PTC Therapeutics (PTCT) Risk Factors

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. We have issued a significant number of equity awards under our equity compensation plans or as inducement grants to new hire employees pursuant to Nasdaq rules. The shares underlying these awards are registered on a Form S-8 registration statement. As a result, upon vesting these shares can be freely exercised and sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates. The exercise of options and the subsequent sale of the underlying common stock or the sale of restricted stock upon vesting could cause a decline in our stock price. These sales also might make it difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. Certain of our employees, executive officers and directors have entered or may enter into Rule 10b5-1 plans providing for sales of shares of our common stock from time to time. Under a Rule 10b5-1 plan, a broker executes trades pursuant to parameters established by the employee, director or officer when entering into the plan, without further direction from the employee, officer or director. A Rule 10b5-1 plan may be amended or terminated in some circumstances. Our employees, executive officers and directors may also buy or sell additional shares outside of a Rule 10b5-1 plan when they are not in possession of material, nonpublic information. Additionally, certain shares that we issued in connection with our acquisitions or other strategic transactions have not yet been sold and are currently restricted as a result of securities laws. These shares may be freely sold in the public market subject to any requirements and restrictions, including any applicable volume limitations, imposed by Rule 144 under the Securities Act. The sale or resale of these shares in the public market, or the market's expectation of such sales, may result in an immediate and substantial decline in our stock price. Such a decline will adversely affect our investors and also might make it difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock or other securities by our stockholders or by us, including sales made under our At the Market Offering Sales Agreement with Cantor Fitzgerald and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, pursuant to which we may offer and sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $125 million from time to time, through the Sales Agent by any method that is deemed to be an "at the market" offering as defined in Rule 415(a)(4) promulgated under the Securities Act, or the issuance of shares of our common stock upon conversion of our outstanding 2026 Convertible Notes or any future securities convertible or exchangeable into our common stock or in connection with a strategic transaction or otherwise, could dilute our stockholders, lower the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of equity securities.

In the event that a study's primary endpoint is not met, companies may undertake certain analyses to further understand the data and potential reasons for the study results, including retrospective, post-hoc, and subgroup analyses.  Because these analyses are not pre-planned and studies may not be adequately designed for these analyses, they may not be reliable and typically will not form the basis for regulatory approval.  For example, after determining that we did not achieve the primary efficacy endpoint with the pre-specified level of statistical significance in our completed ACT DMD and Phase 2b clinical trials of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, we performed subgroup, retrospective, and meta-analyses. We submitted these analyses to the FDA as part of our NDA, taking the position that the totality of clinical data from these trials support the clinical benefit of Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD. The FDA, however, did not agree that these analyses supported approval. Some of our favorable statistical data from these trials also are based on nominal p-values.  Nominal p-values are subject to certain limitations, and which, because of these limitations, regulatory authorities typically give less weight to nominal p-values, compared to regular p-values. For example, the p-values in ACT DMD for change from baseline at week 48 in the 6-minute walk test, or 6MWT (which we also refer to as 6-minute walk distance, or 6MWD) and each secondary end point timed function test were nominal p-values.  The FDA found that certain post-hoc adjustments, our retrospective analyses and our reliance on nominal p-values for some of our statistical data did not support approval. An unfavorable view of our data and analyses by regulatory authorities has and could continue to negatively impact our ability to obtain or maintain marketing authorizations, which would have a material adverse effect on our revenue and would materially harm our business, financial results and results of operations.

