Opthea Limited Sponsored ADR (OPT) Risk Factors

We are developing Sozinibercept (OPT-302) to be used in combination with currently approved VEGF-A inhibitors. Even if Sozinibercept (OPT-302) were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities could revoke approval of some or all approved anti-VEGF-A therapies for safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues. This could result in Sozinibercept (OPT-302) being restricted from commercialization or being less commercially successful. We may also evaluate Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any other future product candidates in combination with one or more other product candidates that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. If the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other product candidates or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any product candidate we develop.

Lack of efficacy, adverse events or undesirable side effects may emerge in clinical trials conducted by third parties developing product candidates for wet AMD or DME. In addition, other companies have developed products for wet AMD and DME, including product candidates administered in combination with anti-VEGF-A therapies, and have suffered setbacks and clinical trial failures in the past, including failures of primary endpoints in Phase 3 pivotal clinical trials following positive data from Phase 1 and 2 trials. Lack of efficacy, adverse events or undesirable side effects experienced by subjects in third party clinical trials currently being conducted or previously conducted could negatively affect our stock price, our ability to attract additional capital and our development of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or even the viability of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) as a product candidate. In addition, any such adverse events or undesirable side effects may lead to increased regulatory requirements for, or additional regulatory review of, Sozinibercept (OPT-302), which may result in delays in development and commercialization of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologic products proceeding through clinical trials. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of completed clinical trials of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any future product candidate may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including our Phase 3 trials of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) in combination with anti-VEGF-A therapy for the treatment of wet AMD, and the results of trials in certain patients may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In fact, many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in earlier stage clinical trials. In addition, data obtained from clinical activities is subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. The results of our Phase 2b clinical trial of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) combination therapy may not be predictive of the results of our Phase 3 clinical program due, in part, to the fact that we have no clinical data on Sozinibercept (OPT-302) in combination with anti-VEGF-A therapy in any clinical trial longer than 72 weeks and that we are conducting our Phase 3 clinical trials at many clinical centers that were not included in our Phase 2b clinical trial. The number of patients exposed to product candidates and the average exposure time in prior clinical trials may be inadequate to detect rare adverse events or findings that may only be detected once a product candidate is administered to more patients and for greater periods of time. Any approved label for Sozinibercept (OPT-302) combination therapy may also be limited if our Phase 3 clinical trial results do not show long-term clinically significant efficacy results, including for over 12 months or in combination with either of the approved anti-VEGF-A therapies. In addition, if a combination of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) with an anti-VEGF-A therapy in our Phase 3 clinical program for the treatment of wet AMD does not achieve clinically significant superiority over anti-VEGF-A monotherapy with statistical significance on the primary endpoints of our Phase 3 clinical trials, or the FDA or a comparable non-U.S. regulatory authority requires additional clinical trials beyond our Phase 3 clinical program to support an approved label of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) used in combination with multiple anti-VEGF-A therapies, our ability to successfully commercialize Sozinibercept (OPT-302) in combination with anti-VEGF-A therapy for the treatment of wet AMD would be harmed. For example, masked data from patients that have completed the week 52 visit in the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials show greater mean BCVA increases from baseline than results with standard of care anti-VEGF-A monotherapy from our Phase 2b study. Masked data represent pooled data from both OPT-302 combination and standard of care monotherapy treatment arms. However, the Phase 3 clinical trial masked data are incomplete and subject to additional analysis once unmasked, and our Phase 3 clinical trials are not fully enrolled and the majority of patients enrolled in the trial have not completed the week 52 visit. There is no assurance that standard of care monotherapy in our Phase 3 clinical trials will yield similar results to our prior clinical trials or previously published clinical trials with anti-VEGF-A monotherapies. As a result, there can be no assurance that top-line results for Sozinibercept (OPT-302) from the Phase 3 clinical trial, if completed, will be consistent with results from masked data available to date.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data from our clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. In addition, we may report interim analyses of only certain endpoints rather than all endpoints. 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. In addition, adverse changes between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business and prospects. Additional disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors in the future could also result in volatility in the price of the ADSs and our ordinary shares. Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the top-line data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any future product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If a drug or biologic is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the sponsor may apply for FDA fast-track designation for a particular indication. Sozinibercept (OPT-302) in combination with anti-VEGF-A therapy was granted fast-track designation for the treatment of wet AMD in July 2021 and we may seek fast track designation for certain of our future product candidates, but there is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to any of our future product candidates. If granted, fast-track designation makes a product eligible for more frequent interactions with FDA to discuss the development plan and clinical trial design, as well as rolling review of the application, which means that the company can submit completed sections of its marketing application for review prior to completion of the entire submission. Marketing applications of products candidates with fast-track designation may qualify for priority review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA, but the fast-track designation does not assure any such qualification or ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant fast track designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive fast- track designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a fast-track designation does not provide any assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast-track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, the FDA may withdraw any fast-track designation at any time.

