Factors that may affect our ability to commercialize our current or any future product candidate we may develop, on our own include recruiting and retaining adequate numbers of effective sales and marketing personnel, obtaining access to or educating adequate numbers of physicians on the benefits of our current or any future product candidates we may develop and other unforeseen costs associated with creating an independent sales and marketing organization. Developing a sales and marketing organization will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay the launch of atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidate we may develop. We may not be able to build an effective sales and marketing organization. If we are unable to build our own distribution and marketing capabilities or to find suitable partners for the commercialization of our current or any future product candidate we may develop, we may not generate revenues from such product candidate or be able to achieve or sustain profitability.

In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, we will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of December 31, 2023, we had 51 full-time employees, including 34 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, and as we continue to operate as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

In addition, we plan to conduct multiple clinical trials of atacicept for several different indications concurrently, as well as MAU868 for the treatment of BKV disease in kidney transplant recipients. Given the small size of our organization, we may encounter difficulties managing multiple clinical trials at the same time, which could negatively affect our ability to manage growth of our organization, particularly as we take on additional responsibility associated with being a public company. Our future financial performance and our ability to successfully develop and, if approved, commercialize, atacicept, MAU868 and any other future product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including key aspects of clinical development and manufacturing. We cannot assure you that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by third-party service providers is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain marketing approval of atacicept, MAU868 and any other future product candidates we may develop or otherwise advance our business. We cannot assure you that we will be able to manage our existing third-party service providers or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and/or engaging additional third-party service providers, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize atacicept, MAU868

and any other future product candidates we may develop and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes, fires or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our headquarters is located in Brisbane, California, in a region which in the past has experienced severe earthquakes and fires. If these earthquakes, fires, other natural disasters, terrorism and similar unforeseen events beyond our control prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our research facility, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. We do not have a disaster recovery or business continuity plan in place and may incur substantial expenses as a result of the absence or limited nature of our internal or third-party service provider disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, integral parties in our supply chain are operating from single sites, increasing their vulnerability to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and severe adverse events. If such an event were to affect our supply chain, it could have an adverse effect on our ability to conduct our clinical trials, our development plans and business.

Comprehensive tax reform legislation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

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, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Tax Act) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES Act) enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the Tax Act may affect us, and certain aspects of the Tax Act could be repealed or modified in future legislation. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was enacted which includes provisions that will affect the U.S. federal income taxation of corporations, including imposing a minimum tax on the book income of certain large corporations and an excise tax on certain corporate stock repurchases that would be imposed on the corporation repurchasing such stock. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to such legislation or any newly enacted federal tax legislation. Changes in corporate tax rates, the realization of net deferred tax assets relating to our operations, the taxation of foreign earnings, and the deductibility of expenses under the Tax Act or future 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. Among the changes made by the Tax Act was a reduction of the business tax credit for certain clinical testing expenses incurred in the testing of certain drugs for rare diseases or conditions generally referred to as “orphan drugs”. We continue to examine the impact this tax reform legislation may have on our business. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of the Tax Act and other past and potential future changes in U.S. tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

We have incurred losses during our history, we expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal and state net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards of $118.9 million and $35.7 million, respectively, that will begin expiring in the year 2032 and 2036, respectively, if not utilized. We also have $109.0 million of federal NOL carryforwards as of December 31, 2023, that do not expire as a result of recent tax law changes. Our NOL carryforwards are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. and state tax authorities. Our NOL carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future taxable income because of their limited duration or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. NOLs generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017 are only permitted to be carried forward for 20 taxable years under applicable U.S. federal tax law. NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021 may be carried back to each of the five tax years preceding the tax year of such loss, and NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 may not be carried back. Federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs is limited to 80% of current year taxable income. At the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. It is generally uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws.

In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a cumulative change in our ownership by “5-percent shareholders” that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and certain other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income and taxes may be limited. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We may have experienced such ownership changes in the past, and we may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. We have not conducted any studies to determine annual limitations, if any, that could result from such changes in the ownership. Our ability to utilize those NOLs could be limited by an “ownership change” as described above and consequently, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs and certain other tax attributes, which could have an adverse effect on our cash flows and results of operations.

A variety of risks associated with marketing our current or any future product candidate we may develop internationally could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We plan to seek regulatory approval of our current or any future product candidates we may develop outside of the United States and, accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries if we obtain the necessary approvals, including:

These and other risks associated with our international operations may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks related to our intellectual property

Our success depends on our ability to protect our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies.

Our commercial success depends in part on our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries for atacicept, MAU868, and any future product candidates that we may develop and technologies related to their various uses. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technologies, and their manufacture and uses that are important to our business, as well as inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications in both United States and certain foreign jurisdictions relate to atacicept, MAU868, and other products. There can be no assurance that the claims of our owned or in-licensed patents, or any patent application that issues as a patent, will exclude others from making, using or selling our product candidates or any future product candidates or products that are substantially similar to our product candidates or any future product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. We may seek to protect our proprietary position by acquiring or in-licensing additional relevant issued patents or pending applications from third parties. If we or our potential licensors, licensees or collaborators are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to atacicept, MAU868, and our other products, proprietary technologies and their uses, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be significantly harmed.

Pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. There can be no assurance that our owned or in-licensed patent applications or our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ patent applications will result in additional patents being issued or that issued patents will afford sufficient protection against competitors with similar technology, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around or invalidated by third parties.

Moreover, in the future, some of our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications may be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain exclusive licenses to any such co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, then such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

Even issued patents may later be found invalid or unenforceable or may be modified or revoked in proceedings instituted by third parties before various patent offices or in courts. Thus, the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain. Only limited protection may be available and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. These uncertainties and/or limitations in our ability to properly protect the intellectual property rights relating to atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We cannot be certain that the claims in our U.S. pending patent applications and corresponding international applications will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in our issued patent(s) will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

The patent prosecution process is also expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection, for example, if patentable aspects are publicly disclosed, by us or a third party, such as by public use, sale or offer for sale, or publication.

In addition, although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Further, although we require our employees, commercial contractors, and certain consultants and investigators to enter into invention assignment agreements that grant us ownership of any discoveries or inventions made by them while in our employ, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach such agreements and claim ownership in intellectual property that we believe is owned or in-licensed by us. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or any licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. Should any of the above events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we breach our license agreement with Ares, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, related to atacicept, or the license agreement with Novartis related to MAU868, we could lose the ability to continue the development and commercialization of atacicept or MAU868, respectively.

