Vera Therapeutics Inc

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2024, we had $403.7 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to estimate with certainty our future expenses given the dynamic nature of our business and the macroeconomic and geopolitical environment generally. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Current wording

As of June 30, 2024, we had $384.4 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our planned operations and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months from the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our estimate is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Moreover, it is particularly difficult to estimate with certainty our future expenses given the dynamic nature of our business and the macroeconomic and geopolitical environment generally. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Previous wording

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since the commencement of our operations and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We had net losses of $28.4 million and $30.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $337.5 million as of March 31, 2024. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure, a significant portion of which were incurred resulting from our efforts to develop gamma-PNA chemistry and triplex gene editing for therapeutic use, which we discontinued in September 2020. Our product candidates are in clinical development. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing our product candidates in one or more indications, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we continue the clinical development programs for our product candidates in other indications.

Current wording

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since the commencement of our operations and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. We had net losses of $33.7 million and $20.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. We had an accumulated deficit of $371.2 million as of June 30, 2024. Our losses have resulted principally from expenses incurred in research and development and from management and administrative costs and other expenses that we have incurred while building our business infrastructure, a significant portion of which were incurred resulting from our efforts to develop gamma-PNA chemistry and triplex gene editing for therapeutic use, which we discontinued in September 2020. Our product candidates are in clinical development. As a result, we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product and generate revenue from product sales. Even if we succeed in receiving marketing approval for and commercializing our product candidates in one or more indications, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses as we continue the clinical development programs for our product candidates in other indications.

Previous wording

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. We have never completed a clinical trial or submitted a BLA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Current wording

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. We have never submitted a BLA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign authorities. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be significantly harmed.

Previous wording

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our competitors include multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions. The current standard-of-care for IgAN consists of treatment with off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, to control blood pressure, or steroids with or without other immunosuppressive agents to non-specifically reduce inflammation. SGLT2 inhibitors, including AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, which is approved for chronic kidney disease, is becoming the standard-of-care in some geographies including the United States. Among emerging therapies, we consider our most direct competitors with respect to atacicept in IgAN to be approved products: the reformulated steroid from Calliditas Therapeutics AB, and endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist from Travere Therapeutics, Inc.; programs in Phase 3 clinical development: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Novartis, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Roche/Ionis; and the following companies with programs in Phase 2 of clinical development: Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, HI-Bio. Inc., Eladon Pharmaceuticals and DiaMedica Therapeutics, Inc.

Current wording

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our competitors include multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions. The current standard-of-care for IgAN consists of treatment with off-label use of RAAS inhibitors, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, to control blood pressure, or steroids with or without other immunosuppressive agents to non-specifically reduce inflammation. SGLT2 inhibitors, including AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, which is approved for chronic kidney disease, is becoming the standard-of-care in some geographies including the United States. Among emerging therapies, we consider our most direct competitors with respect to atacicept in IgAN to be approved products: the reformulated steroid from Calliditas Therapeutics AB, and endothelin and angiotensin II receptor antagonist from Travere Therapeutics, Inc.; programs in Phase 3 clinical development: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Novartis, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Roche/Ionis; and the following companies with programs in Phase 2 of clinical development: Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, Biogen Inc., Eladon Pharmaceuticals and DiaMedica Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

In LN, prior to December 2020, there had been no approved therapies, and the standard-of-care has consisted of a number of non-specific therapies, including MMF, steroids, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, and hydroxychloroquine, dependent on class of disease and whether a patient was cycling through the induction or maintenance phase of therapy. Paradigms are evolving with the FDA approvals of GlaxoSmithKline plc’s Benlysta (belimumab) and Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Lupkynis (voclosporin), both of which we consider to be direct competitors. Our competitors include: Roche Holding AG, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and AstraZeneca, each of which have programs in Phase 3 clinical development; and BeiGene Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, Alexion, Omeros Corporation, Kezar Life Science Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Amgen Inc. and Novartis, each of which have programs in Phase 2 clinical development.