Although the development and commercialization of Sozinibercept (OPT-302) is currently our primary focus, as part of our longer-term growth strategy, we plan to evaluate the development and commercialization of other therapies related to retinal diseases. The success of this strategy depends primarily upon our ability to identify and validate new therapeutic candidates, and to identify, develop and commercialize new drugs and biologics. Our research efforts may initially show promise in discovering potential new drugs and biologics, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including: - we may need to rely on third parties to generate molecules for some of our product candidate programs;- we may encounter product manufacturing difficulties that limit yield or produce undesirable characteristics that increase the cost of manufacturing our product candidates, cause delays or make our product candidates unmarketable;- product candidates may cause adverse effects in patients or subjects, even after successful initial toxicology studies, which may make the product candidates unmarketable;- product candidates may not demonstrate a meaningful benefit to patients or subjects; and - our future collaboration partners may change their development profiles or plans for potential product candidates or abandon a therapeutic area or the development of a partnered product. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for one or more programs, which could harm our business, operating results and prospects and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Future research programs to identify new product candidates may require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. Product candidates may require additional, time-consuming development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical studies, clinical trials and approval by the FDA and/or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot assure you that any such products that are approved will be manufactured or produced economically, be successfully commercialized, be widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives.

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property rights, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves technological and legal complexity, and obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has issued rulings either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations or ruling that certain subject matter is not eligible for patent protection. 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, the USPTO and equivalent bodies in non-U.S. jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents and patents we may obtain in the future. Patent reform laws, such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, as well as changes in how patent laws are interpreted, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act made a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the filing and prosecution strategies associated with patent applications, including a change from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-inventor-to-file" patent system, and a change allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. The USPTO has developed regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act and, in particular, the "first-inventor-to-file" provisions, became effective in 2013. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Failure to obtain trademark registrations in the future, could limit our ability to protect and enforce our trademarks and impede our marketing efforts in the countries in which we operate. We may not be able to protect our rights to trademarks and trade names which we may need to build name recognition with potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. As a means to enforce any future trademark rights and prevent infringement, we may be required to file trademark claims against third parties or initiate trademark opposition proceedings. This can be expensive and time consuming and can strain the financial resources of a company of our size, and we may not be successful in enforcing our trademark rights. In addition, our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. Future trademark applications in the United States and in other non-U.S. jurisdictions where we may file may not be allowed or may subsequently be opposed. Even if these applications result in registration of trademarks, third parties may challenge our use or registration of these trademarks in the future. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be negatively affected.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example: - others may be able to make products that are similar to Sozinibercept (OPT-302) and any future product candidates we may develop or utilize similar technology but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we exclusively license or may own in the future;- we, our licensors or our future collaborators, might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patents and pending patent applications that we exclusively license or may own in the future;- we, our licensors or our future collaborators, might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our or their inventions;- others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our owned or exclusively licensed intellectual property rights;- it is possible that our pending patent applications or those that we may file in the future, including those that we have licensed, will not result in issued patents;- issued patents to which we hold rights may be held invalid or unenforceable, including as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;- our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in major commercial markets in which we do not have sufficient patent rights to stop such sales;- we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;- the patents of others may be asserted against our product candidates and technologies in a manner that harms our business; and - we may choose not to file a patent application in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such trade secrets or know-how. Should any of these events occur, they could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely substantially on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary materials and information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. However, these steps may be inadequate, we may fail to enter into agreements with all such parties or any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our trade secrets and there may be no adequate remedy available for such breach of an agreement. We cannot assure you that our trade secrets will not be disclosed or that we can meaningfully protect our trade secrets. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing, or unwilling, to protect trade secrets. If a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any technology or information that we protect as trade secret, 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.