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology licensed or sublicensed to us from Ares and Novartis. Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our and our licensor’s proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Either Ares or Novartis may have the right to terminate the applicable license agreement in full in the event we materially breach or default in the performance of any of the obligations under the applicable license agreement. A termination of either license agreement could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Additionally, certain patents, know-how and proprietary technology of third parties, including certain composition of matter patents, are sublicensed to us and in the event the applicable license agreement terminates, expires or is in dispute, it could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Disputes may also arise between us and Ares, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Novartis, or any future potential licensors, regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

In addition, we acquired worldwide, exclusive rights to atacicept pursuant to the Ares Agreement, and worldwide, exclusive rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize MAU868 pursuant to the Amplyx Agreement, pursuant to which we acquired Amplyx’s right, title and interest in the license agreement between Amplyx and Novartis related to MAU868 (the Novartis Agreement). The Ares Agreement and Novartis Agreement are complex, and certain provisions may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under such agreement, either of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangement on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.

We may be required to make significant payments under our license agreements related to atacicept and MAU868.

Under the Ares Agreement, in consideration for the license, we issued shares of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock to Ares at the time of the initial closing of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock financing, which automatically converted into 1,913,501 shares of our common stock upon the closing of our IPO. As additional consideration for the license, we paid Ares $25.0 million upon delivery and initiation of the transfer of specified information and materials and we are required to pay Ares aggregate milestone payments of up to $176.5 million upon the achievement of specified BLA filing or regulatory approval and aggregate milestone payments of up to $515.0 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. Commencing on the first commercial sale of licensed products, we are obligated to pay tiered royalties of low double-digit to mid-teen percentages on annual net sales of the products covered by the license. In the event we sublicense our rights under the Ares Agreement, we are obligated to pay Ares a percentage ranging from the mid-single-digit to the low double-digits of specified sublicensing income received.

Under the Amplyx Agreement, we made an upfront initial payment of $5.0 million. We are also obligated to make certain milestone payments to Amplyx in an aggregate amount of up to $7.0 million based on the achievement of certain regulatory milestones. Further, we are required to pay Amplyx low single digit percentage royalties on net sales of MAU868 on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. In addition, pursuant to the Novartis Agreement, we are obligated to make certain milestone payments to Novartis in an aggregate amount of up to $62.0 million based on the achievement of certain clinical development, regulatory and sales milestones. Further, we are required to pay Novartis mid-to high-single digit percentage royalties based on net sales of MAU868 on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. If milestone or other non-royalty obligations become due,

we may not have sufficient funds available to meet our obligations, which will adversely affect our business operations and financial condition.

If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies generally are highly uncertain, involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unsolved and have been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect atacicept or MAU868 or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, many countries restrict the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Legal standards relating to valid and enforceable claim scope are unsettled in the United States and elsewhere and disputes challenging or re-defining scope are common in the biopharmaceutical industry. Even if patent applications we own or in-license currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we own or in-license may be challenged or circumvented by third parties or may be narrowed or invalidated as a result of challenges by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether atacicept, or MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad.

The process by which patent applications are examined and considered for issuance as patents involves consideration by the relevant patent office of “prior art” relative to the invented technology. Different countries have different rules about what information or events can be considered “prior art,” and different requirements regarding when a patent application must be filed relative to any particular piece of potential prior art. Moreover, legal decisions can re-interpret or change whether particular information or events are considered to be “prior art.” Still further, in the United States, patent applicants are required to notify the USPTO of any material “prior art” of which they are aware for the patent examiner to consider in addition to independent searches that the patent examiner is required to do. Also, in the United States and certain other jurisdictions, third parties are entitled to submit prior art to patent offices for consideration during examination.

We may not be aware of certain relevant prior art, may fail to identify or timely cite certain prior art, or may not be able to convince a patent examiner that our patent(s) should issue in light of the art. Also, we cannot be certain that all relevant art will be or was identified during examination of a patent application so that, even if a patent issues, it may be susceptible to challenge that it is not valid over art that was not considered during its examination.

We may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or other jurisdictions, or become involved in post-grant challenges such as opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR), or other similar proceedings, or in litigation, challenging our patent rights, including by challenging the validity or the claim of priority of our patents. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop and compete directly with us, without payment to us. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, including art of which we were unaware, and art which was not raised during prosecution of any of our patents or patent applications. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our technology or platform, or any product candidates that we may develop. Such a loss of patent protection would significantly impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop, or commercialize current or future product candidates or could embolden competitors to launch products or take other steps that could disadvantage us in the marketplace or draw us into additional expensive and time consuming disputes. Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. Claims by third parties that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their proprietary rights may result in liability for damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringement, misappropriation or other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. A finding by a court or administrative body that we infringe the claims of issued patents owned by third parties could preclude us from commercializing atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop.

Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop and products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology industry, including patent infringement lawsuits, and proceedings, such as oppositions, reexaminations, IPR proceedings and PGR proceedings, before the USPTO and/or corresponding foreign patent offices. In addition, many companies in intellectual property-dependent industries, including the biotechnology industry, have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications may exist in the fields in which we are developing atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop.

It is possible that one or more organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need a license. If those organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights on reasonable terms, we may be unable to develop, manufacture, market, sell and commercialize products or services or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents. In the event that any of these patents were to issue and be asserted against us, we believe that we would have defenses against any such assertion, including that such patents are not valid. However, if such defenses to such assertion were unsuccessful, we could be liable for damages, which could be significant and include treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to willfully infringe such patents. We could also be required to obtain a license to such patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain such a license, we could be precluded from commercializing any product candidates that were ultimately held to infringe such patents.

As the biotechnology industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop, may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties. Because patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time, until the relevant application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop, and we cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or technology. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop may infringe. In addition, identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe is relevant to our business, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Still further, we cannot rely on our experience that third parties have not so far alleged that we infringe their patent rights, as provisions of U.S. patent laws provide a safe harbor from patent infringement for therapeutic products under clinical development.

Any claims of patent infringement, misappropriation or other violations asserted by third parties would be time consuming and could:

Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages or seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to our products, or processes could subject us to significant liability for damages, including treble damages if we were determined to willfully infringe, and require us to obtain a license to manufacture or market atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Moreover, even if we or a future strategic partner were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. In addition, we cannot be certain that we could redesign atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop processes to avoid infringement, if necessary.

An adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity and could prohibit us from marketing or otherwise commercializing atacicept, MAU868, and future product candidates and technologies.

Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have an adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for future product candidates we may develop through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Because our development programs may in the future require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these third-party proprietary rights.