In September 2019, we incurred indebtedness in the amount of $287.5 million in aggregate principal with additional accrued interest under the 2026 Convertible Notes, for which interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on March 15 and September 15 of each year, beginning on March 15, 2020. Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance the 2026 Convertible Notes depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt, including the 2026 Convertible Notes. If we are unable to generate cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be unfavorable to us or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at the time we seek to refinance such indebtedness. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations. Upon conversion of the 2026 Convertible Notes, unless we elect to deliver solely shares of our common stock to settle such conversion (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional shares), we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the 2026 Convertible Notes being converted. However, we may not have enough available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to repurchase 2026 Convertible Notes, to pay the 2026 Convertible Notes at maturity or to pay cash upon conversions of 2026 Convertible Notes. In addition, our ability to repurchase 2026 Convertible Notes or to pay cash upon conversions of 2026 Convertible Notes may be limited by law, by regulatory authority or by agreements governing our future indebtedness. Our failure to repurchase 2026 Convertible Notes at a time when the repurchase is required by the indenture, to make interest payments on the 2026 Convertible Notes when due under the indenture or to pay any cash payable on future conversions of the 2026 Convertible Notes as required by the indenture would constitute a default under the indenture governing the 2026 Convertible Notes. An event of default under the indenture governing the 2026 Convertible Notes or the fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our future indebtedness. If the repayment of any such related indebtedness were to be accelerated after any applicable notice or grace periods, we may not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness, repurchase the 2026 Convertible Notes, make interest payments on the 2026 Convertible Notes or make cash payments upon conversions of the 2026 Convertible Notes. Even if holders of the 2026 Convertible Notes do not elect to convert their 2026 Convertible Notes, we could be required to reclassify all of the outstanding principal of the 2026 Convertible Notes as a current rather than long-term liability in accordance with applicable accounting rules, which would result in a material reduction of our net working capital. Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources to bring our products to market through research and development, collaborations and acquisitions. Our ability to continue to generate product revenues will depend heavily on the successful commercialization of our products. If we do not successfully maintain our marketing authorizations for our products and obtain new marketing authorizations for our product candidates and new uses of our approved products, our ability to generate additional revenue will be jeopardized and, consequently, our business will be materially harmed. Additionally, our ability to make our licensed products available within the relevant territories is largely dependent upon the maintenance of the marketing authorizations by the licensor. The success of our products will depend on a number of additional factors, including the following: - our ability to negotiate, secure and maintain adequate pricing, coverage and reimbursement terms on a timely basis, or at all;- the timing, scope  and outcome of commercial launches;- the maintenance and expansion of a commercial infrastructure capable of supporting product sales, marketing and distribution;- the implementation and maintenance of marketing and distribution relationships with third parties in territories where we do not pursue direct commercialization;- our ability to establish and maintain commercial manufacturing arrangements with third-party manufacturers;- our ability or the ability of our third-party manufacturers to successfully produce commercial and clinical supply of drug on a timely basis sufficient to meet the needs of our commercial and clinical activities;- successful identification of eligible patients;- acceptance of the drug as a treatment for the approved indication by patients, the medical community and third-party payors;- effectively competing with other therapies;- global trade policies;- a continued acceptable safety profile of the drug;- the costs, timing and outcome of post-marketing studies and trials required for our products;- protecting our rights in our intellectual property portfolio, obtaining and maintaining regulatory exclusivity and whether we are able to maintain market exclusivity periods under the Orphan Drug Act or equivalent protections in other jurisdictions;- whether negative results from our clinical or pre-clinical trials of a product for one indication affect the perception of such product in another indication, including with respect to determinations by regulators, including the FDA and EMA, with respect to our ongoing or future regulatory submissions for marketing authorization of our products for any indication;- whether, with respect to Translarna, we are able to continue to satisfy our obligations under, and maintain, the marketing authorization in the EEA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, including whether the EMA determines on an annual basis that the benefit-risk balance of Translarna supports renewal of our marketing authorization in the EEA, on the current approved label;- whether, and within what timeframe, we are able to advance Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD in the United States, including, whether we will be required to perform additional clinical trials, non-clinical studies or CMC assessments or analyses at significant cost which, if successful, may enable FDA review of an NDA submission by us and, ultimately, may support approval of Translarna for nmDMD in the United States;- our ability to obtain additional and maintain existing reimbursed named patient and cohort EAP programs for our products on adequate terms;-- our ability to successfully prepare and advance regulatory submissions for marketing authorizations for our products in additional territories and for additional or expanded indications and whether and in what timeframe we may obtain such authorizations; and - the ability and willingness of patients and healthcare professionals to access our products through alternative means if pricing and reimbursement negotiations in the applicable territory do not have a positive outcome. If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to continue to commercialize our products, either of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not obtain adequate coverage or reimbursement for our products, or we may be required to sell our products at an unsatisfactory price. In addition, obtaining pricing, coverage and reimbursement approvals can be a time consuming and expensive process. Our business would be materially adversely affected if we do not receive these approvals on a timely basis. The regulations and practices that govern marketing authorizations, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries, including almost all of the member states of the EEA, require approval of the sale (list) price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some ex-U.S. markets, including the European market, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing authorization for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations, in some countries at national as well as regional levels, that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more products or other product candidates, even following marketing authorization. Our ability to successfully commercialize our products or product candidates that may receive marketing authorization will depend in large part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, managed healthcare organizations and other third-party payors and organizations. Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and managed healthcare organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement conditions and rates. A primary trend in the EU and U.S. healthcare industries and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities, including the United States government and state legislatures, and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Prices at which our products are reimbursed can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by the government and other payers. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with discounts off the products' sale (list) prices and are challenging the prices manufacturers charge for medical products. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product or product candidate that we may commercialize and, if coverage is available, the level of reimbursement is also uncertain. Reimbursement levels may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product or product candidate for which we obtain marketing authorization. Obtaining reimbursement for our products has been and is expected to continue to be, particularly difficult due to price considerations typically associated with drugs that are developed to treat conditions that affect a small population of patients. In addition, third-party payors are likely to impose strict requirements for reimbursement of a higher priced drug, such as prior authorization and the requirement to try other therapies first, or high co-payments which can result in patient rejection. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for a product or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover a product could reduce physician usage of the product. If reimbursement is not available or is available only on a limited basis, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product or product candidate for which we have obtained or may obtain marketing authorization. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the drug's approved indications as determined by the applicable regulatory authority. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent, and programs intended to provide patient assistance until coverage is established can be very costly and limited in duration by law. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs, and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws, enforcement policies or administrative determinations with respect to the importation of drugs into the United States from other countries where they may be sold at lower prices. In the United States, third-party payors include federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and Veterans Health Administration programs; managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Several of the U.S. federal healthcare programs establish ceiling prices or require that drug manufacturers extend discounts or pay rebates to certain programs in order for their products to be covered and reimbursed. For example, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers of covered outpatient drugs to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the federal government as a condition for coverage of the manufacturer's covered outpatient drug(s) by state Medicaid programs. The amount of the rebate for each product is based on a statutory formula and may be subject to an additional discount if certain pricing increases more than inflation. State Medicaid programs and Medicaid managed care plans can seek additional "supplemental" rebates from manufacturers in connection with states' establishment of preferred drug lists. A further requirement for Medicaid coverage is that manufacturers of single source and innovator multiple source drugs enter into a Master agreement and Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, agreement with the Secretary for Veterans Affairs and charge no more than statutory ceiling prices to the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Defense and certain other federal agencies. Similarly, in order for a covered outpatient drug to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicare Part B and Medicaid programs, the manufacturer must extend discounts on the covered outpatient drug to entities that are enrolled and participating in the 340B drug pricing program, which is a federal program that requires manufacturers to provide discounts to certain statutorily-defined safety-net providers. The 340B discount for each product is calculated based on certain Medicaid Drug Rebate Program metrics that manufacturers are required to report to CMS. Emflaza is also eligible for reimbursement under the Medicare Part D program. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities, which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D prescription drug formularies are required to include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain, and payment of Medicare Coverage Gap discounts may further reduce realization on Part D drugs. Further, CMS is proposing to relax Part D coverage requirements to give plans more leverage in negotiating their formularies. With respect to drugs eligible for reimbursement under Medicare Part B, on November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nations payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capita Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (GDP-adjusted) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita.  