Current wording

In LN, prior to December 2020, there had been no approved therapies, and the standard-of-care has consisted of a number of non-specific therapies, including MMF, steroids, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, and hydroxychloroquine, dependent on class of disease and whether a patient was cycling through the induction or maintenance phase of therapy. Paradigms are evolving with the FDA approvals of GlaxoSmithKline plc’s Benlysta (belimumab) and Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Lupkynis (voclosporin), both of which we consider to be direct competitors. Our competitors include: Roche Holding AG, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and AstraZeneca, each of which have programs in Phase 3 clinical development; and BeiGene Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca, Alexion, Omeros Corporation, Kezar Life Science Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Amgen Inc. and Novartis, each of which have programs in Phase 2 clinical development.

Previous wording

Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or receive an expedited regulatory designation (e.g., breakthrough therapy designation) for atacicept, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for atacicept or MAU868 would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of atacicept or MAU868 and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Current wording

Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or receive an expedited regulatory designation, and although we have received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA for atacicept, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for atacicept or MAU868 would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of atacicept or MAU868 and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Previous wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the Infrastructure Investments and JOBS Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further 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, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. In addition, Congress is considering additional health reform measures.

Current wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, the Infrastructure Investments and JOBS Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further 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, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. In addition, Congress is considering additional health reform measures.

Previous wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the clinical trial approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials in relation to which application for approval was made on the basis of the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. The CTR will apply to clinical trials from an earlier date if the related clinical trial application was made on the basis of the CTR or if the clinical trial has already transitioned to the CTR framework before January 31, 2025. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. In light of the entry into application of the CTR on January 31, 2022, we may be required to transition clinical trials for which we have obtained regulatory approvals in accordance with the CTD to the regulatory framework of the CTR. Transition of clinical trials governed by the CTD to the CTR will be required for clinical trials which will have at least one site active in the E.U. on January 30, 2025. A transitioning application would need to be submitted to the competent authorities of E.U. Member States through the Clinical Trials Information Systems and related regulatory approval obtained to continue the clinical trial past January 30, 2025. This would require financial, technical and human resources. If we are unable to transition our clinical trials in time, the conduct of those clinical trials may be negatively impacted. It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU in the future. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On Januar…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the clinical trial is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials in relation to which application for approval was made on the basis of the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2023, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. The CTR will apply to clinical trials from an earlier date if the related clinical trial application was made on the basis of the CTR or if the clinical trial has already transitioned to the CTR framework before January 31, 2025. Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans. In light of the entry into application of the CTR on January 31, 2022, we may be required to transition clinical trials for which we have obtained regulatory approvals in accordance with the CTD to the regulatory framework of the CTR. Transition of clinical trials governed by the CTD to the CTR will be required for clinical trials which will have at least one site active in the EU on January 30, 2025. A transitioning application would need to be submitted to the competent authorities of EU Member States through the Clinical Trials Information Systems and related regulatory approval obtained to continue the clinical trial past January 30, 2025. This would require financial, technical and human resources. If we are unable to transition our clinical trials in time, the conduct of those clinical trials may be negatively impacted. It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU in the future. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Current wording

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation and on April 10, 2024, the EU Parliament adopted its related position. If adopted in the form proposed, the recent European Commission proposals to revise the existing EU laws governing authorization of medicinal products may result in a decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU and make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Previous wording

In addition, we may be unable to transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries due to data localization requirements or limitations on cross-border data flows. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework). These mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as the EEA and/or UK) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data out of the EEA for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators individual litigants and activist groups. Regulators in the United States are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data transfers and may impose certain personal data localization requirements.

Current wording

In addition, we may be unable to transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries due to data localization requirements or limitations on cross-border data flows. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework). These mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as the EEA and/or UK) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data out of the EEA for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators individual litigants and activist groups. Regulators in the United States are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data transfers and have imposed, and may in the future impose, certain personal data transfer localization requirements.

Previous wording

Additionally, in the past few years, numerous U.S. states—including California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah—have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), (collectively, the CCPA), applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires covered businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA also provides for fines of up to $7,500 per violation and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data under the CCPA, the CCPA increases compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. While these states, like the CCPA, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work.