While we may have in-licensed patents that cover atacicept and MAU868, it is possible that third parties may have blocking patents that prevent us from marketing, manufacturing or commercializing our patented products and practicing our in-licensed patented technology.

We may be unsuccessful in acquiring or in-licensing compositions, methods of use, processes, or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for practicing inventions claimed by our patents, including the manufacture, sale and use of atacicept, MAU868, and any future product candidates we may develop. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Competitors or other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement or other intellectual property claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent we may in-license in the future or own is not valid, is unenforceable, and/or is not infringed, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our owned or in-licensed patents do not cover the technology in question. If we or any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, written description, non-enablement, or obviousness-type double patenting. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we may lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such product candidate. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Our business could be harmed if in litigation the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings.

Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our common shares to decline.

During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing products, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of shares of our common stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future products, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Derivation proceedings may be necessary to determine priority of inventions, and an unfavorable outcome may require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights from the prevailing party.

Derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with such proceedings could have an adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates to market. Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our patents.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involve a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Our ability to obtain patents is highly uncertain because, to date, some legal principles remain unresolved, and there has not been a consistent policy regarding the breadth or interpretation of claims allowed in patents in the United States. Furthermore, the specific content of patents and patent applications that are necessary to support and interpret patent claims is highly uncertain due to the complex nature of the relevant legal, scientific, and factual issues. Changes in either patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Further, the United States has enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patent and the patents we might obtain or license in the future. For example, recent decisions raise questions regarding the award of patent term adjustment (“PTA”) for patents in families where related patents have issued without PTA. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty how PTA will or will not be viewed in the future and whether patent expiration dates may be impacted. An inability to obtain, enforce, and defend patents covering our proprietary technologies (including atacicept and MAU868) would adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition.

Similarly, changes in patent laws and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions, changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we may obtain in the future. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States and Europe. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. For example, if the issuance in a given country of a patent covering an invention is not followed by the issuance in other countries of patents covering the same invention, or if any judicial interpretation of the validity, enforceability or scope of the claims or the written description or enablement, in a patent issued in one country is not similar to the interpretation given to the corresponding patent issued in another country, our ability to protect our intellectual property in those countries may be limited. Changes in either patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may materially diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system took effect on June 1, 2023, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national

patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

It is possible that we do not transfer or perfect ownership of all patents, patent applications or other intellectual property. This possibility includes the risk that we do not identify all inventors, or identify incorrect inventors, which may lead to claims disputing inventorship or ownership of our patents, patent applications or other intellectual property by former employees or other third parties. There is also a risk that we do not establish an unbroken chain of title from inventors to us. Errors in inventorship or ownership can sometimes also impact priority claims. If we were to lose ability to claim priority for certain patent filings, intervening art or other events may preclude us from issuing patents.

Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Such an outcome could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. Generally, issued patents are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but there can be no assurance that any such extensions will be obtained, and the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. In certain instances, patent term can be adjusted to recapture a portion of delay by the USPTO in examining the patent application (patent term adjustment) or extended to account for term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period (patent term extension), or both. There is a risk that we may take action that detracts from any accrued patent term adjustment. Even if patents covering atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Our earliest in-licensed patents may expire before, or soon after, our first product achieves marketing approval in the United States or foreign jurisdictions. Upon the expiration of our current patents, we may lose the right to exclude others from practicing these inventions. The expiration of these patents could also have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our products for an adequate amount of time, and if we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar non-United States legislation for extending the term of patents covering each of our product candidates, our business may be significantly harmed.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, and similar legislation in the EU. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent may be extended per approved drug product, and only those claims covering the approved drug product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be impacted and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We will not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in

the United States. Consequently, we will not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These infringing products may compete with atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates we may develop, without any available recourse.

The laws of some other countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries. In addition, the legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biopharmaceuticals. As a result, many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. Because the legal systems of many foreign countries do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, it could be difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or violation of our patents or our licensors’ patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and other proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents or the patents of our licensors at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications or the patent applications of our licensors at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and related sanctions could significantly devalue our Russian and Eurasian patents. Recent Russian decrees may significantly limit our ability to enforce Russian patents. We cannot predict when or how this situation will change.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed.

In addition, recordation of licenses with respect to exclusively licensed patent rights outside of the United States is potentially costly and we might fail to record such rights timely. If we fail to timely record our patent rights, third parties may try to seek licenses from the patent owners, or we may not be able to recover full damages for patent infringement in jurisdictions where we have no such recordations, any of which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other requirements imposed by regulations and governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents and/or patent applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside patent annuity service to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be significantly harmed.

We intend to use registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names to brand and market ourselves and our products. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate

variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, any proprietary name we propose to use with our current or future products in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable proprietary product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects and competitive position would be significantly harmed.

In addition, we rely on the protection of our trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information to maintain our competitive position. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, including entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology or processes. Further, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, or claim ownership in intellectual property that we believe is owned or in-licensed by us. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced, and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized. Any of the foregoing could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets.

We have entered into and may enter in the future into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements to protect the proprietary positions of third parties, such as outside scientific collaborators, CROs, third-party manufacturers, consultants, advisors, potential partners, lessees of shared multi-company property and other third parties. Many of our employees and consultants were previously employed at, may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we seek to protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring that our agreements with our employees, collaborators and other third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring such parties to assign rights in inventions to 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. We may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our future patents or patent applications. Defense of such matters, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial litigation expense and be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions. Moreover, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity and could prohibit us from marketing or otherwise commercializing atacicept, MAU868, or any future product candidates or technologies we may develop. Failure to defend against any such claim could subject us to significant liability for monetary damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts, and cause us to lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team and other employees.

Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation more effectively than we can. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting

from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have an adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

We may enter into license agreements in the future with others to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories included in our licenses.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under any such license agreements, including obligations to make various milestone payments and royalty payments and other obligations, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. If these agreements are terminated, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business, be liable for any damages to such licensors or be prevented from developing and commercializing our product candidates, and competitors could have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may also result in our being required to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology, or impede, delay or prohibit the further development or commercialization of one or more product candidates that rely on such agreements. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain any additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our product candidates or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis.

In addition, subject to the terms of any such license agreements, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution, maintenance, enforcement and defense of patents and patent applications covering the technology that we license from third parties. In such an event, we cannot be certain that these patents and patent applications will be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, enforced and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including the payment of all applicable fees for patents covering our product candidates. If our licensors fail to prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products that are subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected. Further, we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, even where we have the right to control the prosecution of patents and patent applications we have licensed to and from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by the actions or inactions of our licensees, our licensors and their counsel that took place prior to the date upon which we assumed control over patent prosecution.