This rule now has been rescinded but other measures, including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, have been enacted to address the costs of pharmaceuticals. Such rules and any additional healthcare reform measures could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures. In addition, U.S. private health insurers often rely upon Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. Any such coverage or payment limitations may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors. Payment by private payors is also subject to payor-determined coverage and reimbursement policies that vary considerably and are subject to change without notice. We expect that coverage and reimbursement of Emflaza in the United States will vary from commercial payor to commercial payor. Many commercial payors, such as managed care plans, manage access to prescription drugs partly to control costs to their plans, and may use drug formularies and medical policies to limit their exposure. Exclusion from policies can directly reduce product usage in the payor's patient population and may negatively impact utilization in other payor plans, as well. There has been recent negative publicity and increasing legislative and public scrutiny around pharmaceutical drug pricing in the U.S., in particular with respect to orphan drugs and specifically with respect to Emflaza. Moreover, U.S. government authorities and third-party payors are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate drug prices and reimbursement, often with particular focus on orphan drugs. These dynamics may give rise to heightened attention and potential negative reactions to pricing decisions for Emflaza and products for which we may receive regulatory approval in the future, possibly limiting our ability to generate revenue and attain profitability. Moreover, in 2017, the U.S. Congress modified and amended certain provisions of the 2010 U.S. healthcare reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, known collectively as the Affordable Care Act), which could have an impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by the federal and state healthcare programs as well as plans in the private health insurance market. The so-called "individual mandate" was repealed as part of tax reform legislation adopted in December 2017. Legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act continue to arise and there may be future efforts to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Biden administration is expected to continue to take measures to further facilitate the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We cannot assure that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business. Additionally, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. Failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach required deficit reduction goals triggered the legislation's automatic reduction to several government programs. This legislation resulted in aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031. However, pursuant to the CARES Act and subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended through the end of March 2022 and from April 2022 through June 2022, a 1% cut was in effect, with the full 2% cut remaining thereafter. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidates is prescribed or used. In the EU, reference pricing systems and other measures may lead to cost containment and reduced prices with respect to Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD, Upstaza for the treatment of AADC deficiency and other product candidates that might receive marketing authorization in the future. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for our product or any of our product candidates that may receive marketing authorization, or a reduction in coverage for payment rates for our product or any such product candidates, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, in the EU, an authorized trader, such as a wholesaler, can purchase a medicine in one EU member state and obtain a license to import the product into another EU member state. This process is called "parallel distribution". As a result, a purchaser in one EU member state may seek to import Translarna from another EU member state where Translarna is sold at a lower price. This could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth. Similarly, sales of Emflaza in the United States could also be reduced if deflazacort is imported into the United States from lower-priced markets, whether legally or illegally. For example, in the United States, prices for pharmaceuticals are generally higher than in the bordering nations of Mexico and Canada. In October 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Certain states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA.  Florida recently received approval for its SIP from the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law.. The rule also creates a safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers.  The effective date of the new safe harbors and the revision to the discount safe harbor was delayed by court order until January 1, 2023. Recent legislation further delayed implementation of the new safe harbors and the revision to the discount safe harbor until January 1, 2032.

We are subject to income taxes in the Unites States and various ex-U.S. jurisdictions. Taxes will be incurred as income is earned in these different jurisdictions. Various factors may have favorable or unfavorable effects on our effective income tax rate. These factors include, but are not limited to, interpretations of existing tax laws, changes in tax laws and rates, the accounting for stock options and other share-based compensation, changes in accounting standards, future levels of research and development spending, changes in the mix and level of pre-tax earnings by taxing jurisdiction, the outcome of examinations by the IRS and other jurisdictions, the accuracy of our estimates for unrecognized tax benefits, the realization of deferred tax assets, or by changes to our ownership or capital structure. The impact on our income tax provision resulting from the above-mentioned factors and others may be significant and could adversely affect our results of operations. Changes in tax laws or regulations, including further regulatory developments arising from U.S. tax reform legislation as well as multi-jurisdictional changes enacted in response to the action items provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), may increase tax uncertainty and the amount of tax we pay. On December 22, 2017, the United States government enacted the 2017 Tax Act, which significantly reformed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The Tax Act, among other things, contained significant changes to corporate taxation. As part of Congress's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic relief legislation was enacted in 2020 and 2021. Such legislation contains numerous tax provisions. In addition, the IRA was signed into law in August 2022.  The IRA introduced new tax provisions, including a 1% excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded corporations. The 1% excise tax generally applies to any acquisition by the publicly traded corporation (or certain of its affiliates) of stock of the publicly traded corporation in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the corporation itself), subject to a de minimis exception. Thus, the excise tax could apply to certain transactions that are not traditional stock repurchases. Regulatory guidance under the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen the impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform the 2017 Tax Act, IRA, and additional tax legislation. Although we monitor actual and potential changes to the tax laws in the United States and other jurisdictions, it is very difficult to assess to what extent these changes may impact the way in which we conduct our business or our effective tax rate due to the unpredictability and interdependency of these changes. Changes in tax laws and related regulations and practices could have a material adverse effect on our business operations, cash flows, effective tax rate, financial position and results of operations.

