MREO Mereo BioPharma Group PLC

RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this prospectus before making an investment in our ADSs. Our business, financial condition, results of operation, or prospects could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs, and as a result, the market price of our ADSs could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This prospectus also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those set forth below.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We have a limited operating history and have never generated any product revenue.

We are a multi-asset, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history, and have incurred significant operating losses since our formation. We had net losses of £16.2 million in the six months ended June 30, 2019 (£17.0 million in the six months ended June 30, 2018), and £32.0 million, £38.8 million and £28.4 million, in the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of June 30, 2019, we had an accumulated net loss of £127.4 million (£111.2 million as of December 31, 2018). Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred from the research and development of our product candidates and from general and administrative costs that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure. We expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future as we expand our research and development efforts, and seek to obtain regulatory approval and potentially commercialize our product candidates. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Our expenses may also increase substantially if we experience any delays or encounter any issues with any of the above, including, but not limited to, failed clinical trials, complex results, safety issues, or unforeseen regulatory challenges.

22

We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to the acquisition and clinical development of our product candidates. We have not completed the clinical development of any product through approval and have never generated any product revenue.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing product candidates that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials of our current or any future product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, establishing manufacturing supplies and marketing capabilities, and ultimately commercializing or entering into strategic relationships for our current and future product candidates, if approved. We are only in the preliminary stages of many of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. We may be subject to different or contradictory regulatory requirements in different countries, and different regulatory authorities may not be aligned on the clinical trials necessary to support approval of our product candidates. If we are required by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities to perform studies in addition to those we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of our current product candidates, our expenses could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be further delayed. In addition, we may not be able to acquire new product candidates or may encounter unexpected difficulties or delays in such acquisitions, which would impair our business.

Furthermore, adoption by the medical community of our product candidates, if approved, may be limited if third-party payors offer inadequate reimbursement coverage. Cost control initiatives may decrease coverage and payment levels for our product candidates, which in turn would negatively affect the price that we will be able to charge for such product candidates. We are unable to predict the coverage that will be provided by private or government payors for any product we have in development. Any denial of private or government payor coverage, inadequate reimbursement for our product candidates, or delay in receipt of reimbursement payments could harm our business and, even if we do generate product royalties or product sales, we may never achieve or sustain profitability. Our failure to sustain profitability would depress the market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares and could impair our ability to raise capital, acquire new product candidates, expand our business, or continue our operations. A decline in the market price of our ADSs or ordinary shares also could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

If we do not obtain adequate and timely funding, we may not be able to continue as a going concern.

Under the current business plan and cash flow forecasts, with ongoing research and development efforts focused on our rare disease product candidates, setrusumab and alvelestat, and taking into account the funds raised from Novartis, Aspire Capital and Boxer Capital, together with other current short-term initiatives including the successful finalization of the current HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) enquiries in respect of our research and development tax claim relating to fiscal year 2018, we expect that our cash resources will extend to the end of the first half of 2020. Therefore, we will need additional external funding by the end of the first half of 2020 to be able to continue as a going concern.

We will seek to obtain such funding from further equity financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements and potentially from the utilization of all or part of the additional $25.0 million we may receive from Aspire Capital pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, additional or restructured debt facilities or other sources. We also intend to raise additional equity capital in one or more transactions

23

with institutional investors on terms substantially similar to the terms of Aspire Capital’s purchase of the Initial Shares. There is no guarantee that future funding will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are unable to raise sufficient external funding when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our intended activities.

The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements as of and for the six-month period ended June 30, 2019 included elsewhere in this prospectus have been prepared on a going concern basis; however, they make reference to a material uncertainty as to our ability to continue as a going concern because further funding was not committed at the date of approval of those unaudited interim consolidated financial statements. In addition, as only limited additional funding from the New Novartis Notes, the Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital and the private placement with Boxer Capital has been secured as at the date of this prospectus, there remains a material uncertainty as to our ability to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to obtain adequate and timely funding such that the going concern basis of preparation were no longer appropriate, we would be required to make adjustments to our financial statements, which adjustments could include significant reductions in the balance sheet values of our assets to their recoverable amounts and the recognition of significant provisions for further liabilities that might arise.

We will need additional funding to complete the development of our current product candidates; to license, acquire, and develop future product candidates; and to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate research and development programs, any future commercialization efforts or acquisitions of potential product candidates.

We have based our liquidity and capital resources estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong. As a result, we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect, or our operating plan may change as a result of many factors unknown to us. These factors, among others, may necessitate that we seek additional capital sooner than currently planned.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

24

Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company in the United Kingdom and the United States and maintaining a quotation and listing, respectively, on the AIM and Nasdaq.

Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations.

Fundraising and business development efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect our business, the holdings or the rights of our shareholders, or the value of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay, or discontinue our research and development programs or any commercialization efforts; be unable to expand our operations or acquire product candidates; or be unable to otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could harm our business and potentially force us to discontinue operations. See “—If we do not obtain adequate and timely funding, we may not be able to continue as a going concern.”

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Since our formation, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to acquiring our product candidates and developing setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, and leflutrozole; building our intellectual property portfolio; developing our supply chain; planning our business; raising capital; and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete any Phase 3 or other pivotal clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval, arrange for third parties to manufacture commercial-scale product candidates, or conduct or partner with others to conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Additionally, although we have acquired product candidates from two large pharmaceutical companies, we have not demonstrated the sustainability of our business model of acquiring and developing product candidates from, and becoming a partner of choice for, large pharmaceutical companies, nor have we demonstrated our ability to obtain approvals for or to commercialize or co-commercialize these product candidates. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify and acquire additional product candidates.

Part of our strategy involves identifying and acquiring novel product candidates that have received significant investment from large pharmaceutical companies and that have substantial pre-clinical, clinical, and manufacturing data packages. The process by which we identify product candidates may fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including those discussed in these risk factors and also:

25

In addition, we may choose to focus our efforts and resources on a potential product that ultimately proves to be unsuccessful. Further, time and resources spent searching for, identifying, acquiring, and developing potential product candidates may distract our management’s attention from our primary business or other development programs. If we are unable to identify and acquire additional suitable product candidates for clinical development, this would adversely impact our business strategy and our financial position and share price.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to, or adversely affect the rights of, our security holders, restrict our operations; or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we may seek to finance our cash needs through securities offerings, debt financings, license and collaboration agreements, or other capital raising transactions. If we raise capital through securities offerings, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of the securities we issue in such transaction may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of our ADSs. Debt financing, if available, could result in fixed payment obligations, and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights, to make capital expenditures, to declare dividends, or other operating restrictions. For example, our credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank and Kreos Capital V (UK) Limited (the “credit facility”) requires us to seek consent for certain corporate transactions, dispositions, or incurrences of certain debt. In addition, the credit facility is secured by substantially all of our assets, including intellectual property rights owned or controlled by us. If we raise additional funds through collaboration or licensing agreements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. In addition, we could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable. Raising additional capital through any of these or other means could adversely affect our business and the holdings or rights of our security holders, and may cause the market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares to decline.

We depend heavily on the success of setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole and etigilimab. We cannot give any assurance that any of these product candidates or therapeutic candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized. If we are unable to commercialize, whether on our own or through agreements with third parties, setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole and etigilimab or experience significant delays in doing so, our ability to generate revenue and our financial condition will be adversely affected.

We do not currently generate any revenue from sales of any product candidates, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. We have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the acquisition and development of setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole and etigilimab. Our ability to generate royalty and product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for at least the next several years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our current product candidates, if approved, which may never occur. Our current product candidates will require additional clinical

26

development, management of clinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in multiple jurisdictions, procurement of manufacturing supply, commercialization, substantial additional investment, and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. For example, we have agreed on a pediatric investigational plan (“PIP”) for setrusumab with the EMA and intend to prepare for a pivotal trial of setrusumab in Europe and Canada in children with severe OI in 2020, with fracture rate as the primary endpoint. We have also discussed with the FDA the expansion of the pivotal trial of setrusumab for the treatment of patients with severe OI to include sites in the United States. However, our pediatric plan for setrusumab may not be successful, which would adversely affect the clinical development of setrusumab in the United States and adversely affect our commercialization plans in the United States.

We are not permitted to market or promote any product candidates in the United States, Europe, or other countries before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for our current product candidates. We have not submitted a BLA or a New Drug Application (“NDA”) to the FDA, an MAA or CMA to the EMA, or comparable applications to other regulatory authorities, and do not expect to be in a position to do so in the foreseeable future. The success of our current product candidates will depend on many factors, including the following:

27

If we do not successfully manage one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or may not be able to successfully commercialize our current product candidates.

We cannot be certain that our current product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our current product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our current product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to manufacture and market our current product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such product candidates, if approved.

We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize, or co-commercialize, our current rare disease product candidates both in the United States and the European Union (“EU”), and potentially in additional foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in many countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in multiple countries requires us to comply with the numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.

Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. We source research and development, manufacturing, consulting, and other services from companies based throughout the United States, the EU, and Switzerland, and we conduct our clinical trials in the United States, Canada, certain European countries, and other countries. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

28

Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Owing to the international scope of our operations, fluctuations in exchange rates, particularly between the pound sterling and the U.S. dollar, the euro, or the Swiss Franc, may adversely affect us. Further, potential future revenue may be derived from multiple jurisdictions and in multiple currencies. As a result, our business and the price of our ADSs and ordinary shares may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates not only between the pound sterling and the U.S. dollar, but also the currencies of other countries, which may have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

We face risks related to health epidemics and other widespread outbreaks of contagious disease, which could disrupt our operations and impact our operating results.

Significant outbreaks of contagious diseases, and other adverse public health developments, could have a material impact on our business operations and operating results. In December 2019, a strain of novel coronavirus, COVID-19, causing respiratory illness emerged in the city of Wuhan in the Hubei province of China. The Chinese government has taken certain emergency measures to combat the spread of the virus, including implementation of travel bans and closure of factories and businesses. Since that time, multiple other countries throughout the world have been affected by the spread of the virus. We continue to monitor the global spread of COVID-19 and have put in place and will continue to put in place measures as appropriate and necessary for our business. Any prolonged deviations from normal daily operations could negatively impact our business. While the full impact of this outbreak is unknown at this time, we are closely monitoring the rapid developments in countries that have become exposed to the virus and continually assessing the potential impact on our business. Any prolonged disruption of our clinical trials, suppliers or contract manufacturers could delay regulatory approvals or the commercialization of any current or future products.

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union could lead to increased market volatility, which could adversely impact the market price of our ADSs and make it more difficult for us to do business in Europe or have other adverse effects on our business.