Although we seek to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how 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 trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee's former employer, or that third parties have an interest in our patents as an inventor or co-inventor. 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 the services of personnel or sustain other damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management. In addition, 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. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell Sozinibercept (OPT-302) and any future product candidates that we may develop and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights or we may initiate legal proceedings against third parties to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights controlled by third parties, including in oppositions, interferences, revocations, reexaminations, inter partes review or derivation proceedings before the USPTO or its counterparts in other jurisdictions. These proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming and many of our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we can. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent of a third party. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any future product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any future product candidates and technologies. We are not aware of any facts that would lead us to conclude that the valid and enforceable claims of any third-party patents would reasonably be interpreted to cover our product candidates. As to pending third-party applications, we cannot predict with any certainty which claims will issue, if any, or the scope of such issued claims. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, enforceability or priority. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could materially and negatively affect our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop and any other product candidates or technologies covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If any such third-party patents (including those that may issue from such applications) were successfully asserted against us or other commercialization partners and we were unable to successfully challenge the validity or enforceability of any such asserted patents, then we and other commercialization partners may be prevented from commercializing our product candidates, or may be required to pay significant damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees if we are found to willfully infringe the asserted patents, or obtain a license to such patents, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. Any of the foregoing would harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Although we have reviewed certain third-party patents and patent filings that we believe may be relevant to our therapeutic candidates or products, we have not conducted a freedom-to-operate search or analysis for any of our therapeutic candidates or products, and we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing our therapeutic candidates or products. Thus, we cannot guarantee that our therapeutic candidates or products, or our commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe any third party's intellectual property.

Third parties may infringe our patents or misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights. In the future, we may initiate legal proceedings to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets or to determine the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own or control. Also, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us to challenge the validity or scope of intellectual property rights we own, control or to which we have rights. For example, generic or biosimilar drug manufacturers or other competitors or third parties may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our patents, requiring us to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. These proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming and many of our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we can. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own, control or have rights to, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could harm our business and financial results. In addition, if we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering a product candidate, the defendant could counterclaim that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendants usually assert counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. In an infringement or declaratory judgment proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned by or licensed to us is invalid or unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the subject matter alleged to be infringing on the grounds that our patents do not cover that subject matter. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, narrowed, held unenforceable or interpreted in such a manner that would not preclude third parties from entering the market with competing products. Third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings, or other pre-issuance or post-grant proceedings or other patent office proceedings or litigation in the United States or other jurisdictions provoked by third parties or brought by us, may be necessary to determine the inventorship, priority, patentability or validity of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could leave our technology or product candidates without patent protection, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or could require us to obtain license rights from the prevailing party in order to be able to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party in such a case does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Even if we successfully defend such litigation or proceeding, we may incur substantial costs and our defense may distract our management and other employees. 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. In addition, many non-U.S. jurisdictions have rules of discovery that are different than those in the United States and that may make defending or enforcing our patents extremely difficult. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could negatively affect the price of the ADSs and our ordinary shares.

The legal protection afforded to inventors and owners of intellectual property in countries outside of the United States may not be as protective or effective as that in the United States and we may, therefore, be unable to acquire and enforce intellectual property rights outside the United States to the same extent as in the United States. Whether filed in the United States or abroad, our patent applications may be challenged or may fail to result in issued patents. In addition, our existing patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from practicing our technologies or from developing or commercializing competing products. Furthermore, others may independently develop or commercialize similar or alternative technologies or drugs, or design around our patents. Our patents may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented or narrowed, or fail to provide us with any competitive advantages. In many non-U.S. countries, patent applications and/or issued patents, or parts thereof, must be translated into the native language. If our patent applications or issued patents are translated incorrectly, they may not adequately cover our technologies; in some countries, it may not be possible to rectify an incorrect translation, which may result in patent protection that does not adequately cover our technologies in those countries. Filing, prosecuting, enforcing and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States may be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some non-U.S. countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and certain state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with Sozinibercept (OPT-302) or any future product candidates and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights, generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in non-U.S. jurisdictions 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, could place our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our collaborator. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. The requirements for patentability differ and certain countries have heightened requirements for patentability, requiring more disclosure in the patent application. In addition, certain countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license.

Any product candidate we may develop and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of the product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. While we expect to expand our internal regulatory function to support the marketing approval process for Sozinibercept (OPT-302), we have no prior experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely in part on third-party CROs or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biologic product candidate's safety, purity, efficacy and potency. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and in other jurisdictions, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates, including for Sozinibercept (OPT-302) in other indications, may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

We are a foreign private issuer, as defined in the SEC's rules and regulations and, consequently, we are not subject to all of the disclosure requirements applicable to public companies organized within the United States. For example, we are exempt from certain rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that regulate disclosure obligations and procedural requirements related to the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations applicable to a security registered under the Exchange Act, including the U.S. proxy rules under Section 14 of the Exchange Act. In addition, our senior management and directors are exempt from the reporting and "short-swing" profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and related rules with respect to their purchases and sales of our securities. Moreover, while we currently make annual and semi-annual filings with respect to our listing on the ASX and expect to file financial reports on an annual and semi-annual basis, we will not be required to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as U.S. public companies and will not be required to file quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K under the Exchange Act. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until four months after the end of each fiscal year. Accordingly, there may be less publicly available information concerning our company than there would be if we were not a foreign private issuer.

