Schrodinger (SDGR) Risk Analysis

As of February 19, 2025, our executive officers and directors and our stockholders who beneficially owned more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially owned shares representing approximately 51.0% of our common stock and all of our limited common stock, or, if the holder of our limited common stock exercised its right to convert each share of its limited common stock for one share of our common stock, approximately 57.1% of our common stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would influence the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of ownership control may: - delay, defer, or prevent a change in control;- entrench our management and board of directors; or - delay or prevent a merger, consolidation, takeover, or other business combination involving us that other stockholders may desire. This concentration of ownership may also adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our stock price has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Since our initial public offering in February 2020 and through February 19, 2025, the intraday price of our common stock has fluctuated from a low of $15.85 to a high of $117.00. As a result of volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price paid for the shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including: - our investment in, and the success of, our software solutions;- the success of our research and development efforts for our proprietary drug discovery programs;- initiation and progress of preclinical studies and clinical trials for any product candidates that we may develop;- results of or developments in preclinical studies and clinical trials of any product candidates we may develop or those of our competitors or potential collaborators;- the success of our drug discovery collaborators and any milestone or other payments we receive from such collaborators;- the success of competitive products or technologies;- regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries;- the recruitment or departure of key personnel;- variations in our financial results or the financial results of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;- guidance or announcements by us with respect to our anticipated financial or operational performance;- sales of common stock by us, our executive officers, directors or principal stockholders, or others, or the anticipation of such sales;- equity or debt financing;- market conditions in the biopharmaceutical sector;- general economic, industry, and market conditions;- the societal and economic impact of public health epidemics; and - the other factors described in this "Risk Factors" section. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company's securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Any lawsuit to which we are a party, with or without merit, may result in an unfavorable judgment. We also may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial damages or fines, damage to our reputation, or adverse changes to our offerings or business practices. Such litigation may also cause us to incur other substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management's attention and resources.

The market price and trading volume for our common stock relies, in part, on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that existing analysts will continue to cover us or that new analysts will begin to cover us. There is also no assurance that any covering analyst will provide favorable coverage. Although we have obtained analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, or provides more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, 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, impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities, and make it more difficult for our stockholders to sell their common stock at a time and price that they deem appropriate. As of February 19, 2025, we had outstanding 63,874,200 shares of common stock and 9,164,193 shares of limited common stock. All of our outstanding shares of common stock, including shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of shares of our limited common stock, are available for sale in the public market, subject only to the restrictions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in the case of our affiliates. In addition, certain of our executive officers, directors and affiliated stockholders 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 executive officer, director or affiliated stockholder when entering into the plan, without further direction from the executive officer, director or affiliated stockholder. A Rule 10b5-1 plan may be amended or terminated in some circumstances. Our executive officers, directors and affiliated stockholders also may buy or sell additional shares outside of a Rule 10b5-1 plan when they are not in possession of material, nonpublic information. We have also filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 which allows us to offer and sell an indeterminate number of shares of common stock, preferred stock, depositary shares or warrants, or an indeterminate principal amount of debt securities, from time to time pursuant to one or more offerings at prices and terms to be determined at the time of the sale. Moreover, certain holders of our common stock and our limited common stock have rights, subject to specified conditions, to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders and may require us to file Form S-3 registration statements covering their shares. We are party to an amended and restated sales agreement with Leerink Partners LLC (formerly SVB Securities LLC), or Leerink Partners, as sales agent, with respect to an "at the market" offering program, or the ATM, under which we could offer and sell, from time to time pursuant to our Form S-3, shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $250.0 million, through Leerink Partners. The number of shares that are sold by Leerink Partners after we request that sales be made will fluctuate based on the market price of our common stock during the sales period and limits we set with Leerink Partners. Therefore, it is not possible to predict the number of shares that will be ultimately issued by us, if any, pursuant to the amended and restated sales agreement. As of December 31, 2024, we have sold 323,085 shares of common stock for total net proceeds of $8.7 million, and have $241.1 million of common stock remaining available for sale under the ATM. We also have filed registration statements on Form S-8 to register shares of common stock that we may issue under our equity compensation plans. Shares registered under such registration statements are available for sale in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates, vesting arrangements and exercise of options.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay, or prevent a merger, acquisition, or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions: - establish a classified board of directors such that only one of three classes of directors is elected each year;- allow the authorized number of our directors to be changed only by resolution of our board of directors;- limit the manner in which stockholders can remove directors from our board of directors;- establish advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals that can be acted on at stockholder meetings and nominations to our board of directors;- require that stockholder actions must be effected at a duly called stockholder meeting and prohibit actions by our stockholders by written consent;- limit who may call stockholder meetings to the board of directors or to the secretary at the request of the holders of at least 25% of the outstanding shares of our common stock and limited common stock; and - authorize our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval, which could be used to institute a "poison pill" that would work to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our board of directors. Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or the DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for: (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (2) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, employees or stockholders to our company or our stockholders, (3) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or (4) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws (in each case, as they may be amended from time to time) or governed by the internal affairs doctrine. These choice of forum provisions will not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Exchange Act or any other claim for which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. This exclusive forum provision may limit the ability of our stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholders find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and operating results.