Our licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have an adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may need to obtain additional licenses from existing licensors and others to advance our research or allow commercialization of product candidates we develop. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our current technology, manufacturing methods, product candidates, or future methods or products resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or future sales, or, with respect to our future sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties, which could be significant. Should any of these events occur, it could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

Disputes may arise between us and our past, current or future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

In addition, the agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. This could significantly harm our competitive position, business, financial condition and prospects.

Intellectual property discovered through government funded programs may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

We may develop, acquire, or license intellectual property rights that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the U.S. government has certain rights in inventions developed with government funding. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as march-in rights). If the U.S. government exercised its march-in rights in our future intellectual property rights that are generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants, we could be forced to license or sublicense intellectual property developed by us or that we license on terms unfavorable to us, and there can be no assurance that we would receive compensation from the U.S. government for the exercise of such rights. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks related to our dependence on third parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and CROs, to conduct certain aspects of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize atacicept, MAU868 or future product candidates we may develop and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be significantly harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third-party CROs, to conduct certain aspects of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing nonclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials 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 third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for atacicept and MAU868 in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional 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 product produced under cGMP regulations. Failure to comply and maintain adequate documentation with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be adversely affected if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Further, these investigators and CROs are not our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to atacicept or MAU868 and clinical trials. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of atacicept or MAU868, or if CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize atacicept or MAU868. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for atacicept and MAU868 would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed or precluded entirely, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be significantly harmed.

Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated. In addition, our CROs could fail to perform, we could terminate their agreements or they could go out of business. If our relationships with our CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus, and could delay development and commercialization of atacicept, MAU868 or any future product candidate we may develop. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can negatively impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a negative impact on our business and financial condition.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Additionally, CROs may lack the capacity to absorb higher workloads or take on additional capacity to support our needs. There can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays with CROs in the future or that these delays or challenges will not significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Prior to obtaining the rights to MAU868 from Amplyx, third parties had been responsible for all development activities. Although we believe the historical development activities were conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations in material respects, we cannot assure you that we will not discover inaccuracies or noncompliance in prior development activities that have an adverse effect on the future development of MAU868. For example, a regulatory authority may choose to inspect an investigational site and/or vendor such as a CRO for an MAU868 study that was previously conducted by Amplyx. Findings from such inspections could have an impact on the review of any future marketing applications by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities.

In connection with our acquisition of MAU868, we have assumed the responsibility for ongoing clinical studies with MAU868, including related expenses and manufacturing and regulatory activities, which were previously managed and funded by Amplyx. This includes responsibility for the Phase 2 clinical trial of MAU868 for the treatment of BKV infection in kidney transplant recipients previously conducted by Amplyx. Any adverse events or reactions experienced by subjects in the trial may be attributed to MAU868 and may limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval with labeling that we consider desirable, or at all.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of atacicept and MAU868 drug products for our ongoing clinical trials, and expect to continue to do so for additional clinical trials of our product candidates and ultimately for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of atacicept, MAU868 or other product candidates necessary for the development or commercialization of atacicept, MAU868 or such other product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not currently have the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture supplies of our product candidates for use in development and commercialization. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers for the production of our product candidates for clinical trials under the guidance of members of our organization. We do not have long-term commercial supply agreements for atacicept or MAU868. Furthermore, the raw materials for our product candidates are sourced, in some cases, from a single-source supplier. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of our product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers for the commercial supply of our product candidates, if we obtain marketing approval. We may be unable to maintain or establish required agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

We have limited control over the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing both active drug substances and finished drug products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, have limited control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates, or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. We, or our contract manufacturers, any future collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMP. Despite our efforts to audit and verify regulatory compliance, one or more of our third-party manufacturing vendors may be found on regulatory inspection by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to be noncompliant with cGMP regulations. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including shutdown of the third-party vendor or invalidation of drug product lots or processes, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension, variation or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or other drugs necessary for the development or commercialization of our product candidates and significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Furthermore, if the third-party providers of therapies or therapies in development used in combination with our product candidates are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization of our product candidates, or if the

cost of combination therapies are prohibitive, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or other drugs necessary for the development or commercialization of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

The manufacture of drugs is complex and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If any of our third-party manufacturers encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide adequate supply of our product candidates for clinical trials or our product for patients, if approved, could be delayed or prevented.

Manufacturing drugs, especially in large quantities, is complex and may require the use of innovative technologies. Each lot of an approved drug product must undergo thorough testing for identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. Manufacturing drugs requires facilities specifically designed for and validated for this purpose, and sophisticated quality assurance and quality control procedures are necessary. Slight deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process, including filling, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping and quality control and testing, may result in lot failures, product recalls or spoilage. When changes are made to the manufacturing process, we may be required to provide nonclinical and clinical data showing the comparable identity, strength, quality, purity or potency of the products before and after such changes. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered at the facilities of our manufacturer, such facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could delay clinical trials and significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The use of biologically derived ingredients can also lead to allegations of harm, including infections or allergic reactions, or closure of product facilities due to possible contamination. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization as a result of these challenges, or otherwise, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we engage in future acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities, and subject us to other risks.

From time to time, we may evaluate various acquisition opportunities and strategic partnerships, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses. Any potential acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

In addition, if we undertake acquisitions or pursue partnerships in the future, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities, and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

We may enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. If those collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of atacicept or MAU868.

In the future, we may partner with third-party collaborators for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any future collaboration arrangements would likely include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies.

We will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. Collaborations involving our product candidates could pose numerous risks to us, including the following:

If we decide to establish collaborations in the future, but are not able to establish those collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our current or any future product candidates we may develop will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We may continue to seek to selectively form collaborations to expand our capabilities, potentially accelerate research and development activities and provide for commercialization activities by third parties. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders, or disrupt our management and business.

If we seek collaborations in the future, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing drugs, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of intellectual property and industry and market conditions generally. The potential collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidates. Further, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a collaboration or other alternative arrangements for future product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view them as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Even if we are successful in entering into a collaboration, the

terms and conditions of that collaboration may restrict us from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators.