As an Australian company we are subject to different corporate requirements than a corporation organized under the laws of the United States. Our Constitution, as well as the Corporations Act, sets forth various rights and obligations that apply to us as an Australian company and which may not apply to a U.S. corporation. These requirements may operate differently than those of many U.S. companies. You should carefully review the summary of these matters set forth under Exhibit 2.3 "Description of Securities" as well as our Constitution, which is included as an exhibit to this annual report, prior to investing in our securities.

If we succeed in developing any products, we intend to market them in non-U.S. jurisdictions in addition to the United States. In order to market and sell our products in other jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. We may not obtain non-U.S. regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. Approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. If we fail to obtain approval of any of our product candidates by regulatory authorities in another country, we will be unable to commercialize our product in that country, and the commercial prospects of that product candidate and our business prospects could decline. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, we must secure product reimbursement approvals before regulatory authorities will approve the product for sale in that country. Obtaining non-U.S. regulatory approvals and compliance with non-U.S. regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries and regulatory approval in one country does not ensure approval in any other country, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. Also, regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements, if problems occur after the product candidate reaches the market or for other reasons. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business will be negatively affected.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidate for which we obtain regulatory approval. Our current and future arrangements may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we would market, sell and distribute our products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business or financial arrangements. Such laws include, but are not limited to, the following: - the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid. The term "remuneration" has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between biopharmaceutical manufacturers, on the one hand, and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others, on the other. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act;- the federal criminal and civil false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, which imposes criminal and civil penalties, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making or causing to be made, a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to "cause" the submission of false or fraudulent claims;- the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false or fraudulent statements relating to healthcare matters; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation;- HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, which also impose obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information on health plans, health-care clearing-houses, and certain healthcare providers and their business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity, as well as their covered subcontractors. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, there may be additional federal, state and non-U.S. laws which govern the privacy and security of health and other personally identifiable information, or personal information or personal data, in certain circumstances, many of which differ from one another in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts;- the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the government information related to payments or other "transfers of value" made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) certain other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, and requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to the ownership and investment interests held by such physicians and their immediate family members and payments or other "transfers of value" to such physicians (covered manufacturers are required to submit reports to CMS by the 90th day of each calendar year);. and - analogous state and non-U.S. laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers or other interactions with healthcare providers and other potential referral sources, state or non-U.S. laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the national or federal government, and state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures or drug pricing, state, non-U.S., and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives, and state and non-U.S. laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from one another in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of promotional and marketing activities, such as providing free trips, free or discounted goods, improper consulting fees and grants and other monetary benefits to prescribers reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates, engaging in off-label promotion; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program to reduce liability for Medicaid rebates. Ensuring that our internal operations and future 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 any actions are instituted against us for violation of these laws or regulations, and we are not successful in defending ourselves, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative sanctions, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, imprisonment, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could harm our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

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

The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product-licensing, pricing and reimbursement for marketing our product candidates outside the United States vary greatly from country to country and may require additional testing. We expect that our future clinical development of our product candidates will involve a number of clinical trials in non-U.S. jurisdictions. We have no direct experience as a company in obtaining non-U.S. regulatory approvals. The time required to obtain approvals outside the United States may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. We may not obtain non-U.S. regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not guarantee approval by comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, and approval by one non-U.S. regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. Failure to comply with these regulatory requirements or obtain required approvals could impair our ability to develop non-U.S. markets for our product candidates and may harm our results of operations and financial condition.