The United Kingdom formally exited the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit, on January 31, 2020. Under the terms of its departure, the United Kingdom will enter a transition period during which it will continue to follow all European Union rules and the trading relationship will remain

29

the same. The transition period is scheduled to end on December 31, 2020. The long term effects of Brexit will depend on the agreements and arrangements the United Kingdom negotiates with the European Union, including whether and to what extent it will retain access to the European Union markets following the transition period. There will be a period of considerable uncertainty particularly in relation to United Kingdom financial and banking markets as well as on the regulatory process in Europe as these negotiations continue to unfold. As a result of this uncertainty, financial markets could experience volatility which could adversely affect the market price of our ADSs. Depending on the final terms of any agreements and arrangements negotiated with the European Union, we may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have a material adverse effect on our operations, including the potential for a delay in our clinical progress and approvals in Europe. Depending on the terms of any agreements and arrangements negotiated with the European Union, the United Kingdom could lose the benefits of global trade agreements negotiated by the European Union on behalf of its members, which may result in increased trade barriers that could make our doing business worldwide more difficult. In addition, currency exchange rates in the pound sterling and the euro with respect to each other and the U.S. dollar have already been adversely affected by Brexit. Should this foreign exchange volatility continue it could cause volatility in our financial results.

Following the Licensing Agreement for Navi, and if we sell or out-license other of our non-rare disease product candidates or out-license any of our rare disease product candidates for any territories, we could be exposed to future liabilities.

Having recently completed the out-license of Navi, we plan to partner or sell or out-license our other non-rare disease product candidates, which include acumapimod for the treatment of AECOPD, leflutrozole for the treatment of HH in obese men and etigilimab for the treatment of solid tumors, recognizing the need for a larger sales infrastructure and greater resources to take these product candidates to market.

We may be exposed to future liabilities and/or obligations with respect to any such sale or out-licensing arrangements. We may be required to set aside provisions for warranty claims or contingent liabilities in respect of such sales or out-licensing arrangements. We may be required to pay damages (including, but not limited to, litigation costs) to a purchaser or licensee to the extent that any representations or warranties that we had given to that purchaser or licensee prove to be inaccurate or to the extent that we have breached any of our covenants or obligations contained in the disposal documentation. In certain circumstances, it is possible that any incorrect representations and warranties could give rise to a right by the purchaser or licensee to unwind the contract in addition to receiving damages. Furthermore, we may become involved in disputes or litigation in connection with such product candidates. Certain obligations and liabilities associated with our prior management of the development of any disposed product candidate can also continue to exist notwithstanding any sale, such as liabilities arising from the infringement of intellectual property rights of others.

As a result of the above, the total amount of costs and expenses that may be incurred with respect to liabilities associated with a sale or out-license may exceed our expectations, and we may experience other unanticipated adverse effects, all of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

30

Risks Related to Development, Clinical Testing, Manufacturing and Regulatory Approval

Setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole and etigilimab are in clinical development. Clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and uncertain outcomes, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future results. If clinical trials of our product candidates are prolonged or delayed, or if our product candidates fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stage clinical trials, we may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals and be unable to commercialize, or co-commercialize, our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to market and sell any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive clinical trials that such product candidates are safe and effective in humans. 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 pre-clinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through pre-clinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

We may experience delays in our ongoing clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Our clinical trials can be delayed, suspended, or terminated for a variety of reasons, including the following:

31

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs, centrally or at the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the data monitoring committee or data safety monitoring board for such trial or by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols; inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold; unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects; failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug; failure of our clinical trials to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety; changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions; or lack of adequate or timely funding to continue the clinical trial.

A number of academic institutions are currently conducting and sponsoring clinical trials relating to our product candidate, alvelestat, including a clinical trial in patients with BOS. We do not control the design or administration of investigator-sponsored trials, and such investigator-sponsored trials could identify significant concerns with respect to alvelestat that could impact our findings from our own clinical trials, and adversely affect our ability to obtain marketing approval from the FDA or other applicable authorities. To the extent the results of these or other investigator-sponsored trials are inconsistent with, or different from, the results of our company-sponsored trials or raise concerns regarding alvelestat, the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority may question the results of a company-sponsored trial, or subject such results to greater scrutiny than it otherwise would. In these circumstances, the FDA or such foreign regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical studies or submit additional clinical data, which could delay clinical development or marketing approval of alvelestat.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA, the EMA, or another regulatory authority. The FDA, the EMA, or such other regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or

32

otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA, the EMA, or such other regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA, the EMA, or the other regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates or any clinical trial of our product candidates is terminated, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from our product candidates, if any, will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down the development and approval process of our product candidates, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue, if any. Significant clinical trial delays could also allow our competitors to bring product candidates to market before we do or shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and could impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the FDA, EU rules and regulations and other applicable regulatory authorities’ legal requirements, regulations or guidelines, and are subject to oversight by these governmental agencies and IRBs, centrally or at the institutions where the clinical trials are conducted. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with supplies of our product candidates produced in compliance with the requirements of current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) and other regulations. Furthermore, we rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and while we have agreements governing the CROs’ committed activities, we have limited influence over the CROs’ actual performance. We depend on our collaborators and on medical institutions and CROs to conduct our clinical trials in compliance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements. To the extent our collaborators or the CROs fail to enroll participants for our clinical trials, fail to conduct the study to GCP standards, or are delayed for a significant time in the execution of trials, including achieving full enrollment, we may be affected by increased costs, program delays, or both. In addition, clinical trials that are conducted in countries outside the EU and the United States may subject us to further delays and expenses as a result of increased shipment costs, additional regulatory requirements, and the engagement of non-EU and non-U.S. CROs, as well as expose us to risks associated with clinical investigators who are unknown to the FDA or the EMA, and different standards of diagnosis, screening, and medical care.

Prior to our acquisition of setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole and etigilimab, we were not involved in the development of these product candidates and, as a result, we are dependent on Novartis, AstraZeneca and OncoMed having accurately reported the results and correctly collected and interpreted the data from all clinical trials conducted prior to our acquisition.

We were not involved in the development of our current product candidates prior to our acquisition of such product candidates from Novartis, AstraZeneca and OncoMed, respectively. For all of our current product candidates, we have had no involvement with or control over their manufacturing or pre-clinical and clinical development prior to our acquisition of them. We are dependent on Novartis, AstraZeneca and OncoMed having conducted their research and development in accordance with the applicable protocols and legal, regulatory, and scientific standards; having accurately reported the results of all clinical trials conducted prior to our acquisition; and having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials. To the extent Novartis, AstraZeneca or OncoMed has not done this, the clinical development, regulatory approval, or commercialization of our product candidates may be adversely affected.

33

Interim “top-line” and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient 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 publish interim “top-line” or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or “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, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Our product candidates may have serious adverse, undesirable, or unacceptable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval or lead to the withdrawal of approval after it has been granted. If such side effects are identified during the development of these product candidates or following approval, if any, we may need to abandon our development of these product candidates, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole and etigilimab 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, the EMA, or other comparable foreign authorities. Each of our product candidates has completed one or more clinical trials. In the trials conducted prior to our ownership and following our ownership, the most common adverse events observed have been the following:

Clinical development for all of these product candidates is ongoing. Results of our ongoing and future clinical trials, or results from clinical trials for other similar product candidates, could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of adverse side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, EMA, or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications.

For example, the FDA approved the first sclerostin inhibitor for treatment of osteoporosis, Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) and UCB S.A.’s (“UCB”) anti-sclerostin antibody, romosozumab (Evenity), in April 2019 following an 18-1 favorable advisory committee vote. However, Evenity received a Black Box warning that there may be an increase in risk of myocardial infarction (“MI”), stroke or cardiovascular death and it should not be initiated in patients who have had an MI or stroke in the last year. This was over a year after the FDA rejected our request for a Type C meeting to discuss the initiation of a pediatric Phase 3 study for setrusumab for the treatment of patients with severe OI. Based on these events and with our setrusumab Phase 2b efficacy and safety data in adult OI patients, we re-engaged with the FDA at the end of 2019 to discuss the expansion of the pivotal trial of setrusumab for the treatment of patients with severe OI to include sites in the United States. In February 2020, we announced the successful completion of a Type B End-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA to discuss the expansion of the pediatric Phase 3 study for setrusumab for the treatment of children and adolescents with OI in the United

34

States. See ‘‘Prospectus Summary—Recent Developments—Positive Feedback from Type B End-of-Phase 2 Meeting with the FDA.’’ In June 2019, the EMA’s CHMP adopted a negative opinion recommending the refusal of a marketing authorization for Evenity. However, Amgen and UCB announced in October 2019 that following a re-examination procedure the CHMP has adopted a positive opinion recommending marketing authorization for Evenity. In December 2019, the European Commission approved the MAA for Evenity.

Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete a trial or result in potential product liability claims. Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by these product candidates, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us or any collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our product candidates.

Manufacturing tests of setrusumab have shown that it may cause an opalescence appearance to the liquid antibody formulation.

Our product candidate for treating OI, setrusumab, is of the IgG2 type subclass monoclonal antibody. The IgG2 subclass is known for having a tendency to reversibly self-associate and this can cause an opalescence appearance to the liquid antibody formulation that can be mediated by protein concentration, pH and temperature. The presence of an opalescence solution does not have an impact on product potency and effectiveness and does not generally correlate with the formation of aggregates or particles. Whilst we have recently conducted several large scale manufacturing runs of drug substance and drug product at third-party CMO’s without observing any opalescence and formulation studies are being conducted to in order to minimize any risk of significant opalescence or of aggregate formation, there can be no assurances that this opalescence will not occur in future manufacturing runs.

35

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, or enrollment is slower than anticipated, in particular for our product candidates with rare disease indications, our research and development efforts could be adversely affected.

Successful and timely completion of clinical trials for our product candidates will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patient candidates. Trials may be subject to delays as a result of the limited number of patients with the diseases that these product candidates target, patient enrollment taking longer than anticipated, or patient withdrawal. Due to the small number of patients for any rare disease, it may be difficult for us to enroll a sufficient number of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates with indications in rare diseases or enrollment for these product candidates may take significantly longer than we anticipate. In addition, we will compete with other companies in enrolling the same limited population of patients, which may further challenge our ability to timely enroll patients in our clinical trials. It is estimated that OI, the target indication for setrusumab, affects a minimum of 20,000 people in the United States and approximately 32,000 people in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom, collectively. There are an estimated 50,000 and 60,000 persons in North America and Europe, respectively, with the genotypes that we intend to enroll in our clinical trials for AATD, the target indication for alvelestat. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, eligibility criteria for the trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the design of the clinical protocol, the availability of competing clinical trials, the availability of new drugs or biologics approved for the indication the clinical trial is investigating, and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies. These factors may make it difficult for us to enroll enough patients to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner. Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval of our product candidates, and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, some of the factors that cause or lead to a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage, and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the development, manufacturing, marketing, and use of pharmaceutical product candidates. Currently, we have no product candidates that have been approved for commercial sale; however, the current and future use of our product candidates by us and any collaborators, in clinical trials, and the sale of these product candidates, if approved, in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, our collaborators, or others selling these product candidates. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could adversely affect the market for our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

36

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates.