If and when we seek to enter into additional collaborations, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

Risks related to ownership of our common stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

The trading price of our common stock has been, and is likely to be, highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which we cannot control. For example, the closing price of our common stock from January 1, 2023 to March 20, 2024, has ranged from a low of $5.41 to a high of $49.14. The stock market in general, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report, these factors include:

In addition, the trading prices for common stock of other biotechnology companies have been highly volatile as a result of factors unrelated to the specific company or its technology. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a dramatic and adverse impact on the market price of our common stock.

Our business could be negatively affected as a result of actions of activist stockholders, and such activism could impact the trading value of our securities.

Stockholders may, from time to time, engage in proxy solicitations or advance stockholder proposals, or otherwise attempt to effect changes and assert influence on our board of directors and management. Activist campaigns that contest or conflict with our strategic direction or seek changes in the composition of our board of directors could have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition. A proxy contest would require us to incur significant legal and advisory fees, proxy solicitation expenses and administrative and associated costs and require significant time and attention by our board of directors and management, diverting their attention from the pursuit of our business strategy. Any perceived uncertainties as to our future direction and control, our ability to execute on our strategy, or changes to the composition of our board of directors or senior management team arising from a proxy contest could lead to the perception of a change in the direction of our business or instability which may result in the loss of potential business opportunities, make it more difficult to pursue our strategic initiatives, or limit our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel and business partners, any of which could adversely affect our business and operating results. If individuals are ultimately elected to our board of directors with a specific agenda, it may adversely affect our ability to effectively implement our business strategy and create additional value for our stockholders. We may choose to initiate, or may become subject to, litigation as a result of the proxy contest or matters arising from the proxy contest, which would serve as a further distraction to our board of directors and management and would require us to incur significant additional costs. In addition, actions such as those described above could cause significant fluctuations in our stock price based upon temporary or speculative market perceptions or other factors that do not necessarily reflect the underlying fundamentals and prospects of our business.

If we experience material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 404) requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and provide a management report on internal control over financial reporting. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also requires that our management report on internal control over financial reporting be attested to by our independent registered public accounting firm, to the extent we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and are not a non-accelerated filer. We do not expect our independent registered public accounting firm to attest to our management report on internal control over financial reporting for so long as we are an emerging growth company.

We have in the past and may in the future identify material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we identify any such material weaknesses, if we are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner, if we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or when required in the future, if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected, and we could become subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our outstanding voting stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

Our executive officers and directors, combined with our stockholders who own more than 5% of our outstanding capital stock, beneficially own a significant percentage of our outstanding voting stock. Therefore, these stockholders are able to significantly influence us through this ownership position. These stockholders may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents or approval of any merger, sale of assets or other major corporate transaction. This may 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. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with your interests or the interests of other 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 shares, and might affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

Our common stock price could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of common stock in the future or the perception that these sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, might also make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate.

As of December 31, 2023, there were 44,452,161 shares of Class A common stock outstanding and held of record by 23 stockholders. The number of record holders of our common stock does not include DTC participants or beneficial owners holding shares through nominee names. Subsequent to our follow-on public offering in February 2024, the resale of shares of common stock held by our officers and directors is currently prohibited or otherwise restricted until April 1, 2024, as a result of lock-up agreements entered into by our officers and directors with the underwriters in connection with such offering. The representatives of the underwriters may release some or all of the shares of common stock subject to lock-up agreements at any time in their sole discretion and without notice, which would allow for earlier sales of shares in the public market.

Further, certain holders of our common stock have rights, subject to certain conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering the sale of their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or our other stockholders. We have also registered all shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. Such shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

In addition, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock, or other equity or debt securities convertible into common stock, in connection with a financing, acquisition, employee arrangement or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to atacicept, MAU868 or future product candidates we may develop on unfavorable terms to us.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through public or private equity, debt financings or other sources, including up-front payments and milestone payments from strategic collaborations. For example, since our initial public offering, we have completed three follow-on public offerings of our common stock. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt or equity securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants, increased fixed payment obligations or other restrictions that may affect our business. If we raise additional funds through up-front payments or milestone payments pursuant to strategic collaborations with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to atacicept, MAU868 or future product candidates we may develop, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and a “smaller reporting company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of: (1) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have more than $1.235 billion in annual revenue; (2) the date we qualify as a “large accelerated filer,” with at least $700 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates; (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period; and (4) December 31, 2026. Based on our current public float, we anticipate that when we re-evaluate our filer status on June 30, 2024, we will determine that we qualify as a “large accelerated filer” for the year ending December 31, 2025.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have taken advantage of the extended transition period for adopting new or revised accounting standards under the JOBS Act as an emerging growth company. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates.

Pursuant to Section 404 we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including, if required by our filing status, an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However, while we remain an emerging growth company or a non-accelerated filer, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Additionally, we are also a “smaller reporting company,” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and will be able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures for so long as our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenue is less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter. Based on our current public float, we anticipate that when we re-evaluate our smaller reporting company status on June 30, 2024, we will determine that we no longer qualify a smaller reporting company for the year ending December 31, 2025.

Investors may find our common stock less attractive as a result of our reliance on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our common stock and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation of the value of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our equity securities. 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. In addition, the terms of the Loan Agreement restrict our ability to declare and pay dividends without the prior written consent of Oxford. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to any appreciation in the value of our common stock, which is not certain.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, 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. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), which prohibits a person who owns 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. These provisions could discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or prevent a change in control transaction. They could also have the effect of discouraging others from making tender offers for our common stock, including transactions that may be in your best interests. These provisions may also prevent changes in our management or limit the price that investors are willing to pay for our stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if and only if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any state court located within the State of Delaware or, if and only if all such state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) and any appellate court therefrom is the sole and exclusive forum for the following claims or causes of action under the Delaware statutory or common law:

This choice of forum provision would not apply to claims or causes of action brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

To prevent having to litigate claims in multiple jurisdictions and the threat of inconsistent or contrary rulings by different courts, among other considerations, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation further provides that the federal district courts of the

United States will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause or causes of action arising under the Securities Act, including all causes of action asserted against any defendant to such complaint. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision is intended to benefit and may be enforced by us, our officers and directors, the underwriters to any offering giving rise to such complaint, and any other professional entity whose profession gives authority to a statement made by that person or entity and who has prepared or certified any part of the documents underlying such offering. While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions. In such instance, we would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. This may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions and there can be no assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions.

These exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s 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 lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. If a court were to find the exclusive forum provision contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur further significant additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, all of which could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

General risk factors

If our information technology systems, or those of any of our third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites), or our data are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including but not limited to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; additional costs; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse consequences.