Sozinibercept (OPT-302) and any future product candidate that we may develop, as well as the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, research, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, packaging, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for, and thus commercialize any product candidate, could negatively impact our ability to generate any revenue from product sales. We have not received approval from regulatory authorities to market any product candidate in any jurisdiction, and it is possible that our product candidate will never obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals necessary for us to commence product sales. Neither we nor any collaborator is permitted to market our product candidate in the United States or any other jurisdiction until we receive regulatory approval of a BLA from the FDA or similar application from regulatory authorities outside of the United States. The time required to obtain approval of a BLA by the FDA or similar application from regulatory authorities outside of the United States is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authority. Prior to submitting a BLA to the FDA or any comparable application to any other non-U.S. regulatory authorities for approval of any product candidate, we will need to complete pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials and demonstrate favorable results with respect to safety, tolerability and efficacy. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate's clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. Securing marketing approvals requires the submission of extensive nonclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the safety and efficacy of our product candidate for the specified indications. We expect to rely on third-party CROs, consultants and our collaborators to assist us in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, regulatory authorities. Errors in the submission of applications for marketing approval or issues, including those related to gathering the appropriate data and the inspection process,may ultimately delay or affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval, commercialize our product candidate and generate product revenue.

As a company whose ADSs are publicly traded in the United States, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and related rules implemented by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and Nasdaq have imposed various requirements on public companies listed in the United States including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives, and we will need to add additional personnel and build our internal compliance infrastructure. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. These laws and regulations could also make it more difficult and expensive for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as our senior management. Furthermore, if we are unable to satisfy our obligations as a public company listed in the United States, we could be subject to delisting of the ADSs, fines, sanctions and other regulatory action and potentially civil litigation.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, several executive, legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes 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. Among policy-makers and payors in the United States there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access, and the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act, among other things contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and changes to fraud and abuse laws. Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, was enacted, which included a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the "individual mandate." On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseparable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the "individual mandate" was repealed by Congress. Further on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 or the IRA, into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act. Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent laws, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. 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 (3) to five (5) years. New laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which may materially negatively affect customer demand and affordability for our products and, accordingly, the results of our financial operations. Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which pharmaceutical companies set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several U.S. presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal legislation, as well as state efforts, designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product-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 drug products. For example, in July 2021, the Biden administration expressed its intent to pursue certain policy initiatives to reduce drug prices. For example, the executive order expressed the Biden administration's support of legislative reforms to lower prescription drug prices, including by allowing Medicare's negotiation of drug prices. In response to Biden's executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug-pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA directs the HHS Secretary to establish a Drug Price Negotiation Program (the "Program") to lower prices for certain high-expenditure, single-source prescription drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B and Part D that have been approved by the FDA for at least seven (7) years for prescription drugs and at least eleven (11) years for biologics. Under the Program, the HHS Secretary will publish a list of "selected drugs," and will then negotiate maximum fair prices ("MFP") with their manufacturers. The Program will be implemented in stages. Beginning in 2026, ten (10) Medicare Part D "selected drugs" will be subject to price negotiations. By 2029, and in subsequent years thereafter, the number will increase to twenty (20) drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B and Part D. Agreements between HHS and manufacturers will remain in place until a drug or biologic is no longer considered a "selected drug" for negotiation purposes. Manufacturers who do not comply with the negotiated prices set under the Program will be subject to an excise tax based on a percentage of total sales of a "selected drug" up to 95% and potential civil monetary penalties. Further, beginning in October 2023, the IRA will require manufacturers that increase prices of certain Medicare Part B and Part D drugs or biologics at a rate greater than inflation to pay rebates to CMS or be subject to civil monetary penalties. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs are implemented, although the IRA may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be implemented but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, in response to the Biden administration's October 2022 executive order on February 14, 2023, HHAS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. At the state level, individual states in the United States are increasingly active 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 on coverage or access 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 products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates that we successfully commercialize or put pressure on our product-pricing. We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement and put additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded 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 drugs once marketing approval is obtained. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States. 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.