Our results of operations, including our revenues, gross margin, profitability, and cash flows, have historically varied from period to period, and we expect that they will continue to do so. As a result, period-to-period comparisons of our operating results may not be meaningful, and our quarterly and annual results should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. Our quarterly and annual financial results may fluctuate as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. Factors that may cause fluctuations in our quarterly and annual financial results include, without limitation, those listed elsewhere in this "Risk Factors" section and those listed below: - customer renewal rates and the timing and terms of customer renewals, including the seasonality of customer renewals of our on-premise software arrangements, for which revenue historically has been recognized at a single point in time in the first and fourth quarter of each fiscal year;- our ability to attract new customers for our software;- the addition or loss of large customers, including through acquisitions or consolidations of such customers;- the amount and timing of operating expenses related to the maintenance and expansion of our business, operations, and infrastructure;- network outages or security breaches;- industry and market conditions, including within the life sciences industry;- general economic conditions, including the impact of increasing or decreasing inflation and interest rates;- our ability to collect receivables from our customers;- the amount of software purchased by our customers, including the mix of on-premise and hosted software sold during a period;- variations in the timing of the sales of our software, which may be difficult to predict;- changes in the pricing of our solutions and in our pricing policies or those of our competitors;- the timing and success of the introduction of new software solutions by us or our competitors or any other change in the competitive dynamics of our industry, including consolidation among competitors, customers, or strategic collaborators;- changes in the fair value of or receipt of distributions or proceeds on account of the equity interests we hold in our drug discovery collaborators, such as Structure Therapeutics and Nimbus;- the success of our drug discovery collaborators in developing and commercializing drug products for which we are entitled to receive milestone payments or royalties;- the timing of the recognition of milestones achieved under our collaborative programs;- variations in the number and size of milestones achieved under our collaborative programs;- the timing of recognition of revenue of any payments from entering into collaborations or out-licensing our proprietary drug discovery programs, such as under our collaboration agreement with Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis; and - the timing of expenses related to our drug discovery programs, the development or acquisition of technologies or businesses and potential future charges for impairment of goodwill from acquired companies. In addition, because we recognize revenues from our hosted software solutions ratably over the term of the agreement, a significant upturn or downturn in sales of our hosted software solutions may not be reflected immediately in our operating results. As a result of these factors, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our operating results are not a good indication of our future performance and that our interim financial results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year or for any subsequent interim period.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States requires management to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, our beliefs of what could occur in the future considering available information and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. The results of these estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Significant judgment, assumptions and estimates used in preparing our consolidated financial statements include, with respect to revenue, determining the allocation of the transaction price and measurement of progress, including (1) the constraint on variable consideration, (2) the identification of performance obligations and the allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations using their standalone selling price basis, and (3) the appropriate input or output based method to recognize collaboration revenue and the extent of progress to date. Our results of operations may be adversely affected if our assumptions change or if actual circumstances differ from those in our assumptions, which could cause our results of operations to fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the trading price of our common stock. Additionally, we regularly monitor our compliance with applicable financial reporting standards and review new pronouncements and drafts thereof that are relevant to us. As a result of new standards, changes to existing standards and changes in their interpretation, we might be required to change our accounting policies, alter our operational policies, and implement new or enhance existing systems so that they reflect new or amended financial reporting standards, or we may be required to restate our published financial statements. Such changes to existing standards or changes in their interpretation may have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial position, and profit.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. This assessment needs to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. Pursuant to Section 404, we are also required to have our independent registered public accounting firm issue an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. During our evaluation of our internal control, if we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we will be unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. In addition, if we have an unremediated material weakness, we would receive an adverse opinion regarding our internal control over financial reporting from our independent registered public accounting firm. For example, in connection with the audit of our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022, we and our independent registered public accounting firm identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. While we remediated this material weakness as of December 31, 2023, we cannot assure you that there will not be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. If in the future we again identify a material weakness, we cannot assure you that any measures we may take in the future will be sufficient to remediate such material weakness or avoid the identification of additional material weaknesses in the future. If the steps we take do not remediate a future material weakness in a timely manner, there could be a reasonable possibility that this control deficiency or others could result in a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements that would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Any failure to maintain internal control over financial reporting could severely inhibit our ability to accurately report our financial condition, or results of operations. If we are unable to conclude in the future that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports in addition to applicable stock exchange listing requirements, the market price of shares of our common stock could decline, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.