In the ordinary course of business, we and our third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites) process sensitive information.

As a result, we and our third-party partners are vulnerable to a variety of evolving threats that could cause security incidents. Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of our third-party partners. These threats are prevalent and continue to rise, are increasingly difficult to detect, and come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation states, and nation-state-supported actors.

Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we and our third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites) may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including retaliatory cyber-attacks that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our services.

We and our third-party partners may also be subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to errors or malfeasance by personnel, malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), software vulnerabilities, hacking, denial of service attacks, credential stuffing, social-engineering attacks (including deep fakes, which may be increasingly more difficult to identify as fake, and phishing attacks), ransomware attacks, supply-chain attacks, software bugs, server malfunctions, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, adware, attacks enhanced or facilitated by AI, telecommunications failures, earthquakes, fires, floods and other similar threats.

In particular, severe ransomware attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, ability to provide our products or services, loss of sensitive information and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments.

Remote work has become more common and has increased risks to our information technology systems and sensitive information, as more of our employees utilize network connections, computers, and devices outside our premises or network, including working at home, while in transit and in public locations. Additionally, future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies. Furthermore, we may discover security issues that were not found during due diligence of such acquired or integrated entities, and it may be difficult to integrate companies into our information technology environment and security program.

In addition, our reliance upon third-party partners and technologies to operate critical business systems and to process sensitive information could introduce new cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, including supply-chain attacks, and other threats to our business operations. We rely on third-party partners in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, third-party providers of

cloud-based infrastructure, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, content delivery to customers, and other functions. We also rely on third-party partners to provide other products, services, parts, or otherwise to operate our business. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ cybersecurity practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If our third-party partners experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if our third-party partners fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. In addition, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or our third-party partners’ supply chains have not been compromised.

While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. We take steps to detect, mitigate, and remediate vulnerabilities in our information systems (such as our hardware and/or software, including that of our third-party partners). We may not, however, detect and remediate all such vulnerabilities including on a timely basis. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures and patches designed to address identified vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities could be exploited and result in a security incident.

Any of the previously identified or similar threats could cause a security incident or other interruption that could result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to our sensitive information or our information technology systems, or those of the third-party partners. A security incident or other interruption could disrupt our ability (and that of our third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites)) to provide our products or services. We may expend significant resources or modify our business activities (including our clinical trial activities) in an effort to protect against security incidents. Additionally, certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific security measures, industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and sensitive information.

Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, customers, regulators and investors, of security incidents. Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosures or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. If we or our third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences. These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing information (including personal data); substantial remediation costs; litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; diversion of management attention; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms.

Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. We cannot be certain that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available to us on economically reasonable terms, or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

In addition to experiencing a security incident, third parties may gather, collect, or infer sensitive information about us from public sources, data brokers, or other means that reveals competitively sensitive details about our organization and could be used to undermine our competitive advantage or market position. Additionally, sensitive data of the Company could be leaked, disclosed or revealed as a result of or in connection with our employees’, personnel’s or vendors’ use of generative AI technologies.

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We designed our disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably assure that information we must disclose in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, and recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well-conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.

These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Future changes in financial accounting standards or practices may cause adverse and unexpected revenue fluctuations and adversely affect our reported results of operations.

Future changes in financial accounting standards may cause adverse, unexpected revenue fluctuations and affect our reported financial position or results of operations. Financial accounting standards in the United States are constantly under review and new pronouncements and varying interpretations of pronouncements have occurred with frequency in the past and are expected to occur

again in the future. As a result, we may be required to make changes in our accounting policies. Those changes could affect our financial condition and results of operations or the way in which such financial condition and results of operations are reported. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from business activities to compliance activities. See the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— Recent accounting pronouncements.”

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, result in more litigation and divert management’s attention.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations has increased and will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may also need to hire additional employees or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will increase our costs and expenses.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.

These rules and regulations may make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and, in the future, we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.

By disclosing information in SEC filings required of a public company, our business and financial condition will become more visible, which we believe may result in threatened or actual litigation, including by competitors and other third parties. If those claims are successful, our business could be seriously harmed. Even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, the time and resources needed to resolve them could divert our management’s resources and seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation and shareholder derivative actions. We may be the target of these types of litigation and claims in the future. These claims and litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports, or if they publish adverse or misleading research or reports, regarding us, our business or our market, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock is influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us, our business or our market. If few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, the stock price would be negatively impacted. If any of the analysts who cover us issue adverse or misleading research or reports regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property, our stock performance or our market, or if our operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

Risk management and strategy

We have implemented and maintain various information security processes designed to identify, assess and manage material risks from cybersecurity threats to our critical computer networks, third-party hosted services, communications systems, hardware and software, and our critical data, including intellectual property, confidential information that is proprietary, strategic or competitive in nature, and sensitive personal data, including of our employees, consultants and clinical trial participants (Information Systems and Data).

The Chief Financial Officer, Chief Business Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Head of Legal form our Cybersecurity Risk Management Committee and help identify, assess and manage the Company’s cybersecurity threats and risks. This Cybersecurity Risk Management Committee, which reports to our overall risk management committee, identifies and assesses risks from cybersecurity threats by monitoring and evaluating our threat environment and the Company’s risk profile using various methods including, for example: manual and automated tools in certain environments and systems, subscribing to reports and services that identify certain cybersecurity threats, conducting scans of certain threat environments, analyzing reports of certain threats and actors, evaluating certain cybersecurity threats reported to us, and conducting internal and external audits of certain environments and systems.

Depending on the environment and system, we implement and maintain various technical, physical, and organizational measures, processes, standards and policies designed to manage and mitigate material risks from cybersecurity threats to our Information Systems and Data, including, for example: incident response plan; incident detection and response tools; risk assessments of certain environments and systems; encryption of certain data; network security for certain environments and systems; access controls for certain environments and systems; data segregation of certain data; access controls; physical security; asset management; third-party systems monitoring; employee cybersecurity training; and cybersecurity insurance.

Our assessment and management of material risks from cybersecurity threats are integrated into the Company’s overall risk management processes. For example, our Cyber Security Risk Management Committee evaluates material risks from cybersecurity threats against our overall business objectives and reports to the audit committee of the board of directors, which evaluates our overall enterprise risk.

We use third-party service providers to assist us from time to time to identify, assess, and manage material risks from cybersecurity threats, including for example professional services firms, such as legal counsel, threat intelligence service providers, and cybersecurity software providers.