Although we maintain product liability insurance for our product candidates, it is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage. We intend to expand our coverage to include the sale of commercial product candidates if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates. However, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, the EMA, and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming, and inherently unpredictable as they rely on third party decisions outside of our control, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, the EMA, and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable and relies on third party decisions outside of our control, but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. 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’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any of our product candidates and it is possible that none of our product candidates will obtain regulatory approval.

Our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

37

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any product candidates. The FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process, and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for a product. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the EMA, or any other regulatory authority.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval for any jurisdiction, regulatory authorities may approve our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of such product. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm our commercial prospects and business.

Even if any of our product candidates obtains regulatory approval, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, any of our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with such product.

If the FDA, the EMA, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, and recordkeeping for such product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, facility registration, and drug listing, as well as continued compliance with cGMP requirements for manufacturing, good distribution practice, requirements for product distribution, and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize, or co-commercialize, a product. We and our contract manufacturers will also be subject to user fees and periodic inspection by the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities to monitor compliance with these requirements and the terms of any product approval we may obtain. In addition, any regulatory approvals that we receive for a product may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which such product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of such product.

If there are changes in the application of legislation or regulatory policies, or if problems are discovered with a product or the manufacture of a product, or if we or one of our distributors, licensees, or co-marketers fails to comply with regulatory requirements, the regulatory authorities could take various actions. These include imposing fines on us, imposing restrictions on our product or its manufacture, and requiring us to recall or remove a product from the market. The regulatory authorities could also suspend or withdraw our marketing authorizations, or require us to conduct additional clinical trials, change our product labeling, or submit additional MAAs. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell our product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements.

The policies of the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit, or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of government regulation that

38

may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, or other jurisdictions. For example, the current U.S. presidential administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. Notably, in January 2017, an Executive Order was issued directing all executive agencies, including the FDA, that, for each notice of proposed rulemaking or final regulation to be issued in fiscal year 2017, the agency identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law. These requirements are referred to as the “two-for-one” provisions. This Executive Order includes a budget neutrality provision that requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater than zero, except in limited circumstances. For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, the Executive Order requires agencies to identify regulations to offset any incremental cost of a new regulation. In interim guidance issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in February 2017, the administration indicated that the “two-for-one” provisions may apply not only to agency regulations, but also to significant agency guidance documents, and in September 2017, the FDA published notices in the Federal Register soliciting broad public comment to identify regulations that could be modified in compliance with these Executive Orders. It is difficult to predict how these requirements will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose restrictions on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. In addition, 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 achieve or sustain profitability.

Even if we obtain marketing approval of any of our product candidates in a major pharmaceutical market such as the United States or the EU, we may not be able to obtain approval or commercialize that product in other markets, which would limit our ability to realize our full market potential.

In order to market any product candidates in a country or territory, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such country or territory regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approvals in multiple markets may require additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain, and may be subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. We currently do not have any product candidates approved for sale in the United States, the EU, or any other markets, and our management team does not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in markets outside of the United States and the EU. If we seek regulatory approval in other markets and fail to obtain marketing approval in those markets or, if our product candidates are approved in such markets but we fail to maintain such approvals, our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be compromised.

39

Our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, vendors, and any other third parties we may engage in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could adversely affect our business.

Misconduct by our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, vendors, and any other third parties we may engage in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates, could include intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate: (i) the laws and regulations of the FDA, the EMA and other similar regulatory authorities, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; (ii) manufacturing standards; (iii) data privacy, security, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations; or (iv) laws that require the reporting of true, complete, and accurate financial information and data. Specifically, sales, marketing, and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing, and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs, and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws could also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, creation of fraudulent data in pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with such laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgements, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, other U.S. federal healthcare programs or healthcare programs in other jurisdictions, individual imprisonment, other sanctions, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations. We are also subject to the data privacy regime in the EU, which imposes obligations and restrictions on the collection and use of personal data relating to individuals located in the EU and includes the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) and any national laws implementing or supplementing the GDPR. If we do not comply with our obligations under the EU privacy regime, we could be exposed to significant fines and may be the subject of litigation and/or adverse publicity, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and business.

Risks Related to Healthcare Laws and Other Legal Compliance Matters

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States, EU and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (as so amended, the “ACA”) was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental

40

and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include the following:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. The Trump administration has also announced that it will discontinue the payment of cost-sharing reduction (“C-SR”) payments to insurance companies until Congress approves the appropriation of funds for the C-SR payments. The loss of the C-SR payments is expected to increase premiums on certain policies issued by qualified health plans under the ACA. A bipartisan bill to appropriate funds for C-SR payments has been introduced in the Senate, but the future of that bill is uncertain. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give

41

states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces. Further, each chamber of Congress has put forth multiple bills this year designed to repeal or repeal and replace portions of the ACA. Although none of these measures have been enacted by Congress to date, Congress may consider other legislation to repeal and replace elements of the ACA. Congress will likely consider other legislation to replace elements of the ACA. We continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business. It is uncertain the extent to which any such changes may impact our business or financial condition.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional action is taken by Congress. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws or any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could negatively affect our future customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to non-rare drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare product candidates and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing 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. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical product candidates and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing.

In the EU, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize, or co-commercialize, our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU or

42

member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of product candidates in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market product candidates, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize, or co-commercialize, our product candidates, if approved.

In markets outside of the United States and EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific product candidates and therapies.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States, the EU, or any other jurisdiction. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations, and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations, and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell, and distribute our product candidates, if approved. Such laws include:

43

44

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Ensuring that our current and future internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance 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 the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs (including Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs in the United States), individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment, which could affect our ability to operate our business. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant 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.

We are subject to governmental regulation and other legal obligations related to privacy, data protection and data security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could harm our business.

We are subject to diverse laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security in the EU, including the GDPR. New global privacy rules are being enacted and existing ones are being updated and strengthened. We are likely to be required to expend capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with these laws and regulations.

The GDPR applies extraterritorially and implements stringent operational requirements for controllers and processors of personal data. For example, the GDPR: (i) requires detailed disclosures to data subjects; (ii) requires disclosure of the legal basis on which personal data is processed; (iii) makes it harder to obtain valid consent for processing; (iv) requires the appointment of a data protection officer where sensitive personal data (i.e. health data) is processed on a large scale; (v) provides more robust rights for data subjects; (vi) introduces mandatory data breach notification through the EU; (vii) imposes additional obligations when contracting with service providers; and (viii) requires an appropriate privacy governance framework to be implemented including policies, procedures, training and data audit. The GDPR permits member state derogations for certain issues and, accordingly, we are also subject to EU national laws relating to the processing of certain data such as genetic data, biometric data and data concerning health. Complying with these numerous,

45

complex and often changing regulations is expensive and difficult. Failure by us, or our partners or service providers, to comply with the GDPR could result in regulatory investigations, enforcement notices and/or fines of up to the higher of 20 million euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover. In addition to the foregoing, any breach of privacy laws or data security laws, particularly those resulting in any security incident or breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized use or disclosure of sensitive or confidential patient or consumer information, could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation and financial condition.

As a data controller, we are accountable for any third-party data service providers we engage to process personal data on our behalf. We attempt to address the associated risks by performing security assessments, detailed due diligence and regularly performing privacy and security reviews of our vendors and requiring all such third-party providers with data access to sign agreements, including business associate agreements, and where required under EU law, obligating them to only process data according to our instructions and to take sufficient security measures to protect such data. There is no assurance that these contractual measures and our own privacy and security-related safeguards will protect us from the risks associated with the third-party processing, storage and transmission of such information. Any violation of data or security laws by our third-party processors could have a material adverse effect on our business and result in the fines and penalties outlined above.

We are also subject to evolving European privacy laws on electronic marketing and cookies. The EU is in the process of replacing the e-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC) (the “e-Privacy Directive”) with a new set of rules taking the form of a regulation, which will be directly applicable to the laws of each European member state, without need for further implementation. The draft e-Privacy Regulation (the “e-Privacy Regulation”) imposes strict opt-in marketing rules with limited exceptions for business-to-business communications, alters rules on third-party cookies, web beacons and similar technology and significantly increases fining powers to the same levels as GDPR (i.e. the greater of 20 million euros or 4% of total global annual revenue). While the e-Privacy Regulation was originally intended to be adopted on May 25, 2018 (alongside the GDPR), it is still going through the European legislative process and commentators now expect it to be adopted during the second half of 2020 or during 2021 following a transition period.

Due to our international operations, we are subject to anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, customs laws, sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations. If we fail to comply with these laws, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties, other remedial measures and legal expenses.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.K. Bribery Act 2010 (the “Bribery Act”); the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”); and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business and may do business in the future. The Bribery Act, FCPA, and these other laws generally prohibit us, our officers and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed by, or providing prohibited payments or anything else of value to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. We may in the future operate in jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we may participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA, or local anti-corruption laws. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope, or effect of future regulatory requirements to which any of our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing any international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, and authorities in the EU, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions on countries and persons, customs requirements and currency exchange regulations (collectively, the “Trade Control Laws”).

46

There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA, or other legal requirements, including Trade Control Laws. If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control Laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement, and other sanctions and remedial measures and legal expenses. Any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws, or Trade Control Laws by U.K., U.S., or other authorities, even if it is ultimately determined that we did not violate such laws, could be costly and time-consuming, require significant personnel resources, and harm our reputation.

We will seek to build and continuously improve our systems of internal controls and to remedy any weaknesses identified. There can be no assurance, however, that the policies and procedures will be followed at all times or effectively detect and prevent violations of the applicable laws by one or more of our employees, consultants, agents, or collaborators and, as a result, we could be subject to fines, penalties, or prosecution.

Risks Related to Commercialization

We operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing industry, which may result in others acquiring, developing, or commercializing competing product candidates before or more successfully than we do.

The biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive and subject to significant and rapid technological change. Our success is highly dependent on our ability to acquire, develop, and obtain marketing approval for new product candidates on a cost-effective basis and to market them successfully. If setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole or etigilimab is approved, we will face intense competition from a variety of businesses, including large, fully integrated pharmaceutical companies, non-rare pharmaceutical companies, and biopharmaceutical companies in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. These organizations may have significantly greater resources than we have and conduct similar research; seek patent protection; and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and marketing of product candidates that may compete with our product candidates.

We expect to face competition for each of our current product candidates, including specifically:

47

We also anticipate that new companies will enter these markets in the future. If we successfully develop and commercialize any of setrusumab, alvelestat, acumapimod, leflutrozole or etigilimab, they will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. The highly competitive nature of and rapid technological changes in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries could render our product candidates obsolete, less competitive, or uneconomical. Our competitors may, among other things:

48

Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel; establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration; and in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize product candidates that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our product candidates. Our competitors may also obtain FDA, EMA, or other regulatory approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our own product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, existing products approved for other indications could be used off-label and may compete with our products. For example, the only treatments available to OI patients are drugs such as bisphosphonates, which are not approved for this indication but are commonly used off-label in children.