We do not independently conduct preclinical or clinical trials for our products or product candidates. We rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to perform this function. While we have agreements governing the activities of such third parties, we have limited influence and control over their actual performance and activities. For instance, our third-party service providers are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical, non-clinical, and preclinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our preclinical studies or clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our trials may be repeated, extended, delayed, or terminated, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates, or we or they may be subject to regulatory enforcement actions. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed. To the extent we are unable to successfully identify and manage the performance of third-party service providers in the future, our business may be materially and adversely affected. Further, any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at any time. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it will delay our product development activities. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. We are required to monitor the activities of these third parties but our monitoring may not be able to detect any existing or emerging issues. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as GCP for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. In addition, we will be required to report certain financial interests of our third-party investigators if these relationships exceed certain financial thresholds or meet other criteria. The FDA or comparable ex-U.S. regulatory authorities may question the integrity of the data from those clinical trials conducted by investigators who may have conflicts of interest. We must further ensure that our preclinical trials are conducted in accordance with good laboratory practices, or GLPs, as appropriate. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections or remote regulatory assessments of trial sponsors, clinical and preclinical investigators, and trial sites. Similar GCP and transparency requirements apply in the EU. Failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, including with respect to clinical trials conducted outside the EU and United States, can also lead regulatory authorities to refuse to accept into account clinical trial data submitted as part of a marketing application, as well as other regulatory consequences, as further described above. Furthermore, third parties that we rely on for our clinical development activities may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing authorizations for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates. Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing authorizations. We also rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing authorizations of our products or product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current products and product candidates and any products we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Other gene therapy companies may in the future decide to utilize existing technologies to address unmet needs that could potentially compete with our product candidates. There is currently no marketed therapy for nmDMD, other than Translarna in the EEA. Santhera Pharmaceuticals has received approval of Agramee (vamorolone) in the United States for DMD patients ages 2 and up and in the EU and United Kingdom for patients ages 4 years and older. Sarepta Therapeutics has received approval of Elevidys for DMD patients 4 to 5 years of age with a confirmed mutation in the "DMD gene" in the United States (Accelerated Approval granted with Full Approval pending) and United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Sarepta Therapeutics has also received approval in the United States for two treatments (Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) and Vyondys 53 (golodirsen)) addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene. Additionally, the FDA granted accelerated approval to Viltepso (viltolarsen) from NS Pharma for the treatment of DMD in patients with exon 53 skipping and Sarepta (Casimersen (SRP 4045) for the treatment of DMD in patients with exon 45 skipping. Viltepso (viltolarsen) from NS Pharma is also approved in Japan. Other biopharmaceutical companies are developing treatments addressing the underlying cause of disease for different mutations in the DMD gene, including, Dyne Therapeutics (DYNE-251), Wave Life Sciences (WVE-N53), Daiichi Sankyo (DS 5141)), Nippon Shinyaku (Viltolarsen (NS 065/NCNP 01) and NS 089/NCNP 02)), and Astellas (AT 702). Additionally, other pharmaceutical companies are developing micro dystrophin gene therapies for patients with DMD regardless of genotype, including Pfizer (PF 06939926) and Solid Biosciences (SGT 001). Although the FDA has not approved a corticosteroid specifically for DMD in the United States other than Emflaza, we face competition in the United States in the DMD market from prednisone/prednisolone, which, while not approved for DMD in the United States, is generically available and has been prescribed off label for DMD patients. Santhera has received approval of Agramee (vamorolone), in the United States for DMD patients ages 2 and up and in the European Union and United Kingdom for patients ages 4 years and older. With the expiration of Emflaza's orphan exclusivity for treatment of DMD in patients five years and older in February 2024, we expect to face competition from generic versions of Emflaza for this indication. Currently, no other treatment options are available for the underlying cause of AADC deficiency. Additionally, we are not aware of any late-stage development product candidates for AADC deficiency. There are several pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies engaged in the development or commercialization of products against targets that are also targets of Tegsedi and Waylivra. For example, Ionis is developing Olezarsen for the treatment of FCS. Additionally, Waylivra faces competition from Myalept (metreleptin) produced by Chesi Farmaceutica, Inc., which is currently approved in Brazil for use in generalized lipodystrophy patients. Tegsedi faces competition from drugs like Onpattro (patisiran) which was launched by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals in the United States in 2018 and received approval in Brazil for the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis in 2020 as was well as AMVUTTRA (vutrisiran) which Alnylam Pharmaceuticals received approval for in the United States and Brazil in 2022 for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. Vyndaqel (tafamids meglumine) and Vyndamax (tafamidis) are commercialized in the United States, EU and some countries in Latin America by Pfizer. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of ATTR Amyloidosis with polyneuropathy including BridgeBio Pharma (AG 10), Intellia Therapeutics (NTLA2001), Proclara Biosciences (NPT 189) and SOM Biotech (tolcapone). For Waylivra, Ionis is developing Olezarsen for the treatment of FCS. Waylivra also faces competition from Myalept, (metreleptin) produced by Cheisi Farmaceutica, Inc., currently approved in Brazil for use in generalized lipodystrophy patients. Evrysdi, an orally bioavailable treatment, faces competition from treatments that are not orally bioavailable, including Spinraza (nusinersen), a drug developed by Ionis and marketed by Biogen, which is approved to treat SMA and Zolgensma (onasemnogene abeparvovec), a gene therapy drug developed by AveXis, Inc., (acquired by Novartis in 2018), which is approved in the United States and Japan for the treatment of SMA in patients under 2 years of age and in Europe for babies and young children who weigh up to 21 kilograms. Novartis is also developing OAV-101, an intrathecal administration of Zolgensma, for SMA patients ages = 2 to < 18 years of age. Biogen is developing a higher dose regimen of nusinersen with potential for improved efficacy and evaluating an implantable medical device to enable subcutaneous delivery of nusinersen. Other companies are also pursuing product candidates for the treatment of SMA, including Scholar Rock (apitegromab, SRK-015), Biohaven (Taldefgrobep alfa), Roche Pharmaceuticals (RO-7204239/GYM-329), Biogen / Ionis (BIIB-115/ION-306) and NMD Pharma (NMD-670). For additional discussion regarding the competition we face with respect to our current product candidates, see "Item 1. Business-Competition." Our competitors may develop products that are more effective, safer, more convenient or less costly than any that we are marketing or developing or that would render our products or product candidates obsolete or non-competitive. Our competitors may also obtain marketing authorization for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products and product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. We believe that many competitors are attempting to develop therapeutics for the target indications of our products and product candidates, including academic institutions, government agencies, public and private research organizations, large pharmaceutical companies and smaller more focused companies. Many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. 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 other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to or necessary for our programs.

Even if we are successful in obtaining and maintaining marketing authorizations, our products may not gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Third-party payors may require prior authorizations or failure on another type of treatment before covering a particular drug, particularly with respect to higher-priced drugs. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for a product or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover a product could reduce physician usage of the product. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues or any profits from operations. The degree of market acceptance of our products or product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: - the efficacy and potential advantages, as well as cost effectiveness compared to alternative treatments;- the prevalence and severity of any side effects, as well as perceived safety;- limitations or warnings contained in, as well as permitted claims based on the product's FDA-approved labeling;- distribution and use restrictions imposed by the FDA or which we voluntarily implement;- the ability to offer our products or product candidates for sale at competitive prices;- the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies. For example, gene therapy remains a novel technology, must be administered directly to the brain via a surgery and public perception may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, which may cause gene therapy to not gain acceptance by the public or the medical community;- the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;- the strength of marketing and distribution support;- sufficient third-party coverage or reimbursement and, where applicable, our ability to obtain pricing approvals which is separate from the marketing authorization process;- adverse publicity about our and our competitors' products or product candidates or favorable publicity about competitive products or product candidates. For example, earlier gene therapy trials conducted by other organizations have led to several well-publicized adverse events, including cases of leukemia, immune- and complement-mediated adverse events, and death seen in other such organizations' trials using vectors;- the results of studies of the product in other indications or similar products; and - any restrictions on concomitant use of other medications. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from third-party payers is a time-consuming and costly process.  Failure to obtain adequate reimbursement may significantly impact the adoption and sale of products.  Market acceptance and obtaining reimbursement coverage may be particularly challenging in the case of gene therapies, where the cost of a single administration may be substantial and adequate coverage and reimbursement will be essential for patients to afford the treatment. Payors may require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data, which we may not be able to provide. Moreover, ethical, social and legal concerns about certain treatments, such as gene therapy, could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting sale of our products. In the United States, third-party payers, including government payers such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered and reimbursed. Expensive specialty drugs in particular are often subject to restriction. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payers and government payers develop their coverage and reimbursement policies. We cannot be assured that Medicare or Medicaid will cover our product candidates that may be approved or provide reimbursement without restriction and at adequate levels to realize a sufficient return on our investment. Our rebate payments may increase or our prices be adjusted under value-based purchasing arrangements based on evidence-based measures or outcomes-based measures for a patient or beneficiary based on use of our drug. Moreover, reimbursement agencies in the EU may be more conservative than CMS. It is difficult to predict what third-party payers will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Additionally, within Europe, each country has its own reimbursement regime employing various health technology assessment approaches to assess the cost-effectiveness of the product (for example, in the United Kingdom a HTA assessment is conducted by NICE) which may significantly affect the effective access to the market. Our ability to negotiate, secure and maintain third-party coverage and reimbursement may also be affected by political, economic and regulatory developments. Governments continue to impose cost containment measures, and third-party payors are increasingly challenging prices charged for medicines and examining their cost effectiveness, in addition to their safety and efficacy. These and other similar developments could significantly limit the degree of market acceptance of our products or any of our other product candidates that receive marketing authorization.