Applied Therapeutics (APLT) Risk Analysis

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in clinical trials and may face an even greater risk if we commercialize any product candidate that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that any such product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: - decreased demand for any product candidate that we may develop;- loss of revenue;- substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;- significant time and costs to defend the related litigation;- withdrawal of clinical trial participants;- increased insurance costs;- the inability to commercialize any product candidate that we may develop; and - injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention. Any such outcomes could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have incurred substantial losses since inception and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, if ever. In general, under Section 382 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an "ownership change" is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs to offset future taxable income. We may have experienced ownership changes in the past and may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership (some of which shifts are outside our control). As a result, if, and to the extent that we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations. For NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the Code limits a taxpayer's ability to utilize NOL carryforwards to 80% of taxable income. In addition, NOLs arising in tax years ending after December 31, 2017, can be carried forward indefinitely, but carryback is generally prohibited. NOLs generated in tax years beginning before January 1, 2018, will not be subject to the taxable income limitation, and NOLs generated in tax years ending before January 1, 2018, will continue to have a two-year carryback and 20-year carryforward period. Deferred tax assets for NOLs will need to be measured at the applicable tax rate in effect when the NOL is expected to be utilized. The limitations in the carryforward/carryback periods, as well as the limitation on use of NOLs for NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, may significantly impact our ability to utilize our NOLs to offset taxable income in the future. In order to realize the future tax benefits of our NOL carryforwards, we must generate taxable income, of which there is no assurance. Accordingly, we have provided a full valuation allowance for deferred tax assets as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023.

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers' and suppliers' activities involve the generation, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds and wastes. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations governing, among other matters, the use, manufacture, generation, storage, handling, transportation, discharge and disposal of these hazardous materials and wastes and worker health and safety. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers' facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury, which could result in an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, damages and significant cleanup costs and liabilities under applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. We also cannot guarantee that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials and wastes generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations. We may be held liable for any resulting damages, costs or liabilities, which could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. Failure to comply with these environmental, health and safety laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions. We do not currently carry environmental insurance coverage.

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage each time we commence a clinical trial and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Insurance availability, coverage terms and pricing continue to vary with market conditions. We endeavor to obtain appropriate insurance coverage for insurable risks that we identify; however, we may fail to correctly anticipate or quantify insurable risks, we may not be able to obtain appropriate insurance coverage and insurers may not respond as we intend to cover insurable events that may occur. We have observed rapidly changing conditions in the insurance markets relating to nearly all areas of traditional corporate insurance. Such conditions have resulted in higher premium costs, higher policy deductibles, and lower coverage limits. For some risks, we may not have or maintain insurance coverage because of cost or availability.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We may face potential competition with respect to our current product candidates and may face competition with respect to any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research institutions. Our competitors may have an advantage over us due to their greater size, resources and institutional experience. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing reimbursement, government contracts and relationships with key opinion leaders, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals and distribution relationships to market products and marketing approved drugs. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do. If we are not able to compete effectively against existing and potential competitors, our business and financial condition may be harmed. As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their drugs before we are able to, which may limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop therapies that are safer, more effective, more widely accepted or less expensive than ours, and may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their drugs. These advantages could render our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the costs of such product candidates' development and commercialization. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and 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, management and commercial personnel,establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We currently focus our drug development on product candidates for the treatment of diseases with high unmet medical need. Our eligible patient population and pricing estimates may differ significantly from the actual market addressable by our product candidates. Our estimates of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and analyses. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of the diseases we are targeting. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Likewise, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be receptive to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or access. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, we may not be able to achieve our forecast revenue, which could hinder our business plan and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes, as well as judicial challenges, regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. 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, since 2003, Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly have been subject to a reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Further, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or, collectively, the PPACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private payors in the United States. Some of the provisions of the PPACA have yet to be fully implemented, while certain provisions have been subject to executive, judicial and Congressional challenges. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or Tax Act includes a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the PPACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year, which is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate.". On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate was a critical and inseverable feature of the PPACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the PPACA were invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November 2020 and issued its decision in June 2021, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to challenge the individual mandate provision. In so holding, the Supreme Court did not consider larger constitutional questions about the validity of this provision or the validity of the PPACA in its entirety. Another case challenging the PPACA's requirement that insurers cover certain preventative services is currently pending before the same U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas who ruled against the individual mandate in 2018. In September 2022, the judge held that the PPACA requirement to cover certain preventative services violated the U.S. Constitution and set a schedule for additional briefing, which was completed in January 2023. In March 2023, the judge struck down the requirement with immediate nationwide effect by ruling, in part, that members of a panel charged under the PPACA with recommending preventative services coverage had been appointed in an unconstitutional manner. Parties on both sides of the lawsuit appealed this ruling, and in June 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) held, among other things, that the PPACA's requirement that group health plans and health insurance issuers cover certain preventative services without cost-sharing is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit also reversed the district court's nationwide injunction on procedural grounds and remanded the case to the district court for additional consideration. The parties have petitioned to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear how this decision, subsequent decisions and appeals, or any potential future litigation and other efforts to repeal and replace the PPACA will impact the PPACA. Congress may consider additional legislation to repeal or repeal and replace other elements of the PPACA. We continue to evaluate the effect that the PPACA and its possible repeal and replacement may have on our business and the potential profitability of our product candidates. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, which will remain in effect through 2027 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Additional changes that may affect our business include the expansion of programs such as Medicare payment for performance initiatives for physicians under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. At this time, the full impact of the introduction of the Medicare quality payment program on overall physician reimbursement is unclear. Further, in the United States there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. While some of the proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, the U.S. Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 also seeks to reduce prescription drug costs by, among other provisions, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs in Medicare Parts B and D, imposing an excise tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers that refuse to negotiate pricing with Medicare, requiring inflation rebates to limit annual drug price increases in Medicare, redesigning the Medicare Part D formula, and limiting cost-sharing for insulin products. It is unclear whether additional drug pricing and other healthcare reform measures will be enacted, and if enacted, what effect they would have on our business. 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 products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our current or any future product candidates or additional pricing pressures. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States or any other jurisdiction. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing or new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our current or any future product candidates we may develop may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act. We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug, which could have an adverse effect on demand for our product candidates if they are approved. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates.

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates outside the United States, and may do so for future product candidates. If we market approved products outside the United States, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercialization, including: - different regulatory requirements for approval of therapies in foreign countries;- reduced protection for intellectual property rights;- unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements;- economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;- compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;- foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenues, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;- foreign reimbursement, pricing and insurance regimes;- workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;- production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and - business interruptions resulting from geopolitical actions, including war and terrorism, international hostilities, or natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires. We have no prior experience in these areas. In addition, there are complex regulatory, tax, labor and other legal requirements imposed by many of the individual countries in which we may operate, with which we will need to comply. Many biopharmaceutical companies have found the process of marketing their products in foreign countries to be challenging.