We have obtained orphan drug designation for setrusumab for the treatment of OI in the United States and EU, but we may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for alvelestat or any future product candidates, and we may be unable to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for orphan drug exclusivity, for setrusumab or any other product for which we obtain orphan drug designation.

Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (the “Orphan Drug Act”), the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as one occurring in a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the EU, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”) recommends to the European Commission the granting of orphan designation to promote the development of medicinal products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU. Additionally, designation is granted for medicinal products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating, or serious and chronic condition when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EU would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological product or where there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment, or, if such a method exists, where the medicine can demonstrate that it is of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax credits for qualified clinical testing, and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval of that drug 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

49

the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Under the FDA’s regulations, the FDA will deny orphan drug exclusivity to a designated drug upon approval if the FDA has already approved another drug with the same active ingredient for the same indication, unless the drug is demonstrated to be clinically superior to the previously approved drug. In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity following approval. This period can be extended by two years if studies in children are performed in accordance with a PIP. In addition, this period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the drug is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to supply the treatment. In the EU, a marketing authorization for an orphan designated product will not be granted if a similar drug has been approved in the EU for the same therapeutic indication, unless the applicant can establish that its product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior. A similar drug is a product containing a similar active substance or substances as those contained in an already authorized product. Similar active substance is defined as an identical active substance, or an active substance with the same principal molecular structural features (but not necessarily all of the same molecular features) and which acts via the same mechanism.

We have obtained orphan drug designation from the FDA and EMA for setrusumab for the treatment of OI, and we plan to seek orphan drug designation for alvelestat and future rare disease product candidates. Even with 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 product candidates, which could prevent us from marketing our product candidates if another company is able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity before we do. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be unavailable if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or may be lost in the United States if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition following approval. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity, that exclusivity may not effectively protect our product candidates from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. In addition, the FDA and the EMA can subsequently approve product candidates with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA or the EMA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. In addition, while we intend to seek orphan drug designation for other existing and future product candidates, including alvelestat, we may never receive such designations.

There have been legal challenges to aspects of the FDA’s regulations and policies concerning the exclusivity provisions of the Orphan Drug Act, and future challenges could lead to changes that affect the protections afforded to our product candidates in ways that are difficult to predict. In 2014, a U.S. district court invalidated the FDA’s denial of orphan exclusivity to an orphan designated drug, which the FDA had based on its determination that the drug was not proven to be clinically superior to a previously approved “same drug.” In response to the decision, the FDA released a policy statement stating that the court’s decision is limited to the facts of that particular case and that the FDA will continue to deny orphan drug exclusivity to a designated drug upon approval if the drug is the “same” as a previously approved drug, unless the drug is demonstrated to be clinically superior to that previously approved drug. Since then, similar legal challenges have been initiated against the FDA for its denial of orphan drug exclusivity to other designated drugs, and in 2017, Congress amended the Orphan Drug Act to require a demonstration of clinical superiority upon approval as a condition of receiving orphan drug exclusivity when another “same drug” has already been approved for the same

50

indication. In the future, there is the potential for additional legal challenges to the FDA’s orphan drug regulations and policies, and it is uncertain how ongoing and future challenges might affect our business.

We may seek and fail to obtain breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for setrusumab or alvelestat, or any future product candidates or access to the PRIME scheme by the EMA for alvelestat or any future product candidates. Even if we obtain such designation or access, the designation or access may not lead to faster development or regulatory review or approval, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

In 2012, the FDA established a breakthrough therapy designation which is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates that treat serious or life-threatening diseases where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically-significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation of a product as a breakthrough therapy provides potential benefits that include but are not limited to more frequent meetings with the FDA to discuss the development plan for the product and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support approval; more frequent written correspondence from the FDA about such things as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers; intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, beginning as early as Phase 1; organizational commitment involving senior managers; and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Drugs and biologics designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. Similarly, the EMA has established the PRIME scheme to expedite the development and review of product candidates that show a potential to address to a significant extent an unmet medical need, based on early clinical data. In November 2017, setrusumab was admitted to the PRIME scheme of the EMA.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. We cannot be sure that our evaluation of our product candidates as qualifying for breakthrough therapy designation will meet the FDA’s expectations. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product may not result in a faster development process, review, or approval compared to product candidates considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Similarly, access to the PRIME scheme is at the discretion of the EMA, and we cannot be sure that alvelestat or any future product candidates will be granted access to the scheme; that participation in the scheme will result in expedited regulatory review or approval of our product candidates; or that access to the scheme, once granted, will not be revoked.

We intend to directly commercialize or co-commercialize our product candidates for rare diseases and to seek strategic relationships with third parties for the development and/or commercialization of our product candidates for non-rare diseases. If we are unable to develop our own sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities or enter into business arrangements, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

We have no marketing, sales, or distribution capabilities and we currently have no experience with marketing, selling or distributing pharmaceutical product candidates. We also have no strategic relationships in place for the commercialization of our product candidates. For setrusumab and alvelestat, if approved, and for any future product candidates for rare diseases, we intend either to establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize or co-commercialize these product candidates in major markets or

51

potentially to outsource aspects of these functions to third parties or partners. We may not be able to hire a sales force that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in OI, AATD, or other relevant rare diseases. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these product candidates.

We currently intend to enter into strategic relationships with pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or other partners for the continued development of our non-rare disease product candidates, acumapimod, etigilimab and leflutrozole, and we may take the same approach for other product candidates. These arrangements would also likely include the commercialization of a product. Alternatively, we may seek to sell or out-license one or more of our non-rare disease product candidates. See “—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry—Following the Licensing Agreement for Navi, and if we sell or out-license other of our non-rare disease product candidates or out-license any of our rare disease product candidates for any territories, we could be exposed to future liabilities.”

As a result of the entering into any such planned partnerships or arrangements, our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we directly marketed or sold these product candidates on our own. In addition, any revenue we receive will depend upon the terms of such partnership or arrangement, which may not be as favorable to us as possible, and the efforts of the other party, which may not be adequate or successful and are likely to be beyond our control. We may not be successful in identifying a suitable partner or partners, and we may not be able to reach agreement with them at all. If we are unable to enter into these partnerships or arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize these product candidates.

These commercialization approaches are expensive and time consuming, and some or all of the costs associated with such efforts may be incurred in advance of any approval of our product candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through strategic relationships with third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant losses.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate coverage, reimbursement levels, and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those product candidates and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as our product candidates, assuming approval. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for product candidates by governmental authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for our product candidates by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Third party payors may also elect to restrict coverage to a subset of patients that could potentially be treated with our products, if approved. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the EU, or elsewhere will be available for our product candidates or any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical product candidates and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar, or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidates,

52

pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed product candidates at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in our product candidates. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our product candidates.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved product candidates. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models in the United States for how private payors and other governmental payors develop coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for product candidates exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for product candidates can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Our operations are also subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations in the United Kingdom and other countries outside of the United States, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in European and other countries will put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical product candidates are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries might compare the new product to an existing standard of care, including other treatments aimed at the same disease, if they exist. Health technology assessments, including cost-effectiveness evaluations, may be conducted in order to assess the medical value or added clinical benefit of a therapy. Countries may also conduct budget-impact assessments for a new therapy. In some cases, tendering is used to decide which therapy will be reimbursed and made available for a group of patients where more than one treatment exists. Countries might also require further studies or in-use evidence to be developed, or create coverage with evidence generation under some form of so-called managed access agreements. Some countries allow for a company to set the price, which is then agreed in negotiation with the country authorities, who might then monitor sales for that product and re-assess or re-evaluate when a certain statutory health insurance expenditure threshold is reached. Other countries might set their price based on prices in a selected country or group of countries under international or external reference pricing systems. If an agreement cannot be reached, confidential discounts might be negotiated between the manufacturer and the healthcare system authorities. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the

53

level of reimbursement for newly approved product candidates and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new product candidates.

Our existing and future product candidates may not gain market acceptance, in which case our ability to generate product revenues will be compromised.

Even if the FDA, the EMA, or any other regulatory authority approves the marketing of our product candidates, whether developed on our own or with a collaborator, physicians, healthcare providers, patients, or the medical community may not accept or use our product candidates. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue or any profits from operations. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

If our product candidates fail to gain market acceptance, our ability to generate revenues will be adversely affected. Even if our product candidates achieve market acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenues.

Any product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologic product candidates in the United States may face competition sooner than anticipated.

In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological product candidates 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 pre-clinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of its 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. While it is uncertain when processes intended to implement the BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could adversely affect the future commercial prospects for any biological product candidates.

54

We believe that if any product is approved as a biological product under a BLA, it 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 product candidates for competing product candidates, 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 a reference product in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological product candidates is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

In the EU, MAAs for product candidates that are biosimilar to an already authorized biological product, the so-called reference product, can rely on the safety and efficacy data contained in the dossier of the reference product. To qualify as a biosimilar product the marketing authorization applicant must demonstrate, through comprehensive comparability studies with the reference product, that its product is: (i) highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding the natural variability inherent to all biological medicines, and (ii) that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product in terms of safety, quality, and efficacy. Biosimilars can only be authorized for use after the period of exclusivity of the reference biological medicine has expired. In general, this means that the biological reference product must have been authorized for at least 10 years before a biosimilar can be made available by another company.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent investigators and CROs, to conduct our clinical trials. If these CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates, or such approval or commercialization may be delayed, and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon independent clinical investigators and CROs to conduct our clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our ongoing clinical programs. We rely on these parties for the execution of our clinical trials and control only certain aspects of these parties’ activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our independent investigators and CROs are required to comply with GxP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area, and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GxP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we fail to exercise adequate oversight over any of our independent investigators or CROs or if we or any of our independent investigators or CROs fail to comply with applicable GxP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon a regulatory inspection of us or our independent investigators or CROs, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GxP requirements. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Further, these independent investigators and CROs are not our employees and we are not able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to our clinical trials. If our independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or

55

compromise the prospects for approval and commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information is misappropriated.

If any of our relationships with our independent investigators or CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative independent investigators or CROs or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional investigators or CROs involves additional cost and potential delays and requires our management’s time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new independent investigator or CRO commences work. As a result, delays could occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.

If our independent investigators or 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 a 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 our product candidates. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

We currently rely on third-party CMOs for the production of clinical supply of our product candidates and intend to rely on CMOs for the production of commercial supply of our product candidates, if approved. Our dependence on CMOs may impair the development of our product candidates and may impair the commercialization of our product candidates, which would adversely impact our business and financial position.