Even if we obtained regulatory approval for a product candidate, it would be subject to ongoing requirements by the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities governing the manufacture, quality control, further development, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, import, export, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of safety and other post-market information. The FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities will continue to closely monitor the safety profile of any product even after approval. If the FDA, or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, become aware of new safety information after approval of any of our product candidates, it may require labeling changes or establishment of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy or similar strategy, impose significant restrictions on a product's indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations and standards. If we or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we, our product candidates or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, or undesirable side effects caused by such products are identified, a regulatory agency may: - issue safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases or other communications containing warnings about such product;- mandate modifications to promotional materials or require us to provide corrective information to healthcare practitioners;- revise labeling, including adding limitations on approved uses or the additions of additional warnings, contraindications or other safety information including boxed warnings;- impose a REMS which may include distribution on or use restrictions;- require that we conduct post-marketing studies;- require us to enter into a consent decree, which can include imposition of various fines, reimbursements for inspection costs, required due dates for specific actions and penalties for noncompliance;- seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;- suspend marketing of, withdraw regulatory approval of or recall such product;- suspend any ongoing clinical studies;- refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to applications filed by us;- suspend or impose restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements; or - seize or detain products, refuse to permit the import or export of products or require us to initiate a product recall. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our products and generate product revenue. Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of Congress and the public. Violations, including promotion of our products for unapproved (or off-label) uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations and significant civil and criminal sanctions by the government. In the United States, engaging in the impermissible promotion of our products for off-label uses can also subject us to false claims litigation under federal and state statutes, which can lead to significant civil and criminal penalties. Additionally, comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities will heavily scrutinize advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States. The FDA's policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. 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, which would negatively affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share personal data and other sensitive information including proprietary and confidential business data. trade secrets. intellectual property, data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials. and other sensitive third-party data. Our data processing activities may subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations. such as various laws, regulations guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements, and other obligations relating to data privacy and security. In the United States. federal, state. and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws. personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Additionally, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("CCPA") applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of California residents to exercise certain privacy rights. The CPA provides for civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although the CPA exempts some data processed in the context of clinical trials. the CPA may increase compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. In addition, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 ("CPRA") expands the CPA's requirements, including by adding a new right for individuals to correct their personal data and establishing a new regulatory agency to implement and enforce the law. Other states, such as Virginia and Colorado, have also passed comprehensive data privacy and security laws. and similar laws are being considered in several other states. as well as at the federal and local levels. While these states. like the CCPA, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials. these developments further complicate compliance efforts. and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely. Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards may govern data privacy and security. For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation ("EU GDPR the United Kingdom's GDPR ("UK GDPR"), Brazil's General Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Protecão de Dados Pessoais, or "LGPD") (Law No. 13,709/2018), and China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL?) impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the EU GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions, fines of up to 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. In Canada, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA") and various related provincial laws, as well as Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation ("CASL*), may apply to our operations We may be subject to new and emerging data privacy and security regimes, including Australia's Privacy Act China's Personal Information Protection Law. Japan's Act on the Protection of Personal Information, and Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act 43 In the ordinary course of business. we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area ("EA") and the United Kingdom (*UK" have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EA and UK to the United States in compliance with law. such as the EA and UK's standard contractual clauses, these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations. the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners. vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR's cross-border data transfer limitations. In addition to data privacy and security laws, we are or may become contractually subject to industry standards adopted by industry groups. We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security. and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. For example, certain data privacy laws. such as the GDPR and the CCPA, require covered businesses to impose specific contractual restrictions on their service providers. We publish privacy policies, marketing materials and other statements,such as compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, regarding data privacy and security. If these policies. materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency. deceptive, unfair, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators or other adverse consequences. Obligations related to data privacy and security are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating regulatory uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services. information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf In addition, these obligations may require us to change our business model. We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties on whom we rely may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or the third parties on which we rely fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity, or substantial changes to our business model or operations.

Our tax treatment is subject to the enactment of, or changes in, tax laws, regulations and treaties, or the interpretation thereof, tax policy initiatives and reforms under consideration and the practices of tax authorities in jurisdictions in which we operate, including those related to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, the European Commission's state aid investigations and other initiatives. Such changes may include (but are not limited to) the taxation of operating income, investment income, dividends received or (in the specific context of withholding tax) dividends paid. We are unable to predict what tax reform may be proposed or enacted in the future or what effect such changes would have on our business,but such changes, to the extent they are brought into tax legislation, regulations, policies or practices, could affect our financial position and overall or effective tax rates in the future in countries where we have operations, reduce post-tax returns to our shareholders, and increase the complexity, burden and cost of tax compliance.

A tax authority may disagree with tax positions that we have taken, which could result in increased tax liabilities. For example, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or another tax authority could challenge our allocation of income by tax jurisdiction and the amounts paid between our affiliated companies pursuant to our intercompany arrangement and transfer pricing policies, including amounts paid with respect to our intellectual property development. Similarly, a tax authority could assert that we are subject to tax in a jurisdiction where we believe we have not established a taxable connection, often referred to as a "permanent establishment" under international tax treaties, and such an assertion, if successful, could increase our expected tax liability in one or more jurisdictions. A tax authority may take the position that material income tax liabilities, interest and penalties are payable by us, in which case, we expect that we might contest such assessment. Contesting such an assessment may be lengthy and costly and if we were unsuccessful in disputing the assessment, the implications could increase our anticipated effective tax rate, where applicable. General Risk Factors