As a public company, we are subject to certain reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to reasonably assure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements or insufficient disclosures due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business. Any determination to pay dividends in the future will be at the discretion of our board of directors. As a result, capital appreciation of our common stock, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders for the foreseeable future.

We may not realize returns on our equity investments in our drug discovery collaborators. None of the drug discovery collaborators in which we hold equity generate revenue from commercial sales of drug products. They are therefore dependent on the availability of capital on favorable terms to continue their operations. In addition, if the drug discovery collaborators in which we hold equity raise additional capital, our ownership interest in and degree of control over these drug discovery collaborators will be diluted, unless we have sufficient resources and choose to invest in the drug discovery collaborator further or successfully negotiate contractual anti-dilution protections for our equity investment. The financial success of our equity investment in any collaborator will likely be dependent on a liquidity event, such as a public offering, acquisition, or other favorable market event reflecting appreciation in the value of the equity we hold. The capital markets for public offerings and acquisitions are dynamic, and the likelihood of liquidity events for the companies in which we hold equity interests could significantly worsen. Further, valuations of privately held companies are inherently complex due to the lack of readily available market data. If we determine that any of our investments in such companies have experienced a decline in value, we may be required to record an impairment, which could negatively impact our financial results. The fair value of our equity interests in public companies, such as Structure Therapeutics, may fluctuate significantly in future periods since we determine the fair value of such equity interests based on the market value of such companies' common stock as of a given reporting date. All of the equity we hold in our drug discovery collaborators is subject to risk of partial or total loss of our investment.