We have limited personnel with experience in manufacturing, and we do not own facilities for manufacturing our product candidates. Instead, we rely on and expect to continue to rely on CMOs for the supply of cGMP grade clinical trial materials and commercial quantities of our product candidates, if approved. Reliance on CMOs may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our product candidates ourselves. Novartis previously provided clinical supplies for setrusumab, acumapimod, and leflutrozole and certain transitional services. We have moved the clinical supply manufacture for these product candidates to CMOs. We also intend to contract with CMOs for the clinical supply of alvelestat.

The facilities used to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA, the EMA, and comparable foreign authorities pursuant to inspections. While we provide oversight of manufacturing activities, we do not and will not control the execution of our manufacturing activities by, and are or will be essentially dependent on, our CMOs for compliance with cGMP requirements for the manufacture of our product candidates. As a result, we are subject to the risk that our product candidates may have manufacturing defects that we have limited ability to prevent. If a CMO cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the regulatory requirements, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for the use of our investigational medicinal product candidates in clinical trials, or for commercial distribution of our product candidates, if approved. In addition, we have limited control over the ability of our CMOs to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA, the EMA or 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 delay our development program and significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition, any failure to achieve and maintain compliance with these laws, regulations and standards could subject us to the risk that we may have to suspend the manufacturing of our product candidates or that obtained approvals could be revoked. Furthermore, CMOs may breach existing agreements they have with us

56

because of factors beyond our control. They may also terminate or refuse to renew their agreement at a time that is costly or otherwise inconvenient for us. In addition, the manufacture of biologics involves expensive and complex processes and worldwide capacity at CMOs for the manufacture of biologics is currently limited. In addition, Novartis has a contractual right to approve or reject any additional CMO we wish to engage for the manufacture of setrusumab, other than those CMOs that we and Novartis have already agreed upon. If we were unable to find an adequate CMO or another acceptable solution in time, our clinical trials could be delayed or our commercial activities could be harmed.

We rely on and will continue to rely on CMOs to purchase from third-party suppliers the raw materials necessary to produce our product candidates. We do not and will not have control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our CMOs. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the production of these raw materials. Supplies of raw material could be interrupted from time to time and we cannot be certain that alternative supplies could be obtained within a reasonable timeframe, at an acceptable cost, or at all. In addition, a disruption in the supply of raw materials could delay the commercial launch of our product candidates, if approved, or result in a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates. Growth in the costs and expenses of raw materials may also impair our ability to cost effectively manufacture our product candidates. There are a limited number of suppliers for the raw materials that we may use to manufacture our product candidates and we may need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of our product candidates.

Finding new CMOs or third-party suppliers involves additional cost and requires our management’s time and focus. In addition, there is typically a transition period when a new CMO commences work. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have on hand, or will be able to obtain, a sufficient supply of our product candidates to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of our product candidates or the raw materials needed to produce our product candidates, could considerably delay conducting our clinical trials and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

As part of their manufacture of our product candidates, our CMOs and third-party suppliers are expected to comply with and respect the proprietary rights of others. If a CMO or third-party supplier fails to acquire the proper licenses or otherwise infringes the proprietary rights of others in the course of providing services to us, we may have to find alternative CMOs or third-party suppliers or defend against claims of infringement, either of which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

We intend to enter into strategic relationships with third parties, based on a product-by-product assessment, for the development of some of our product candidates. If we fail to enter into these arrangements, our business, development and commercialization prospects could be adversely affected.

Our development program for our product candidates, particularly as we enter late-stage development, will require substantial additional funds. We currently intend to enter into strategic relationships with pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or other partners for the continued development of our non-rare disease product candidates, acumapimod, etigilimab and leflutrozole, and we may take the same approach for other product candidates. Alternatively, we may seek to sell or out-license one or more of our non-rare disease product candidates. See “—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry—Following the Licensing Agreement for Navi, and if we sell or out-license other of our non-rare disease product candidates or out-license any of our rare disease product candidates for any territories, we could be exposed to future liabilities.”

The types of development arrangements referred to above are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document, and we may not be able to enter into these arrangements on favorable terms

57

or at all. In addition, we face significant competition from other companies in seeking out these types of development arrangements. If we are successful in entering into such an arrangement, we will be subject to other risks, including our inability to control the amount of time and resources the third party will dedicate to our product candidates, financial or other difficulties experienced by such third party, relinquishing important rights to such third party, and the arrangement failing to be profitable to us.

If we are unable to enter into an appropriate arrangement for the development of our non-rare disease product candidates, we may have to reduce, delay, or terminate the development of such product candidates. We could also seek to sell or out-license one or more of our non-rare disease product candidates. If we, instead, decide to increase our expenditures to fund development activities on our own, we will need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. As a result, our business may be substantially harmed.

See also “—Risks Related to Commercialization—We intend to directly commercialize or co-commercialize our product candidates for rare diseases and to seek strategic relationships with third parties for the development and/or commercialization of our product candidates for non-rare diseases. If we are unable to develop our own sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities or enter into business arrangements, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.”

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We rely on patents and other intellectual property rights to protect our product candidates, the obtainment, enforcement, defense and maintenance of which may be challenging and costly. Failure to enforce or protect these rights adequately could harm our ability to compete and impair our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on obtaining and maintaining patents and other forms of intellectual property protection, for example, for compositions-of-matter of our product candidates, formulations of our product candidates, polymorphs, salts and analogs of our product candidates, methods used to manufacture our product candidates, methods for manufacturing of the final drug product candidates, and methods of using our product candidates for the treatment of the indications we are developing or plan to develop, or on in-licensing such rights. Our patent portfolio comprises patents and patent applications which cover our setrusumab, acumapimod, and leflutrozole product candidates acquired or exclusively licensed from Novartis, patents and patent applications which cover our alvelestat product candidate exclusively licensed (with the option to purchase) from AstraZeneca, and patents and patent applications which cover Navi and our etigilimab product candidate (solely owned by OncoMed). The assignments of those patents and patent applications which we acquired from Novartis have been registered with the relevant authorities in key territories and the exclusive licenses from AstraZeneca have also been registered with the relevant authorities in key territories. There is no assurance that our pending patent applications will result in issued patents, or if issued as patents, will include claims with sufficient scope of coverage to protect our product candidates, or that any pending patent applications will be issued as patents in a timely manner. Failure to obtain, maintain or extend adequate patent and other intellectual property rights could adversely affect our ability to develop and market our product candidates, resulting in harm to our business.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming. We or our licensors may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications for a commercially reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we or our licensors may fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection for them. Moreover, depending on the terms of any future in-licenses to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology in-licensed from third parties. Therefore, these patents and patent

58

applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Further, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our and our licensors’ pending and future patent applications may not result in issued patents that protect our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. The patent examination process may require us or our licensors to narrow the scope of the claims of our or our licensors’ pending and future patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. We cannot assure that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. If such prior art exists, it can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent application from being issued as a patent. Even if patent applications do successfully issue as patents and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may initiate an opposition, interference, reexamination, post grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in courts or before patent offices, or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability, or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. Our and our licensors’ patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such patent applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology.

Because patent applications are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, in the United States, if third parties have filed such patent applications on or before March 15, 2013, the date on which the United States changed from a first to invent to a first to file patent system, an interference proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. If third parties have filed such applications after March 15, 2013, a derivation proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine whether our invention was derived from such third parties’ product candidates. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing our invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license.

We enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing and prosecuting patent applications and maintaining and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our and our licensors’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their competitor’s own product candidates and, further, may export otherwise infringing product candidates to territories where we and our licensors have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as that in the United States or Europe. These product candidates may compete with our product candidates, and our and our licensors’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. The examination of each national or regional patent application is an independent proceeding. As a result, patent applications in the same family may issue as patents in some jurisdictions, such as in the United States, but may issue as patents with claims of different scope or may even be refused in other jurisdictions, such as in China, which has different requirements for patentability, including a stringent requirement for a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product or technology.

59

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or rules and regulations in the United States and Europe, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing product candidates in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in other jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing as patents, 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. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets. If we or our licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions.

Some countries also have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patents. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired.

Our patents and other proprietary rights may not adequately protect our technologies and product candidates, and may not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of 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. The following examples are illustrative:

60

We may become subject to third parties’ claims alleging infringement of third-party patents and proprietary rights, or we may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other proprietary rights, which could be costly and time consuming, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our product candidates, or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell our product candidates without alleged or actual infringement, misappropriation, or other violation of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Litigation relating to patents and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries is common, including patent infringement lawsuits and interferences, oppositions, and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), and foreign patent offices. The various markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, many companies in intellectual property-dependent industries, including in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries, have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. Numerous U.S., European, and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. Some claimants may have substantially greater resources than we have and may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation to a greater degree and for longer periods of time than we could. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us. As the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties.

We may be subject to third-party claims including infringement, interference or derivation proceedings, post-grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO, or similar adversarial proceedings or litigation in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, and the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the applicable product unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our compositions, formulations, or

61

methods of treatment, prevention, or use, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In addition, defending such claims would cause us to incur substantial expenses and could cause us to pay substantial damages, if we are found to be infringing a third party’s patent rights. These damages potentially include increased damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have infringed such rights willfully. As an example of the foregoing risks, we are aware of a third-party patent family which currently includes a patent granted by the European Patent Office (“EPO”), containing claims that appear to cover the use of setrusumab in the treatment of OI. The patent owner could assert such patent against us, which could present the foregoing risks and impose limitations in our ability to develop, manufacture or sell setrusumab for such use in the EU, unless we obtain a license under such patent, such patent is determined to be invalid or unenforceable by the EPO or a national court in one or more relevant territories, or such patent is revoked or otherwise limited by the EPO. This patent is currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO, but there can be no assurance as to the outcome of such proceedings.

Any of our patents may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. 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. We may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions in a foreign patent office, that challenge priority of invention or other features of patentability. 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 our technology and product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

Further, if a patent infringement suit is brought against us or our third-party service providers, our development, manufacturing or sales activities relating to the product or product that is the subject of the suit may be delayed or terminated. As a result of patent infringement claims, or in order to avoid potential infringement claims, we may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party, which would be likely to include a requirement to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be nonexclusive, which would give our competitors access to the same intellectual property rights. If we are unable to enter into a license on acceptable terms, we could be prevented from commercializing one or more of our product candidates, or forced to modify such product candidates, or to cease some aspect of our business operations, which could harm our business significantly. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights, which may result in significant cost and delay to us, or which redesign could be technically infeasible. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In

62

patent litigation in the United States and in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Third parties might allege unenforceability of our patents because someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome of proceedings involving assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of patents, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. There is a risk that in connection with such proceedings, a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. If a defendant 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 product candidates. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention. Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving one or more of our patents could limit our ability to assert those patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competing product candidates. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop, or commercialize our current or future product candidates.