We use third-party service providers to perform a variety of functions throughout our business, such as software application providers, hosting companies, contract research organizations, and contract manufacturing organizations. Depending on the nature of the services provided, the sensitivity of the Information Systems and Data at issue, and the identity of the provider, our vendor management process may involve different levels of assessment designed to help identify cybersecurity risks associated with a provider and impose contractual obligations related to cybersecurity on the provider.

For a description of the risks from cybersecurity threats that may materially affect the Company and how they may do so, see our risk factors under Part 1. Item 1A. Risk Factors in this Annual Report, including the section titled “Risk Factors—General risk factors—If our information technology systems or data, or those of any of our third-party partners (such as contract research organizations and clinical trial sites), or our data are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including but not limited to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; additional costs; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse consequences.”

Governance

Our board of directors addresses the Company’s cybersecurity risk management as part of its general oversight function. The board of directors’ audit committee is responsible for overseeing the Company’s cybersecurity risk management processes, including oversight of mitigation of risks from cybersecurity threats.

Our cybersecurity risk assessment and management processes are implemented and maintained by certain Company management, including our Chief Business Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Head of Legal, working closely with our third-party information technology team; the senior staff members of our third-party information technology team have been in business providing services to similarly situated companies in our industry for more than 27 years, including extensive experience addressing complex information technology and cybersecurity matters.

In particular, the Chief Business Officer is responsible for hiring appropriate personnel and third-party vendors, communicating key priorities to relevant personnel, and, in concert with members of the Cybersecurity Risk Management Committee, helping to integrate cybersecurity risk considerations into the Company’s overall risk management strategy. Our Chief Business Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Head of Legal, in consultation with our third-party information technology team, is responsible for maintaining cybersecurity-related budgets, helping prepare for cybersecurity incidents, approving cybersecurity processes, and reviewing security assessments and other security-related reports.

Our incident response plan is designed to escalate certain cybersecurity incidents to members of management depending on the circumstances, including the Cybersecurity Risk Management Committee. This group works with the Company’s incident response team to help the Company mitigate and remediate cybersecurity incidents of which they are notified. In addition, the Company’s incident response plan includes reporting to the audit committee of the board of directors for certain cybersecurity incidents.

The audit committee receives regular reports concerning the Company’s significant cybersecurity threats and risk and the processes the Company has implemented to address them, including during audit committee meetings and other periodic updates. These reports are provided by members of the Company’s management team responsible for such reporting, including the Cybersecurity Risk Management Committee. The audit committee also receives various reports, summaries or presentations related to cybersecurity threats, risk and mitigation.

Item 2. Properties.

Our corporate headquarters are located in Brisbane, California. We occupy approximately 9,885 square feet of office space for our corporate headquarters under a lease that expires in November 2024. We believe our existing leased facility is in good condition and suitable for the conduct of our current business.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from the ordinary course of business. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity, reputational harm and other factors.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our Class A common stock has traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “VERA” since May 14, 2021. Prior to that, there was no public market for our stock. Our Class B common stock is not listed on any stock exchange nor traded on any public market.

Holders

As of March 20, 2024, there were approximately 21 stockholders of record of our Class A common stock. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of record holders, and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common or capital stock. We intend to retain any future earnings for the long-term growth of the business and do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of the Loan Agreement with Oxford restrict our ability to declare and pay dividends without the prior written consent of Oxford.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

See Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report for information about our equity compensation plans which is incorporated by reference herein.

Stock Performance Graph

Not applicable.

Use of Proceeds

As of December 31, 2023, all of the net proceeds from our initial public offering have been applied as described in our final prospectus filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) on May 17, 2021.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Parties

None.

Item 6. Reserved.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates, beliefs and expectations, and involve risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report, particularly in the sections titled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors.”

Overview

We are a late clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing transformative treatments for patients with serious immunological diseases. IgAN is a B cell disorder with a kidney pathology. Our lead product candidate, atacicept, is an at home, self-administered TACI-Fc fusion protein that blocks both BAFF and APRIL with best-in-class potential for the treatment of IgAN. The Phase 2b ORIGIN clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of atacicept in participants with IgAN reported positive results at three timepoints: 24-week topline results in January 2023, 36-week results in June 2023, and 72-week results in January 2024. The trial remained blinded through 36 weeks, after which all participants were eligible for the open label extension portion of the study and received atacicept 150 mg through 96 weeks. At 24 and 36 weeks, respectively, atacicept met its primary endpoint with statistically significant reductions in UPCR on atacicept 150 mg, and stable eGFR was observed for participants on atacicept, with clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference versus placebo. Participants treated with atacicept demonstrated reductions in Gd-IgA1, the autoantigen produced by B cells in patients with IgAN, and a reduction in hematuria. The improvements in Gd-IgA1, hematuria, UPCR and eGFR represent the quartet of findings consistent with IgAN disease modification. The 72-week open label extension results showed consistent and sustained reductions in Gd-IgA1, hematuria, UPCR and continued eGFR stabilization. Additionally, atacicept’s safety profile was comparable to placebo. We advanced atacicept 150 mg in a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial in IgAN in the second quarter of 2023. We believe that atacicept has pipeline in a molecule potential, with potential application in additional indications including SLE and LN, a severe renal manifestation of SLE. We have designed and are poised to conduct a Phase 3 clinical trial of atacicept in LN, based on feedback from the FDA’s review of clinical results in a Phase 2 clinical trial of atacicept in SLE patients with HDA. We also hold worldwide, exclusive development and commercial rights to MAU868, a potentially first-in-class monoclonal antibody to treat reactivated BKV infections, for which we completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in 2022. In January 2023, we delayed enrollment in the pivotal Phase 3 trial for LN and commitment of resources to the MAU868 program. We believe that our current pipeline programs leverage the deep expertise of our team and have strong potential commercial synergies. We hold global developmental and commercial rights to all of our pipeline molecule.

Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to our research and development efforts, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, establishing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, hiring personnel, raising capital, and providing general and administrative support for these operations.

We do not have any product candidates approved for commercial sale, and we have not generated any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate revenue sufficient to achieve profitability, if ever, will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, which we expect will take a number of years. We also do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for nonclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacturing if any of our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We believe that this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities, equipment, and personnel while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the development of our product candidates.

To date, we have funded our operations primarily through proceeds from the sale of shares of our common stock, redeemable convertible preferred stock, debt financing and convertible promissory notes. As of December 31, 2023, we had $160.7 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, compared to $114.7 million as of December 31, 2022.