We have acquired, and we may again in the future acquire, businesses, solutions, or technologies that we believe could complement or expand our solutions, enhance our technical capabilities, or otherwise offer growth opportunities. The pursuit of potential acquisitions may divert the attention of management and cause us to incur various expenses in identifying, investigating, and pursuing suitable acquisitions, whether or not they are consummated. In addition, we have limited experience in acquiring other businesses. If we acquire additional businesses, we may not be able to integrate the acquired personnel, operations, and technologies successfully, effectively manage the combined business following the acquisition or preserve the operational synergies between our business units that we believe currently exist. We cannot assure you that following any acquisition we would achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction, due to a number of factors, including: - inability to integrate or benefit from acquired technologies or services in a profitable manner;- unanticipated costs or liabilities associated with the acquisition;- acquisition-related costs;- difficulty integrating the accounting systems, operations, and personnel of the acquired business;- difficulties and additional expenses associated with supporting legacy products and hosting infrastructure of the acquired business;- difficulty converting the customers of the acquired business onto our solutions and contract terms, including disparities in the revenues, licensing, support, or professional services model of the acquired company;- diversion of management's attention from other business concerns;- adverse effects to our existing business relationships with business partners and customers as a result of the acquisition;- the potential loss of key employees;- use of resources that are needed in other parts of our business; and - use of substantial portions of our available cash to consummate the acquisition. In addition, a significant portion of the purchase price of companies we acquire may be allocated to acquired goodwill and other intangible assets, which must be assessed for impairment at least annually. In the future, if our acquisitions do not yield expected returns, we may be required to take charges to our operating results based on this impairment assessment process, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Acquisitions could also result in dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt, which could adversely affect our operating results. In addition, if an acquired business fails to meet our expectations, our operating results, business, and financial position may suffer.

Currently, we are pursuing multiple business strategies simultaneously, including activities in research and development, software sales, and collaborative and proprietary drug discovery. We believe pursuing these multiple business strategies offers financial and operational synergies, but these diversified operations place increased demands on our limited resources. Furthermore, we have recently experienced, and we expect to continue to experience, significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, clinical and regulatory affairs. To manage our multiple business units and our ongoing and anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and our management team's limited attention and limited experience in managing a company with such ongoing and anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage our multiple business units and the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations has led to and may continue to lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Our management, personnel, and systems may not be adequate to support this future growth. Any inability to manage our multiple business units and growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations and the synergies we believe currently exist between our business units. In addition, adverse developments in one of these business units may disrupt these synergies.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or Bribery Act, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business and may do business in the future. The Bribery Act, FCPA, and these other laws generally prohibit us, our officers, and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed, or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Compliance with the FCPA, in particular, is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the biopharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. We may in the future operate in jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we may participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA, or local anti-corruption laws. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted. If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we will need to dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions on countries and persons, customs requirements, and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the Trade Control laws. In addition, various laws, regulations, and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. We will also need to carefully navigate the current administration's implementation of the FCPA and related statutes. On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to review the guidelines and policies governing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions. Per the Executive Order, this review will result in new DOJ FCPA guidelines intended to enhance American economic competitiveness and to safeguard national security interests. During the 180-day review period, any new FCPA investigations and enforcement actions are to be suspended absent authorization from the Attorney General, and all existing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions will be reviewed. Additionally, after the Attorney General issues revised guidelines, the Executive Order directs her to assess whether "remedial measures" related to past FCPA actions are warranted. There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA, or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA's accounting provisions. Any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by the United Kingdom, U.S., or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing, promotion and distribution of products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or in other countries until we receive approval of a new drug application from the FDA or marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities outside the United States. Our product candidates are in various stages of development and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our product candidates in the United States or in any other jurisdiction. We have no experience as a company in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. It may take many years, 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. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information, including manufacturing information, to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate's safety and efficacy. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, applications and certain types of supplements to applications must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The applicable legislation in the European Union also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of EMA, or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the United States or the European Union, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action. The FDA may determine that we must provide additional evidence and data before approving a BLA or NDA for our product candidates. For example, the FDA reviews an application to determine whether there is "substantial evidence" to support a finding of effectiveness for the proposed product for its intended use(s), The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to generally require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional confirmatory evidence may satisfy this standard. The FDA issued draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical trial to demonstrate effectiveness. In the event that we submit a BLA or NDA on the basis of one clinical trial and confirmatory evidence, the FDA could determine that such information is not sufficient to support approval of the application and the agency could require us to conduct an additional trial in support of a BLA or NDA In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and 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. Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates. Finally, we could be adversely affected by several significant administrative law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, for example, the court overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required federal courts to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes that are silent or ambiguous on a particular topic. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. Additionally, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court held that actions to challenge a federal regulation under the APA can be initiated within six years of the date of injury to the plaintiff, rather than the date the rule is finalized. The decision appears to give prospective plaintiffs a personal statute of limitations to challenge longstanding agency regulations. Another decision, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, overturned regulatory agencies' ability to impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings. These decisions could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations.