Furthermore, our patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors and other third parties design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights. For example, a third party may develop a competitive product that provides benefits similar to our product candidates but that uses a technology that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. Our competitors may also seek approval to market generic versions of any approved products and in connection with seeking such approval may claim that our patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates could be negatively affected.

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 during this type of litigation. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims 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 our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have an adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other

63

interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors view these announcements in a negative light, the price of our ADSs could be adversely affected.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop, manufacture and market our product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that any of our, our licensors’, or the previous owners’ patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims, or the expiration of relevant patent applications or patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and patent application in the United States, Europe and elsewhere that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and, upon request, certain patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States, remain confidential until those patent applications issue as patents. Patent applications in the United States, EU, and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge, including any such patent applications that may claim priority from patent applications for patents that we have determined will expire before we commercialize our product candidates. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. Moreover, as we study our product candidates during development, we may learn new information regarding their structure, composition, properties, or functions that may render third-party patent applications or patents that we had not identified as being, or that we had not believed to be, relevant to our product candidates instead to be relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in a jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in the patent, and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending patent application may be incorrect. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date or the possibility of an extension of patent term of any patent in the United States, Europe, or elsewhere that we consider relevant also may be incorrect. Any of the foregoing circumstances, failures, or errors may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business, and our business may be substantially harmed as a result.

We are party to agreements with Novartis and AstraZeneca, under which we in-license certain intellectual property and were assigned, in the case of Novartis, or granted an option to acquire, in the case of AstraZeneca, certain patents and patent applications related to our business. In addition, we are party to an agreement with Oncologie, pursuant to which we have out-licensed certain intellectual property. We may enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose and any future license agreements are likely to impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. Any uncured, material breach under these license agreements could result in the loss of our rights to practice such in-licensed intellectual property, and could compromise our development and commercialization efforts for any current or future product candidates.

64

We may not be successful in maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates or obtaining patent or other intellectual property rights important to our business through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We currently own and have in-licensed rights to intellectual property, including patents, patent applications and know-how, relating to our product candidates, and our success will likely depend on maintaining these rights. Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to continue to acquire, in-license, maintain, or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and the rights to those formulations or methods of making those formulations may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights that we identify as necessary for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies also are pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash 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 may also be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on a timely basis, on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license to intellectual property of interest, we may not be able to secure exclusive rights, in which case others could use the same rights and compete with us. If we are unable to successfully obtain a license to third-party intellectual property rights necessary for the development of our product candidates or a development program on acceptable terms, we may have to abandon development of our product candidates or that development program.

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

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of a patent. In addition, the USPTO and other foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent failure to make payment of such fees or to comply with such provisions can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which such non-compliance will result in the abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, and the partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, and non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents within prescribed time limits. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates or if we or our licensors otherwise allow our patents or patent applications to be abandoned or lapse, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would hurt our competitive position and could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in any indication for which they are approved.

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

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and patent applications or ownership of our intellectual property. In particular, we may be subject to claims that former employees

65

or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. For example, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, or we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological complexity and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the America Invents Act (the “AIA”), which was passed in September, 2011, resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes to the limitation where a patent may be challenged, thus providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action.

Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO proceedings to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. However, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ issued patents.

Additionally, 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 Congress, the federal courts and the

66

USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In addition, the European patent system is relatively stringent in the type of amendments that are allowed during prosecution. Complying with these laws and regulations could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar non-U.S. legislation for extending the term of patents covering our product candidates, our ability to compete effectively could be impaired.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments.” The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product or method of use as compensation for 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. Similar patent term extensions may be available in other jurisdictions. For example, a supplementary protection certificate in Europe may be applied for approval to recover some of the time lost between the patent application filing date and the date of first marketing authorization. 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 shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing product candidates sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable product candidates could be reduced, possibly materially.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our competitive position may be adversely affected.

We currently own registered trademarks. We may not be able to obtain trademark protection in territories that we consider of significant importance to us. In addition, any of our trademarks or trade names, whether registered or unregistered, may be challenged, opposed, infringed, cancelled, circumvented or declared generic, or determined to be infringing on other marks, as applicable. We may not be able to maintain and protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we will need to build name recognition by potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and know-how, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

We consider proprietary trade secrets and confidential know-how and unpatented know-how to be important to our business. In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also may rely on trade secrets or confidential know-how to protect our technology, especially where patent protection is believed to be of limited value. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to maintain as confidential.

To protect this type of information against disclosure or appropriation by competitors, our policy is to require our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements with us. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets, and

67

know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we cannot know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. In addition, current or former employees, consultants, contractors, and advisers may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. We therefore cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Enforcing a claim that a third party obtained illegally and is using trade secrets or confidential know-how is expensive, time consuming, and unpredictable. The enforceability of confidentiality agreements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Failure to protect or maintain trade secrets and confidential know-how could adversely affect our business and our competitive position. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and may even apply for patent protection in respect of the same. If successful in obtaining such patent protection, our competitors could limit our use of our own trade secrets or confidential know-how.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that we or our employees have misappropriated third-party intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property. These claims may be costly to defend and if we do not successfully do so, we may be required to pay monetary damages and lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.

Some of our employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biopharmaceutical or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the know-how, trade secrets, or other proprietary information of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including know-how, trade secrets, or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper or undermine our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, which would severely harm our business. In addition, if such intellectual property rights were to be awarded to a third party, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or product candidates. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could hamper or undermine our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, which would severely harm our business. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management from the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our proprietary information may be lost or we may suffer security breaches.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, clinical trial data, proprietary business information, personal data and personally identifiable

68

information of our clinical trial subjects and employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure and those of our CROs or other contractors or consultants may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance, or other disruptions. The loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing, or planned trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Although, to our knowledge, we have not experienced any such material security breach to date, any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost, or stolen. Any such access, disclosure, or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, and significant regulatory penalties; disrupt our operations; damage our reputation; and cause a loss of confidence in us and our ability to conduct clinical trials, which could adversely affect our reputation and delay our clinical development of our product candidates.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future growth and ability to compete depends on retaining our key personnel and recruiting additional qualified personnel.

Our success depends upon the continued contributions of our key management, including all of our senior management team, and scientific and technical personnel, many of whom have been instrumental for us and have substantial experience with rare and non-rare diseases and the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries. The loss of key managers and senior physicians or scientists could delay our acquisition and development activities. In addition, the competition for qualified personnel in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical fields is intense, and our future success depends upon our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled scientific, technical, and managerial employees. We face competition for personnel from other companies and organizations. If our recruitment and retention efforts are unsuccessful in the future, it may be difficult for us to achieve our development objectives, raise additional capital, and implement our business strategy.

We aim to expand our development, regulatory, and sales and marketing capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our planned growth, which could disrupt our operations.

To manage our planned future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities or acquire new facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such planned growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Risks Related to the Offering and our ADSs

The market price for ADSs and the underlying ordinary shares may be volatile and may decline regardless of our operating performance, and the value of your investment could materially decline.

The trading price of ADSs may fluctuate, and the trading price of ordinary shares on AIM is likely to continue to fluctuate, substantially.

69

The market price of ADSs and ordinary shares may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our ADSs to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling ADSs or ordinary shares and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of ADSs and ordinary shares.

In addition, the stock market in general, and emerging companies in particular, have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated to the operating performance of the companies affected by these fluctuations. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of ADSs and ordinary shares, regardless of our operating performance. In the past in the United States, when the market price of a security has been volatile, holders of that security have often instituted securities class action litigation against the issuer of such securities. If any of the holders of ADSs or ordinary shares were to bring such a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit and the attention of our senior management would be diverted from the operation of our business. Any adverse determination in litigation could also subject us to significant liabilities.

The sale of our ADSs to Aspire Capital may cause substantial dilution to our existing shareholders and the sale of the ADSs acquired by Aspire Capital could cause the price of our ADSs to decline.

We are registering for sale the Initial Shares of 2,286,585 ADSs and the Commission Shares of 572,519 ADSs that the selling shareholder may receive upon exchange of ordinary shares that we have issued to the selling shareholder and up to $25.0 million worth of ordinary shares in the form of ADSs that we may sell to Aspire Capital under the Purchase Agreement. It is anticipated that shares registered in this offering will be sold over a period of up to approximately 30 months from the date of this prospectus. The number of ADSs ultimately offered for sale by Aspire Capital under this

70

prospectus is dependent upon the number of ADSs we elect to sell to Aspire Capital under the Purchase Agreement. Depending on a variety of factors, including market liquidity of our ADSs, the sale of ADSs under the Purchase Agreement may cause the trading price of our ADSs to decline.

Aspire Capital may ultimately purchase all, some or none of the additional $25.0 million worth of ordinary shares that are exchangeable for ADSs that, together with the Initial Shares and the Commission Shares, is the subject of this prospectus. Aspire Capital may sell all, some or none of our ADSs that it holds or comes to hold under the Purchase Agreement. Sales by Aspire Capital of ADSs acquired pursuant to the Purchase Agreement under the registration statement, of which this prospectus is a part, may result in dilution to the interests of other holders of our ADSs. The sale of a substantial number of ADSs by Aspire Capital in this offering, or anticipation of such sales, could cause the trading price of our ADSs to decline or make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise desire. However, we have the right under the Purchase Agreement to control the timing and amount of sales of our ADSs to Aspire Capital, and the Purchase Agreement may be terminated by us at any time at our discretion without any penalty or cost to us.

Future sales of ordinary shares or ADSs could depress the market price of ADSs.

If holders of ordinary shares or ADSs sell, or indicate an intent to sell, substantial amounts of ordinary shares or ADSs in the public markets, the trading price of ADSs or ordinary shares could decline significantly. These sales might also make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities at a time and price that we otherwise would deem appropriate.

Circumstances affecting Woodford Investment Management Limited may have a material adverse impact on the price of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

Until October 15, 2019, Woodford Investment Management Limited (“Woodford”) indirectly through various funds held 27.6% of our shares, of which 19.6 percentage points were held by LF Woodford Equity Income Fund (the “Fund”) and 8.0 percentage points were held by Woodford Patient Capital Trust, Plc (“WPCT”). On October 15, 2019, Link Fund Solutions Limited (“Link”), as authorized corporate director of the Fund, announced its decision to wind the Fund up as soon as practicable by way of an orderly realization of the Fund’s assets (the “Winding-up Announcement”). This decision came after Link’s decision on June 3, 2019 to suspend redemptions and other dealings in shares in the Fund as a result of an increased level of redemptions from the Fund. Also on October 15, 2019, Woodford ceased to be the investment manager for the Fund. It was further announced that Link has allocated the Fund’s assets into two portfolios, one comprised of listed assets and one comprised of unlisted and certain highly illiquid listed assets. According to the Winding-Up Announcement, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited has been appointed to sell the assets in the first portfolio during the period until winding up of the Fund commences. In addition, PJT Partners (UK) Limited will continue to assist Link in selling the assets in the second portfolio. On January 18, 2020, the Fund was formally moved into wind-up. Schroder Investment Management succeeded Woodford as investment manager of WPCT, and WPCT was renamed Schroder UK Public Private Trust PLC. The first capital distribution by Link was paid to investors on January 30, 2020, and further capital distributions are expected to be made as and when suitable amounts of cash have been raised from the sale of the remaining assets of the Fund.