We have incurred significant operating losses since the commencement of our operations. Our net losses were $96.0 million and $89.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, and we expect to incur significant and increasing losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to advance our product candidates, atacicept and MAU868, to commercialization. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from period to period, depending on the timing of expenditures on our research and development activities. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $309.1 million, compared to $213.1 million as of December 31, 2022. Our primary use of cash is to fund operating expenses, which consist of research and development expenditures and general and administrative expenditures. Cash used to fund operating expenses depends on the timing of when we pay these expenses, as reflected in the changes in our working capital balances.

We expect to continue to incur net operating losses for at least the next several years, and we expect our research and development expenses, general and administrative expenses, and capital expenditures will continue to increase. We expect our expenses and capital requirements will increase significantly in connection with our ongoing activities as we:

We also expect to increase the size of our administrative function to support the growth of our business. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year, depending on the timing of our clinical trials and our expenditures on other research and development activities.

We will require substantial additional funding to develop our product candidates and support our continuing operations. Until such time that we can generate significant revenue from product sales or other sources, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings, or other capital sources, which could include income from collaborations, strategic partnerships, or marketing, distribution, licensing or other strategic arrangements with third parties, or from grants. We may be unable to raise additional funds or to enter into such agreements or arrangements on favorable terms, or at all. Our ability to raise additional funds may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the disruptions to, and volatility in, the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide. Our failure to obtain sufficient funds on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition, including requiring us to have to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development or future commercialization efforts. Insufficient liquidity may also require us to relinquish rights to product candidates at an earlier stage of development or on less favorable terms than we would otherwise choose. The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including the pace and results of our development efforts. We cannot provide assurance that we will ever be profitable or generate positive cash flow from operating activities.

Geopolitical and Macroeconomic Developments

Due to geopolitical and macroeconomic events, including ongoing military conflicts, inflation and the actions taken by governments to address inflation and lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. and global financial markets experienced volatility, which has led to disruptions to trade, commerce, pricing stability, credit availability and supply chain continuity globally. As a result of these factors and other geopolitical and macroeconomic developments described in this Annual Report, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Although we did not see a significant financial impact to our business operations as a result of recent geopolitical and macroeconomic developments during the year ended December 31, 2023, there may be potential impacts to our business in the future that are highly uncertain and difficult to predict such as disruptions or restrictions in our supply chain, disruption or restrictions on our employees’ ability to travel, disruptions to or delays in ongoing non-clinical trials, clinical trials, third-party manufacturing supply and other operations, adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic concerns, interruptions or delays in the operations of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, continued increases in inflation and interest rates, or changes in availability and cost of credit and our ability to raise capital and conduct business development activities. The ultimate impact of these geopolitical and macroeconomic developments, as well as any lasting effects on our business, is highly uncertain and subject to continued change, and we recognize that macroeconomic and geopolitical factors may continue to present unique challenges for us.

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities held as of December 31, 2023, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Annual Report. However, should adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic events, such as ongoing military conflicts, related sanctions, any recession or depression associated with those events or other events described herein, continue for a prolonged period, our results of operations,

financial condition, liquidity and cash flows could be materially impacted as a result of a lower likelihood of effectively and efficiently developing and successfully commercializing our product candidates.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2023 and 2022

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022.

* Not meaningful

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses represent a substantial portion of our operating expenses. Our research and development expenses consist primarily of direct and indirect expenses incurred in connection with the research and development of our product candidates. Direct expenses include costs incurred under agreements with third parties, including contract research organizations, contract drug manufacturing organizations and consultants directly related to our research and development of product candidates, and license and milestone fees incurred as a result of our contractual obligations for our development candidates. Indirect expenses include employee compensation and other personnel-related expenses, including stock-based compensation, facilities and depreciation related to buildings and equipment used by research and development personnel and activities and other expenses.

Research and development expenses are recorded as expense in the period in which the related activities occurred, and payments we make prior to the receipt of goods or services to be used in research and development efforts are deferred as prepaid expenses until the goods or services are received and used. We accrue expenses for contract research and development as the related services are performed by monitoring the status of specified activities and billings received from our external service providers. These expenses are accrued based on estimates and are adjusted as actual expenses become known. The cost incurred in obtaining technology licenses, including initial and subsequent milestone payments incurred under our licensing agreements, are recorded as expense in the period in which they are incurred, as the licensed technology, method or process has no alternative future uses other than for our research and development activities. Where contingent milestone payments are due to third parties under license or other agreements, the milestone payment obligations are recognized as expense when achievement of the contingent milestone is probable, which is generally upon achievement of the milestone.

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses incurred during the respective periods.

Research and development expenses increased by $9.2 million, or 13%, to $78.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2023, from $69.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2022. The increase was primarily due to progressing clinical development of atacicept in IgAN, including expenses incurred related to manufacturing drug supply for clinical trials. Contract drug manufacturing expenses increased by $7.5 million primarily due to production of atacicept drug supply for our ORIGIN 3 clinical trial and development of an atacicept auto-injector combination product. Compensation and related benefits for research and development employees, including stock-based compensation, increased by $5.6 million due to growth in research and development headcount. In 2022, we recorded license and milestone expense of $3.7 million as a result of an amendment to the Novartis License that was assigned to us in connection with our purchase of MAU868 and certain related assets from Amplyx. Clinical trial expenses decreased by $0.9 million due to a decrease in expenses for the COMPASS trial in 2023 following our announcement to delay enrollment in this trial to prioritize and focus resources on our ORIGIN 3 clinical trial.

We expect our research and development expenses to increase in future periods as we continue to support our ongoing ORIGIN 3 Phase 3 clinical trial and prepare to seek regulatory approval of atacicept in IgAN, and if we resume development of other indications or product candidates.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of compensation and personnel-related expenses, including stock-based compensation, for our personnel in executive management, legal, finance, human resources, and other administrative functions. General and administrative expenses also include professional fees paid for accounting, auditing, legal, tax and consulting services, and other general overhead costs to support our operations. General and administrative expenses are recorded as expense in the period in which incurred, and payments we make prior to the receipt of goods or services to be used for general and administrative purposes efforts are deferred as prepaid expenses until the goods or services are received and used.

General and administrative expenses increased by $1.9 million, or 9%, to $23.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2023, from $21.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2022, due primarily to an increase of $4.6 million of payroll and related expenses, including stock-based compensation, as a result of increased general and administrative employee headcount, partially offset by a decrease of $1.2 million in legal expenses, a decrease of $0.9 million in insurance premium expenses, and a decrease of $0.6 million in recruiting and placement fees.

Other Income, Net