The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several Congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, 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 to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Several states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada and a few states have passed legislation establishing working groups to examine the impact of a state importation program. Several states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals to the FDA. In January 2024, the FDA approved Florida's plan for Canadian drug importation. Florida now has authority to import certain drugs from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each drug selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. Florida will also need to relabel the drugs and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation that would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the IRA has been delayed by Congress until January 1, 2032. The IRA has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023. On August 15, 2024, the HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations. Thereafter, following the change in administrations, CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration and CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. We would be fully at risk of government action if our products or those of our partners are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years. Furthermore, these provisions of the IRA may cause some companies to shift their research portfolio and priorities more towards large molecules (i.e., biologics such as antibodies) rather than small molecules. Although we do have applications of our technology to biologics, we do not yet have the same validation or value for large molecule discovery as we do for small molecule discovery. Accordingly, if the IRA causes the pharmaceutical industry to pivot investment and portfolio strategy away from small molecule drug discovery and towards biologics, it could have a material adverse effect on the expected value of our drug discovery programs and also on the perceived value of using our software to develop product candidates. In addition, if investment levels and development interest in small molecule therapeutics decreased, it may become more difficult for us to enter into collaborations on commercially acceptable terms, or at all, for our proprietary drug discovery programs. If we are unable to find suitable collaborators and/or partners for our programs, we may be forced to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own for more programs than we would otherwise expect to, or plan for, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co., Inc., filed a lawsuit against HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA's Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently, other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pharmaceutical companies also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. Certain of these cases are now on appeal, and on October 30, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in three of these cases. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated "maximum fair price" under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. In addition to the drug price negotiation program, the IRA established inflation rebate programs under Medicare Part B and Part D. These programs require manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they raise their prices for certain Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. On December 9, 2024, with issuance of its 2025 Physician Fee Schedule final regulation, CMS finalized its rules governing the IRA inflation rebate programs. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $2,000 a year beginning in 2025. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for approved products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations 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. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. This may be increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA's standards for accelerated approval. In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and the European Union, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. If reimbursement is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation's automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included 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 the first half of 2032 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. 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 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 candidate is prescribed or used. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 sequester for two years, through the end of 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act's health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in 2030 and 2031. Since enactment of the ACA, there have been and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts for Jobs Act in 2017, Congress repealed the "individual mandate." The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. In June 2021, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. During the first Trump Administration, the Congress and administration sought to overturn the ACA and related measures. Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump revoked numerous executive orders issued by President Biden, including at least two executive orders that were designed to further implement the ACA. We anticipate similar efforts to undermine the ACA, and the accompanying uncertainty, for the foreseeable future In the European Union, on December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. While the HTA entered into force in January 2022, it will only begin to apply from January 2025 onwards, with preparatory and implementation-related steps to take place in the interim. Once applicable, it will have a phased implementation depending on the concerned products. The HTA intends to boost cooperation among European Union member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products as well as certain high-risk medical devices, and provide the basis for cooperation at the European Union level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit European Union member states to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the highest potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual European Union member states will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates.