As a direct or indirect result of the foregoing, all or part of the shares previously held and managed by Woodford may be sold or otherwise disposed of, any of which may occur imminently. Any such sale or other disposition, or the possibility of such transactions, could cause the market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares to decline. This could make it more difficult for other shareholders to sell their ADSs and ordinary shares in us at a favorable price and time or at all. In addition, while Link retains control over approximately 15.3% of our shares, it will continue to exert significant influence over all

71

matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Link’s interests may conflict with your interests, including as a direct or indirect result of the above-described developments.

The dual listing of ordinary shares and ADSs is costly to maintain and may adversely affect the liquidity and value of ordinary shares and ADSs.

Our ADSs are listed for trading on Nasdaq and our ordinary shares trade on AIM. Since April 24, 2019 we have maintained a dual listing, which has generated and will continue to generate additional costs, including significant legal, accounting, investor relations, and other expenses that we did not incur prior to April 24, 2019, in addition to the costs associated with the additional reporting requirements described elsewhere in this prospectus. We cannot predict the effect of this dual listing on the value of our ADSs and ordinary shares. However, the dual listing of ADSs and ordinary shares may dilute the liquidity of these securities in one or both markets and may adversely affect the development of an active trading market for our ADSs. The price of our ADSs could also be adversely affected by trading in ordinary shares on AIM. In addition, the dual listing of ordinary shares and ADSs may cause the market price for ADSs and the underlying ordinary shares to fluctuate and decline regardless of our operating performance. See “—The market price for ADSs and the underlying ordinary shares may be volatile and may decline regardless of our operating performance, and the value of your investment could materially decline.”

Fluctuations in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the pound sterling may increase the risk of holding ADSs.

The share price of ordinary shares is quoted on AIM in pence sterling, while our ADSs trade on Nasdaq in U.S. dollars. Fluctuations in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the pound sterling may result in differences between the value of our ADSs and the value of ordinary shares, which may result in heavy trading by investors seeking to exploit such differences. In addition, as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the pound sterling, the U.S. dollar equivalent of the proceeds that a holder of our ADSs would receive upon the sale in the United Kingdom of any ordinary shares withdrawn from the depositary, and the U.S. dollar equivalent of any cash dividends paid in pound sterling on ordinary shares represented by our ADSs, could also decline.

We have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from the offering and may not use them effectively.

Our senior management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds from the offering and could spend the proceeds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our ADSs. The failure by our senior management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses, cause the price of our ADSs to decline, and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from the offering in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Purchasers of ADSs in the offering may not have the same voting rights as the holders of our ordinary shares and may not receive voting materials in time to be able to exercise their right to vote.

Except as described in this prospectus, holders of our ADSs will not be able to exercise voting rights attaching to the ordinary shares represented by our ADSs on an individual basis. Holders of our ADSs will appoint the depositary or our nominee as their representative to exercise the voting rights attaching to the ordinary shares represented by our ADSs. Purchasers of ADSs in the offering may not receive voting materials in time to instruct the depositary to vote, and it is possible that they, or persons who hold their ADSs through brokers, dealers, or other third parties, will not have the opportunity to exercise a right to vote. Furthermore, the depositary will not be liable for any failure to carry out any instructions to vote, for the manner in which any vote is cast or for the effect of any such vote. As a

72

result, purchasers of ADSs in the offering may not be able to exercise voting rights and may lack recourse if their ADSs are not voted as requested. In addition, in their capacity as ADS holders, purchasers of ADSs in the offering will not be able to call a shareholders’ meeting.

You may be subject to limitations on the transfer of ADSs and the withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares.

ADSs are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when the depositary, in good faith, determines such action is necessary or advisable pursuant to the deposit agreement. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary thinks it is necessary or advisable to do so because of any requirement of law, government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement, or for any other reason, subject to your right to cancel your ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares. Temporary delays in the cancellation of your ADSs and withdrawal of the underlying ordinary shares may arise because the depositary has closed its transfer books or we have closed our transfer books, the transfer of ordinary shares is blocked to permit voting at a shareholders’ meeting or because we are paying a dividend on our ordinary shares.

In addition, you may not be able to cancel your ADSs and withdraw the underlying ordinary shares when you owe money for fees, taxes and similar charges to the depositary and when it is necessary to prohibit withdrawals in order to comply with any laws or governmental regulations that apply to our ADSs or to the withdrawal of our ordinary shares or other deposited securities.

The rights of our shareholders may differ from the rights typically offered to shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

We are incorporated under English law. The rights of holders of ordinary shares and, therefore, certain of the rights of holders of ADSs, are governed by English law, including the provisions of the U.K. Companies Act 2006, and by our Articles of Association (our “Articles”). These rights differ in certain respects from the rights of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations. See “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association—Differences in Corporate Law” and “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association—Articles of Association—Other U.K. Law Considerations—City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.” in this prospectus for a description of the principal differences between the provisions of the U.K. Companies Act 2006 applicable to us and, for example, the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to shareholders’ rights and protections.

The depositary for ADSs is entitled to charge holders fees for various services, including annual service fees.

The depositary for ADSs is entitled to charge holders fees for various services including for the issuance of ADSs upon deposit of ordinary shares, cancellation of ADSs, distributions of cash dividends or other cash distributions, distributions of ADSs pursuant to share dividends or other free share distributions, distributions of securities other than ADSs and annual service fees. In the case of ADSs issued by the depositary into The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), the fees will be charged by the DTC participant to the account of the applicable beneficial owner in accordance with the procedures and practices of the DTC participant as in effect at the time. The depositary for ADSs will not be responsible for any United Kingdom stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax arising upon the issuance or transfer of ADSs. For a discussion of the United Kingdom stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax consequences of the issuance and transfer of ADSs, see “Material Tax Considerations—Material United Kingdom Tax Considerations—Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Reserve Tax.”

73

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate research or unfavorable research about our business, the price and trading volume of ordinary shares and ADSs could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares and ADSs depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our ordinary shares or ADSs or publishes incorrect or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our ordinary shares and/or ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, or downgrades our ordinary shares or ADSs, demand for ADSs or ordinary shares could decrease, which could cause the price of ADSs and/or ordinary shares and/or trading volume to decline.

Our ADS holders may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to claims arising under the deposit agreement, which could result in less favorable results to the plaintiff(s) in any such action.

The deposit agreement governing our ADSs provides that holders and beneficial owners of ADSs irrevocably waive the right to a trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to the deposit agreement or our ADSs, including claims under U.S. federal securities laws, against us or the depositary to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. If this jury trial waiver provision is prohibited by applicable law, an action could nevertheless proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. Although we are not aware of a specific federal decision that addresses the enforceability of a jury trial waiver in the context of U.S. federal securities laws, it is our understanding that jury trial waivers are generally enforceable. Moreover, insofar as the deposit agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York, New York laws similarly recognize the validity of jury trial waivers in appropriate circumstances. In determining whether to enforce a jury trial waiver provision, New York courts and federal courts will consider whether the visibility of the jury trial waiver provision within the agreement is sufficiently prominent such that a party has knowingly waived any right to trial by jury. We believe that this is the case with respect to the deposit agreement and our ADSs.

In addition, New York courts will not enforce a jury trial waiver provision in order to bar a viable setoff or counterclaim sounding in fraud or one which is based upon a creditor’s negligence in failing to liquidate collateral upon a guarantor’s demand, or in the case of an intentional tort claim (as opposed to a contract dispute). No condition, stipulation or provision of the deposit agreement or ADSs serves as a waiver by any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs or by us or the depositary of compliance with any provision of U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

If any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs brings a claim against us or the depositary in connection with matters arising under the deposit agreement or our ADSs, including claims under U.S. federal securities laws, such holder or beneficial owner may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to such claims, which may have the effect of limiting and discouraging lawsuits against us or the depositary. If a lawsuit is brought against us or the depositary under the deposit agreement, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may result in different results than a trial by jury would have had, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiff(s) in any such action, depending on, among other things, the nature of the claims, the judge or justice hearing such claims, and the venue of the hearing.

You may not receive distributions on ordinary shares represented by ADSs or any value for them if it is unlawful or impractical to make them available to holders of ADSs.

Pursuant to the terms of the deposit agreement, the depositary for ADSs will distribute the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian receives on ordinary shares or other deposited securities after deducting its fees and expenses. You will receive these distributions in proportion to the number of ordinary shares your ADSs represent. However, in accordance with the limitations set forth

74

in the deposit agreement, it may be unlawful or impractical to make a distribution available to holders of ADSs. We have no obligation to take any other action to permit the distribution of ADSs, ordinary shares, rights or anything else to holders of ADSs. This means that you may not receive the distributions we make on our ordinary shares or any value from them if it is unlawful or impractical to make them available to you. These restrictions may have a material adverse effect on the value of ADSs.

It may be difficult for you to bring any action or enforce any judgment obtained in the United States against us or members of our Board, which may limit the remedies otherwise available to us.

We are incorporated as a public limited company in England and Wales, and the majority of our assets are located outside the United States. In addition, the majority of the members of our board of directors (our “Board”) are nationals and residents of countries, including the United Kingdom, outside of the United States. Most or all of the assets of these individuals are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the United States if you believe your rights have been infringed under the securities laws or otherwise. In addition, a United Kingdom court may prevent you from enforcing a judgment of a U.S. court against us or these individuals based on the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. A United Kingdom court may not allow you to bring an action against us or our directors based on the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof.

Shareholders in countries other than the United Kingdom will suffer dilution if they are unable to participate in future pre-emptive equity offerings.

Under English law, shareholders (being those shareholders that are included in a company’s register of members as holders of the legal title to that company’s shares) usually have pre-emptive rights to subscribe on a pro rata basis in the issuance of new shares for cash. The exercise of those pre-emptive rights by certain shareholders not resident in the United Kingdom may be restricted by applicable law or practice in the United Kingdom and overseas jurisdictions. In particular, the exercise of pre-emptive rights by United States shareholders would be prohibited unless an offering is registered under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act applies. Furthermore, under the deposit agreement for our ADSs, the depositary generally will not make available those pre-emptive rights to holders of ADSs unless certain conditions are met, including that the provision of such pre-emptive rights to the ADS holders is reasonably practicable. If no exemption applies and we determine not to register such offering, shareholders in the United States may not be able or permitted to exercise their pre-emptive rights. We are also permitted under English law to disapply pre-emptive rights (subject to the approval of our shareholders by special resolution or the inclusion in the articles of a power to disapply such rights) either generally or in relation to a specific allotment and thereby exclude certain shareholders, such as overseas shareholders, from participating in a rights offering (usually to avoid a breach of local securities laws). See “Description of Share Capital and Articles of Association” for further information relating to the Company’s existing authority to issue additional ordinary shares.