Current wording

advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), (collectively, the CCPA), applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires covered businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA also provides for fines of up to $7,500 per violation and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data under the CCPA, the CCPA increases compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future. While these states, like the CCPA, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2024, we had 55 full-time employees, including 38 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, and as we continue to operate as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of June 30, 2024, we had 72 full-time employees, including 50 employees engaged in research and development. In order to successfully implement our development and commercialization plans and strategies, and as we continue to operate as a public company, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Previous wording

$109.0 million of federal NOL carryforwards as of December 31, 2023, that do not expire as a result of recent tax law changes. Our NOL carryforwards are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. and state tax authorities. Our NOL carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future taxable income because of their limited duration or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. NOLs generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017 are only permitted to be carried forward for 20 taxable years under applicable U.S. federal tax law. NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021 may be carried back to each of the five tax years preceding the tax year of such loss, and NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 may not be carried back. Federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs is limited to 80% of current year taxable income. At the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. It is generally uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws.

Current wording

We have incurred losses during our history, we expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2023, we had federal and state net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards of $118.9 million and $35.7 million, respectively, that will begin expiring in the year 2032 and 2036, respectively, if not utilized. We also have $109.0 million of federal NOL carryforwards as of December 31, 2023, that do not expire as a result of recent tax law changes. Our NOL carryforwards are subject to review and possible adjustment by the U.S. and state tax authorities. Our NOL carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future taxable income because of their limited duration or because of restrictions under U.S. tax law. NOLs generated in tax years ending on or prior to December 31, 2017 are only permitted to be carried forward for 20 taxable years under applicable U.S. federal tax law. NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021 may be carried back to each of the five tax years preceding the tax year of such loss, and NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2020 may not be carried back. Federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs is limited to 80% of current year taxable income. At the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California recently enacted legislation that, with certain exceptions, suspends the ability to use California net operating losses to offset California income and limits the ability to use California business tax credits to offset California taxes, for taxable years beginning after 2023 and before 2027. It is generally uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws.

Previous wording

Our commercial success depends in part on our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries for atacicept, MAU868, and any future product candidates that we may develop and technologies related to their various uses. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technologies, and their manufacture and uses that are important to our business, as well as inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications in both United States and certain foreign jurisdictions relate to atacicept, MAU868, and other products. There can be no assurance that the claims of our owned or in-licensed patents, or any patent application that issues as a patent, will exclude others from making, using or selling our product candidates or any future product candidates or products that are substantially similar to our product candidates or any future product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. We may seek to protect our proprietary position by acquiring or in-licensing additional relevant issued patents or pending applications from third parties. If we or our potential licensors, licensees or collaborators are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to atacicept, MAU868, and our other products, proprietary technologies and their uses, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be significantly harmed.

Current wording

Our commercial success depends in part on our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaborators’ ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries for atacicept, MAU868, and any future product candidates that we may develop and technologies related to their various uses. We generally seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other things, filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technologies, and their manufacture and uses that are important to our business, as well as inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our owned and in-licensed patents and patent applications in both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions relate to atacicept, MAU868, and other products. There can be no assurance that the claims of our owned or in-licensed patents, or any patent application that issues as a patent, will exclude others from making, using or selling our product candidates or any future product candidates or products that are substantially similar to our product candidates or any future product candidates. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position. We may seek to protect our proprietary position by acquiring or in-licensing additional relevant issued patents or pending applications from third parties. If we or our potential licensors, licensees or collaborators are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to atacicept, MAU868, and our other products, proprietary technologies and their uses, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be significantly harmed.

Previous wording

Under the Ares Agreement, in consideration for the license, we issued shares of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock to Ares at the time of the initial closing of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock financing, which automatically converted into 1,913,501 shares of our common stock upon the closing of our IPO. As additional consideration for the license, we paid Ares $25.0 million upon delivery and initiation of the transfer of specified information and materials and we are required to pay Ares aggregate milestone payments of up to $176.5 million upon the achievement of specified BLA filing or regulatory approval and aggregate milestone payments of up to $515.0 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. Commencing on the first commercial sale of licensed products, we are obligated to pay tiered royalties of low double-digit to mid-teen percentages on annual net sales of the products covered by the license. In the event we sublicense our rights under the Ares Agreement, we are obligated to pay Ares a percentage ranging from the mid-single-digit to the low double-digits of specified sublicensing income received.