If any product candidate we may develop receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payers and others in the medical community. Sales of medical products depend in part on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost-effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians' organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that any of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, is safe, therapeutically effective and cost-effective as compared with competing treatments. Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payers on the benefits of any product candidates we may develop may require significant resources and may not be successful. If any product candidates we may develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including: - the efficacy and safety of such product candidates as demonstrated in clinical trials;- the potential advantages and limitations compared to alternative treatments;- the effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts;- the cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments;- the clinical indications for which the product is approved;- the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;- the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies;- the strength of marketing and distribution support;- the timing of market introduction of competitive products;- the availability of third-party coverage and adequate reimbursement;- the prevalence and severity of any side effects; and - any restrictions on the use of our products, if approved, together with other medications.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies, upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. Similar risks to those described above are also applicable to any application that we, or our collaborators, may submit in other jurisdictions outside of the United States. There can be no assurance that the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies will agree with our, or our collaborators', surrogate endpoints or intermediate clinical endpoints in any of our, or their, clinical trials, or that we, or our collaborators, will decide to pursue or submit any NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies, we, or our collaborators, will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Furthermore, for any submission of an application for accelerated approval or application under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted for filing or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. Finally, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions, that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence, including with respect to "conditions specified by the Secretary." The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the FDA Commissioner or the FDA Commissioner's designee and a written appeal, among other things. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe FDA's views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the FDA plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA's guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval. Accordingly, a failure to obtain and maintain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period until commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

In order to market and sell any product candidates we may develop in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying local regulatory requirements. 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, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or these third parties may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and 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. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our product candidates in any jurisdiction, which would materially impair our ability to generate revenue. Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). At the same time, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA's specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the European Union pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission's proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may, however, have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States.

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, to the FDCA, a company may file an ANDA, seeking approval of a generic version of an approved innovator product. Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a company may also submit an NDA under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA that references the FDA's prior approval of the innovator product or preclinical studies and/or clinical trials that were not conducted by, or for, the sponsor and for which the sponsor has not obtained a right of reference. A 505(b)(2) NDA product may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide for certain periods of regulatory exclusivity, which preclude FDA approval (or in some circumstances, FDA filing and review) of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA. In certain circumstances, third parties may file an ANDA or NDA under Section 505(b)(2) as early as the so-called "NCE-1" date that is one year before the expiry of the five-year period of New Chemical Entity exclusivity or more generally four years after NDA approval. The third parties are allowed to rely on the safety and effectiveness data of the innovator's product, may not need to conduct clinical trials and can market a competing version of a product after the expiration or loss of patent exclusivity or the expiration or loss of regulatory exclusivity and often charge significantly lower prices. Upon the expiration or loss of patent protection or the expiration or loss of regulatory exclusivity for a product, the major portion of revenues for that product may be dramatically reduced in a very short period of time. If we are not successful in defending our patents and regulatory exclusivities, we will not derive the expected benefit from them. In addition to the benefits of regulatory exclusivity, an innovator NDA holder may have patents claiming the active ingredient, product formulation or an approved use of the drug, which would be listed with the product in the FDA publication "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations," known as the Orange Book. If there are patents listed in the Orange Book for the applicable, approved innovator product, a generic or 505(b)(2) sponsor that seeks to market its product before expiration of the patents must include in their applications what is known as a "Paragraph IV" certification, challenging the validity or enforceability, or claiming non-infringement, of the listed patent or patents. Notice of the certification must be given to the patent owner and NDA holder and if, within 45 days of receiving notice, either the patent owner or NDA holder sues for patent infringement, approval of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA is stayed for up to 30 months. Accordingly, if any of our product candidates that are regulated as drugs are approved, competitors could file ANDAs for generic versions of these products or 505(b)(2) NDAs that reference our products. If there are patents listed for such drug products in the Orange Book, those ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs would be required to include a certification as to each listed patent indicating whether the ANDA sponsor does or does not intend to challenge the patent. We cannot predict which, if any, patents in our current portfolio or patents we may obtain in the future will be eligible for listing in the Orange Book, how any generic competitor would address such patents, whether we would sue on any such patents or the outcome of any such suit.

We do not collect sales and use, value added, and similar taxes in all jurisdictions in which we have sales, based on our belief that such taxes are not applicable or that we are not required to collect such taxes with respect to the jurisdiction. Sales and use, value added, and similar tax laws and rates vary greatly by jurisdiction. Certain jurisdictions in which we do not collect such taxes may assert that such taxes are applicable, which could result in tax assessments, penalties, and interest, and we may be required to collect such taxes in the future. Such tax assessments, penalties, and interest or future requirements may adversely affect our results of operations.