Holders of ADSs may not have the same voting rights as holders of ordinary shares and may not receive voting materials in time to be able to exercise their right to vote.

Holders of ADSs are not able to exercise voting rights attaching to ordinary shares underlying our ADSs on an individual basis. Each holder of ADSs has appointed the depositary or its nominee as the holder’s representative to exercise, pursuant to the instructions of the holder, the voting rights attaching to our ordinary shares underlying our ADSs. Holders of ADSs may not receive voting materials in time to instruct the depositary to vote, and it is possible that they, or persons who hold their ADSs through brokers, dealers or other third parties, will not have the opportunity to exercise a right to vote.

75

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on ADSs or ordinary shares in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gains and you may never receive a return on your investment.

Under English law, a company’s accumulated realized profits must exceed its accumulated realized losses on a non-consolidated basis before dividends can be paid. Therefore, we must have distributable profits before issuing a dividend. We have not paid dividends in the past on our ordinary shares. Further, we intend to retain future earnings, if any, for use in our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, our credit facility prohibits us from paying dividends on our equity securities without Kreos’s consent, and any future debt agreements may likewise preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, on ADSs or ordinary shares will be your sole source of gains for the foreseeable future.

We are a “foreign private issuer” under the rules and regulations of the SEC and, as a result, are exempt from a number of rules under the Exchange Act and are permitted to file less information with the SEC than a company incorporated in the United States.

We are incorporated as a public limited company in England and Wales and are deemed to be a “foreign private issuer” under the rules and regulations of the SEC. As a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from certain rules under the Exchange Act that would otherwise apply if we were a company incorporated in the United States, including:

In addition, our officers, directors and principal shareholders are exempt from the reporting and “short-swing” profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and the related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

As a foreign private issuer, we are not required to comply with some of the corporate governance standards of Nasdaq applicable to companies incorporated in the United States.

Our Board is required to meet certain corporate governance standards under Nasdaq Listing Rules, including the requirement to maintain an audit committee comprised of three or more directors satisfying the independence standards of Nasdaq applicable to audit committee members. While foreign private issuers are not required to comply with most of the other corporate governance rules of Nasdaq, we believe we currently comply with, and intend to continue to comply with, the majority of such requirements, including the requirements to maintain a majority of independent directors and nominating and compensation committees of our Board comprised solely of independent directors. We are required to follow the AIM rules and Corporate Governance Code published by the Quoted Companies Alliance. As a result, holders of our ADSs may not be afforded the benefits of the corporate governance standards of Nasdaq to the same extent applicable to companies incorporated in the United States. See “Management—Foreign Private Issuer Exemption” elsewhere in this prospectus.

Additional reporting requirements may apply if we lose our status as a foreign private issuer.

If we lose our status as a “foreign private issuer” under the rules and regulations of the SEC at some future time, then we will no longer be exempt from such rules and, among other things, will be required to file periodic reports and financial statements as if we were a company incorporated in the

76

United States. The costs incurred in fulfilling these additional regulatory requirements could be substantial.

Although our reporting obligations as a foreign private issuer are fewer than those of a public company incorporated in the United States, our costs of complying with our SEC reporting requirements are significant, and our management is required to devote substantial time to complying with SEC regulations.

As a company with securities listed in the United States, and particularly after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we will incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses that we did not incur previously. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on non-U.S. reporting public companies, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our senior management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, which in turn could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified senior management personnel or members for our Board. In addition, these rules and regulations are often 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.

Failure to establish and maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our senior management on our internal control over financial reporting beginning with a report as at December 31, 2019 in our annual report on Form 20-F filing in early 2020. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, 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, 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 we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

The executive officers, Board and certain of our existing shareholders own a majority or a significant portion of our outstanding ordinary shares and, as a result, have control or significant influence over us and our interests may conflict with the interests of these shareholders.

Our executive officers, Board and significant shareholders and their respective affiliates, in the aggregate, beneficially own a majority of our outstanding ordinary shares (including ordinary shares in the form of our ADSs). Depending on the level of attendance at our general meetings of shareholders, these shareholders either alone or voting together as a group may be in a position to control or significantly influence the outcome of decisions taken at any such general meeting. Any shareholder or

77

group of shareholders controlling more than 50% of the share capital present and voting at our general meetings of shareholders may control any shareholder resolution requiring a simple majority, including the appointment of board members, certain decisions relating to our capital structure and the approval of certain significant corporate transactions. Any shareholder or group of shareholders controlling more than 75% of the share capital present and voting at our general meetings of shareholders may control any shareholder resolution amending our Articles. These shareholders may have interests that differ from ours and may vote in a way with which we disagree and which may be adverse to your interests. Among other consequences, this concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control and might therefore negatively affect the market price of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

There is a significant risk that we will be a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for any taxable year, which could result in material adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences if you are a U.S. investor.

In general, a non-U.S. corporation will be a PFIC for any taxable year in which (i) 75% or more of its gross income consists of passive income (the “income test”) or (ii) 50% or more of the value of its assets consists of assets (generally determined on a quarterly average basis) that produce, or are held for the production of, passive income (the “asset test”). For purposes of the above calculations, a non-U.S. corporation that directly or indirectly owns at least 25% by value of the shares of another corporation is treated as if it held its proportionate share of the assets of the other corporation and received directly its proportionate share of the income of the other corporation. Passive income generally includes interest, dividends, gains from certain property transactions, rents and royalties (other than certain rents or royalties derived in the active conduct of a trade or business). Cash is a passive asset for PFIC purposes. Goodwill (the value of which may be determined by reference to the company’s market capitalization) is treated as an active asset to the extent attributable to activities intended to produce active income.

We hold a significant amount of cash and cash equivalents and this may continue to be the case taking into account the cash raised in this offering. Therefore, whether we will satisfy the asset test for the current or any future taxable year generally will depend on the quarterly value of our goodwill and other intangible assets, and on how quickly we utilize the cash in our business. Because (i) the value of our goodwill may be determined by reference to the market prices of our shares or ADSs, which have been volatile given the nature and early stage of our business and have been declining, (ii) we may hold cash and cash equivalents in amounts that could be significant in relation to the value of our goodwill and other intangible assets and (iii) a company’s PFIC status is an annual determination that can be made only after the end of each taxable year, there is a significant risk that we will be a PFIC under the asset test. In addition, it is not clear how to apply the income test to a company like us, which for any particular taxable year may have gross income that is either entirely passive or that significantly exceeds any active gross income, but the overall losses of which from research and development activities exceed the overall amount of its gross income for that year. We currently do not earn income from sales of drugs. Accordingly, U.S. investors should invest in our ADSs only if they are willing to bear the U.S. federal income tax consequences associated with investments in PFICs.

If we were a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. investor owns ADSs or ordinary shares, certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could apply to such U.S. investor. We provide the information necessary for a U.S. investor to make a qualifying electing fund election with respect to us. See “Material Tax Considerations—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” for further information. U.S. investors should consult their tax advisers regarding our PFIC status for any taxable year and the potential application of the PFIC rules to an investment in our ADSs.

78

Risks Related to the Merger

We may not fully realize the anticipated benefits of the Merger or realize such benefits within the timing anticipated.

We entered into the Merger with OncoMed because we believed that the Merger would be beneficial to us and our shareholders. We may not be able to achieve the anticipated long-term strategic benefits of the Merger within the timing anticipated or at all. Any delays and challenges that may be encountered in completing the post-Merger process of consolidation could have an adverse effect on the business and results of our operations, and may affect the value of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

We may have failed to discover undisclosed liabilities of OncoMed.

Our investigations and due diligence review of OncoMed may have failed to discover undisclosed liabilities of OncoMed. If OncoMed has undisclosed liabilities, we as a successor owner may be responsible for such undisclosed liabilities. Such undisclosed liabilities could have an adverse effect on the business and results of operations of us and our subsidiaries and may adversely affect the value of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

Our intangible assets may become impaired, which could result in material non-cash charges to our results of operations.

We acquired a substantial quantity of intangible assets in the Merger. At least annually, or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate a potential impairment in the carrying value as defined by IFRS as issued by the IASB, we will evaluate such intangible assets for impairment based on the recoverable value for such intangible assets, being the higher of fair value less costs to sell and value in use, of such intangible assets. Estimated fair values could change if there are changes in our capital structure, cost of debt, interest rates, capital expenditure levels, operating cash flows or market capitalization. Impairments of intangible assets could require material non-cash charges to our results of operations.

We may have operational challenges in managing OncoMed’s business and staff following the Merger.

Mergers inherently have risks including misjudging key elements of an acquisition or failing to integrate it in an efficient and timely manner that would disrupt operations. In addition, as OncoMed is located in a different country and time zone, this also brings inherent management challenges. We are taking over existing ongoing clinical trials, which although are being conducted by reputable third party CRO contractors, remain our responsibility as the parent of OncoMed. We must also fully integrate OncoMed’s retained employees within our existing management structure. We may face operational challenges in managing OncoMed’s business and staff following the Merger which could have an adverse effect on the business and results of our operations, and may affect the value of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

OncoMed’s ability to utilize its net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post-change income and taxes may be limited. In general, an “ownership change” occurs if there is a cumulative change in ownership by “5% shareholders” that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws.

79

At December 31, 2018, OncoMed had federal net operating loss carryforwards related to the 2018 tax year, amounting to $39.1 million which carryforward indefinitely and $228.6 million, which relate to prior taxable years, that begin to expire in 2023. At December 31, 2018, OncoMed had state net operating loss carryforwards of $97.2 million, which begin to expire in 2028, if not utilized. At December 31, 2018, OncoMed also had federal and California research and development credit carryforwards aggregating approximately $25.4 million and $19.8 million, respectively. The federal credits will expire in 2025, if not utilized. California research and development credits have no expiration date. At December 31, 2018, OncoMed also had federal orphan drug credit and Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) carryforwards of approximately $39.3 million and $1.5 million, respectively. The federal orphan drug credits will begin to expire in 2034, if not utilized. A U.S. federal tax refund in respect of the AMT carryforward of approximately $1.3 million was subsequently received in August 2019, following closing of the Merger.

We believe that the Merger counted as an “ownership change,” which may impact OncoMed’s ability to fully realize the benefit of its net operating loss carryforwards. If that is the case, then OncoMed may be further limited in its ability to use its net operating loss carryforwards and other tax assets to reduce taxes owed on the net taxable income that OncoMed earns. Any such limitations on the ability to use its net operating loss carryforwards and other tax assets could adversely impact OncoMed’s business, financial condition and operating results.

80