Current wording

Under the Ares Agreement, in consideration for the license, we issued shares of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock to Ares at the time of the initial closing of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock financing, which automatically converted into 1,913,501 shares of our common stock upon the closing of our IPO. As additional consideration for the license, we paid Ares $25.0 million upon delivery and initiation of the transfer of specified information and materials and we are required to pay Ares aggregate milestone payments of up to $176.5 million upon the achievement of specified BLA filing or regulatory approval, including $15.0 million upon the first filing of an approval application and $20.0 million upon regulatory approval in the U.S., and aggregate milestone payments of up to $515.0 million upon the achievement of specified commercial milestones. Commencing on the first commercial sale of licensed products, we are obligated to pay tiered royalties of low double-digit to mid-teen percentages on annual net sales of the products covered by the license. In the event we sublicense our rights under the Ares Agreement, we are obligated to pay Ares a percentage ranging from the mid-single-digit to the low double-digits of specified sublicensing income received.

Previous wording

We have limited control over the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing both active drug substances and finished drug products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, have limited control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates, or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. We, or our contract manufacturers, any future collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMP. Despite our efforts to audit and verify regulatory compliance, one or more of our third-party manufacturing vendors may be found on regulatory inspection by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to be noncompliant with cGMP regulations. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including shutdown of the third-party vendor or invalidation of drug product lots or processes, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension, variation or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or other drugs necessary for the development or commercialization of our product candidates and significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

We have limited control over the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing both active drug substances and finished drug products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have limited control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates, or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. We, or our contract manufacturers, any future collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMP. Despite our efforts to audit and verify regulatory compliance, one or more of our third-party manufacturing vendors may be found on regulatory inspection by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to be noncompliant with cGMP regulations. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including shutdown of the third-party vendor or invalidation of drug product lots or processes, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension, variation or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or other drugs necessary for the development or commercialization of our product candidates and significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

Furthermore, if the third-party providers of therapies or therapies in development used in combination with our product candidates are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization of our product candidates, or if the cost of combination therapies are prohibitive, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Furthermore, if the third-party providers of therapies or therapies in development used in combination with our product candidates are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization of our product candidates, or if the cost of combination therapies is prohibitive, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2024, there were 54,457,371 shares of Class A common stock outstanding and held of record by 20 stockholders. The number of record holders of our common stock does not include DTC participants or beneficial owners holding shares through nominee names.

Current wording

As of June 30, 2024, there were 54,816,573 shares of Class A common stock outstanding and held of record by 23 stockholders. The number of record holders of our common stock does not include DTC participants or beneficial owners holding shares through nominee names.

Previous wording

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

Current wording

We currently are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including:

Previous wording

Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including, if required by our filing status, an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. However, while we remain an emerging growth company or a non-accelerated filer, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we performed an evaluation to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If our filing status changes, we will need to incur additional professional fees to comply with Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Current wording

Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm, beginning with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2024. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we performed an evaluation to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We are incurring additional professional fees to comply with Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as of December 31, 2024, and future periods. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Previous wording

Additionally, we are also a “smaller reporting company,” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and will be able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures for so long as our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenue is less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter. Based on our current public float, we anticipate that we will no longer qualify a smaller reporting company for the year ending December 31, 2025.

Current wording

Additionally, we currently are also a “smaller reporting company,” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and will be able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures during the year ending December 31, 2024, including for our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2024, and our proxy statement to be filed in 2025. Based on our public float on June 28, 2024, the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, we will no longer qualify a smaller reporting company for the year ending December 31, 2025.

Previous wording

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Current wording

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which

Previous wording

As a result, we and our third-party partners are vulnerable to a variety of evolving threats that could cause security incidents. Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of our third-party partners. These threats are prevalent and continue to rise, are increasingly difficult to detect, and come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, “hacktivists,” organized criminal threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation states, and nation-state-supported actors.

Current wording

As a result, we and our third-party partners are vulnerable to a variety of evolving threats that could cause security incidents. Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, online and offline fraud and other similar activities threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our sensitive information and information technology systems, and those of our third-party partners.

Previous wording

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations has increased and will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect, our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may also need to hire additional employees or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will increase our costs and expenses.

Current wording

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations has increased and will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect, our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may also need to hire additional employees or engage outside consultants to comply with these requirements, which will increase our costs and expenses.