We report our taxable income in various jurisdictions worldwide based upon our business operations in those jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, India and South Korea. The international nature and organization of our business activities are subject to complex transfer pricing regulations administered by taxing authorities in various jurisdictions. The relevant taxing authorities may disagree with our determinations as to the income and expenses attributable to specific jurisdictions. If such a disagreement were to occur, and our position were not sustained, we could be required to pay additional taxes, interest, and penalties, which could result in one-time tax charges, higher effective tax rates, reduced cash flows, and lower overall profitability of our operations.

As of December 31, 2024, we had federal NOLs of approximately $204.5 million and state NOLs of approximately $129.5 million, which, if not utilized, generally begin to expire in 2025. As of December 31, 2024, we also had federal orphan drug credits and federal research and development tax credit carryforwards of approximately $31.3 million and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of approximately $2.7 million. Unused credits begin to expire in 2025 and generally expire over time if they remain unused. These NOLs, orphan drug credits, and research and development tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, a corporation that undergoes an "ownership change," generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income. We have performed an analysis through December 31, 2024 and determined that no such ownership change occurred in the periods presented. If such an ownership change were to occur in the future, our ability to use our NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards may be materially limited. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspension of the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. As described above in "Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition," the 2017 Tax Act, as amended by the CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and rules governing NOL carryforwards that may significantly impact our ability to utilize NOLs to offset taxable income in the future. In addition, state NOLs generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes.

Changes in tax law may adversely affect our business or financial condition. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the 2017 Tax Act, as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, significantly revises the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The 2017 Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including a reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21% and limitation of the deduction for net operating losses, or NOLs, to 80% of current-year taxable income for losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 (though any such NOLs may be carried forward indefinitely). In addition, beginning in 2022, the 2017 Tax Act eliminates the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and requires corporations to capitalize and amortize them over five years or 15 years (for expenditures attributable to foreign research). In addition to the CARES Act, as part of Congress's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic relief legislation was enacted in 2020 and 2021 containing tax provisions. The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, was also signed into law in August 2022. The IRA introduced new tax provisions, including a one percent excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded companies. The one percent excise tax generally applies to any acquisition of stock by the publicly traded company (or certain of its affiliates) from a stockholder of the company in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the company 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. Additional tax legislation may be enacted, and any such additional legislation could have an impact on our company. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and additional tax legislation.

The timing of sales of our software solutions is difficult to forecast because of the length and unpredictability of our sales cycle. We sell our solutions primarily to biopharmaceutical companies, and our sales cycles can be as long as nine to twelve months or longer. Further, the length of time that potential customers devote to their testing and evaluation, contract negotiation, and budgeting processes varies significantly, depending on the size of the organization and the nature of their needs. In addition, we might devote substantial time and effort to a particular unsuccessful sales effort, and as a result, we could lose other sales opportunities or incur expenses that are not offset by an increase in revenue, which could harm our business.

While the majority of our current customers are well-established, large companies and universities, we also provide software solutions to smaller companies. Our financial success depends upon the creditworthiness and ultimate collection of amounts due from our customers, including our smaller customers with fewer financial resources. If we are not able to collect amounts due from our customers, we may be required to write-off significant accounts receivable and recognize bad debt expenses, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations. We rely and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for the preclinical and clinical development of any product candidates we develop ourselves and for any commercial supply of approved products, if any. We have limited personnel with experience in drug manufacturing and lack the resources and the capabilities to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. In order to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, we will need to identify suitable manufacturers with the capabilities to manufacture our compounds in large quantities in a manner consistent with existing regulations. Our third-party manufacturers may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities and at any other time. If our manufacturers are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of that product candidate may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. We do not currently have any agreements with third-party manufacturers for the long-term supply of any of our product candidates. In the future, we may be unable to enter into agreements with third-party manufacturers for commercial supplies of our product candidates, or may be unable to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish and maintain arrangements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance; the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party; the possible misappropriation of our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and know-how; and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates. Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. If the third parties that we engage to supply any materials or manufacture product for our preclinical tests and clinical trials should cease to continue to do so for any reason, we likely would experience delays in advancing these trials while we identify and qualify replacement suppliers, and we may be unable to obtain replacement supplies on terms that are favorable to us. In addition, if we are not able to obtain adequate supplies of our product candidates or the substances used to manufacture them or any approved drug we may use in combination trials, it will be more difficult for us to develop our product candidates and compete effectively. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates may adversely affect our future results of operations and our ability to develop product candidates and commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We rely on, and plan to continue to rely on, third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, in addition to other third parties such as research collaboratives and consortia, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our ongoing, planned and future clinical trials, including for SGR-1505, SGR-2921 and SGR-3515. These contract research organizations and other third parties play a significant role in the conduct and timing of these trials and subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third-party arrangements might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities might be delayed. Our reliance on third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our responsibility to comply with any such standards. We and these third parties are required to comply with current good clinical practices, or cGCP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities in Europe and other jurisdictions have similar requirements. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that a given regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with cGCP regulations. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a U.S. government-sponsored database, clinicaltrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. Furthermore, third parties on whom we rely may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. In addition, these third parties 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 on-going clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our medicines. In addition, we currently rely on foreign CROs and contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and will likely continue to rely on foreign CROs and CMOs in the future. Foreign CMOs may be subject to U.S. legislation, including sanctions, trade restrictions and other foreign regulatory requirements which could increase the cost or reduce the supply of material available to us, delay the procurement or supply of such material or have an adverse effect on our ability to secure significant commitments from governments to purchase our potential therapies. Moreover, in September 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act (H.R. 7085), and the Senate advanced a substantially similar bill (S.3558), which legislation, if passed and enacted into law, would restrict the ability of U.S. biopharmaceutical companies like us to purchase services or products from, or otherwise collaborate with, specifically named Chinese biotechnology companies and authorizes the U.S. government to impose such restrictions on entities transacting with additional Chinese biotechnology companies as a condition of U.S. government contract, grant, and loan funding. The legislation passed by the House of Representatives contains a grandfathering provision that would prevent disruption to the provision of services or products furnished under contracts with the targeted biotechnology companies entered before the effective date of the legislation until January 1, 2032. It is possible some of our contractual counterparties could be impacted by this legislation.

We rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties to synthesize any molecules with therapeutic potential that we discover, including SGR-1505, SGR-2921 and SGR-3515. Reliance on third parties may expose us to different risks than if we were to synthesize molecules ourselves. Our reliance on these third parties will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or synthesize molecules in accordance with regulatory requirements, if there are disagreements between us and such parties or if such parties are unable to expand capacities, we may not be able to fulfill, or may be delayed in producing sufficient product candidates to meet, our supply requirements, and we may not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the necessary preclinical studies to enable us to progress viable product candidates for IND submissions or the necessary clinical trials and we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully develop and commercialize such product candidates. The facilities of these third parties may also be affected by natural disasters, such as floods or fire, or geopolitical developments or public health pandemics or such facilities could face production issues, such as contamination or regulatory concerns following a regulatory inspection of such facility. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party facility and establish a contractual relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay and increased expense, and may have a material adverse effect on our business. We or any third party may also encounter shortages in the raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, necessary to synthesize any molecule we may discover in the quantities needed for preclinical studies or clinical trials, as a result of capacity constraints or delays or disruptions in the market for the raw materials or API. Even if raw materials or API are available, we may be unable to obtain sufficient quantities at an acceptable cost or quality. The failure by us or the third parties to obtain the raw materials or API necessary to synthesize sufficient quantities of any molecule we may discover could delay, prevent, or impair our development efforts and may have a material adverse effect on our business.