RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS INC

Previous wording

While we have substantially increased the size of our organization particularly in our sales force in 2021, we also implemented reductions in workforce particularly in our research and development group in 2021 and 2022. We may need to add additional qualified personnel and resources to support our commercial activities and expected growth. Our current infrastructure may be inadequate to support our development and commercialization efforts and expected growth. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate additional employees, and may take time away from running other aspects of our business, including commercialization of our products and development of our other product candidates.

Current wording

We may need to add additional qualified personnel and resources to support our commercial activities and expected growth. Our current infrastructure may be inadequate to support our development and commercialization efforts and expected growth. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate additional employees, and may take time away from running other aspects of our business, including commercialization of our products and development of our other product candidates.

Previous wording

Apart from our discovery efforts, we continue to seek to broaden and diversify our product portfolio through acquisition or in-licensing of a product. This strategy is dependent on our ability to successfully identify and acquire or in-license relevant product candidates. In July 2022, we entered into a license and transition services agreement with Forma for an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize olutasidenib, a proprietary inhibitor of mIDH1, for any uses worldwide, including for the treatment of AML and other malignancies. On December 1, 2022, the FDA approved REZLIDHIA capsules for the treatment of adult patients with R/R AML with a susceptible IDH1 mutations as detected by an FDA-approved test. REZLIDHIA is our second commercial product and we believe is highly synergistic with our existing hematology-oncology focused commercial and medical affairs infrastructure. Further, in February 2024, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Blueprint topurchase certain assets comprising the right to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize GAVRETO, Blueprint’s proprietary RET inhibitor of tyrosine kinase for the treatment of metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC and advanced thyroid cancer, in the US. Simultaneously and in connection with entering into the Asset Purchase Agreement, we also entered into certain supporting agreements with Blueprint, including a customary transition agreement, pursuant to which, during a transition period, Blueprint will transition regulatory and distribution responsibility for pralsetinib to us. On June 24, 2024, we announced the completion of the transfer of GAVRETO NDA to us, and GAVRETO became commercially available from us in the US by prescription beginning on June 27, 2024. The in-licensing and acquisition of a product is a highly competitive area, and many other companies are pursuing the same or similar product candidates to those that we may consider attractive. In particular, larger companies with more well-established and diverse revenue streams may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and more extensive clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select and acquire or in-license promising product candidates and technologies. The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate is lengthy and complex, and we may be unable to in-license or acquire the rights to any such products, product candidates or technologies from third parties for several reasons. We may also be unable to in-license or acquire additional relevant product candidates on acceptable terms. Further, even if we identify acquisition or in-licensing targets, we may not be able to complete the transactions or we may determine …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Apart from our discovery efforts, we continue to seek to broaden and diversify our product portfolio through acquisition or in-licensing of a product. This strategy is dependent on our ability to successfully identify and acquire or in-license relevant product candidates. In July 2022, we entered into a license and transition services agreement with Forma for an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize olutasidenib, a proprietary inhibitor of mIDH1, for any uses worldwide, including for the treatment of AML and other malignancies. In December 2022, the FDA approved REZLIDHIA capsules for the treatment of adult patients with R/R AML with a susceptible IDH1 mutations as detected by an FDA-approved test. REZLIDHIA is our second commercial product and we believe is highly synergistic with our existing hematology-oncology focused commercial and medical affairs infrastructure. Further, in February 2024, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Blueprint topurchase certain assets comprising the right to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize GAVRETO, Blueprint’s proprietary RET inhibitor of tyrosine kinase for the treatment of metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC and advanced thyroid cancer, in the US. Simultaneously and in connection with entering into the Asset Purchase Agreement, we also entered into certain supporting agreements with Blueprint, including a customary transition agreement, pursuant to which, during a transition period, Blueprint will transition regulatory and distribution responsibility for pralsetinib to us. In June 2024, we announced the completion of the transfer of GAVRETO NDA to us, and GAVRETO became commercially available from us in the US by prescription. The in-licensing and acquisition of a product is a highly competitive area, and many other companies are pursuing the same or similar product candidates to those that we may consider attractive. In particular, larger companies with more well-established and diverse revenue streams may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and more extensive clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select and acquire or in-license promising product candidates and technologies. The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate is lengthy and complex, and we may be unable to in-license or acquire the rights to any such products, product candidates or technologies from third parties for several reasons. We may also be unable to in-license or acquire additional relevant product candidates on acceptable terms. Further, even if we identify acquisition or in-licensing targets, we may not be able to complete the transactions or we may determine after due diligence investigation …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

efficacy and safety data results of the trial, and theresults did not demonstrate statistical significance in the primary efficacy endpoint of durable hemoglobin response in the overall study population. We conducted an in-depth analysis of these data to better understand differences in patient characteristics and outcomes and submitted these findings to the FDA. In October 2022, we announced that we received guidance from the FDA’s review of these findings. Based on the result of the trial and the guidance from the FDA, we did not file an sNDA for this indication. Further, we may experience errors in the analysis of our clinical trial results. For example, we conducted our Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of fostamatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients launched in November 2020 and completed enrollment in July 2022. We previously announced in November 2022 the top-line results did not meet statistical significance in the primary efficacy endpoint. Upon further analysis, we discovered an error by the biostatistical contract research organization (CRO) in the application of a statistical stratification factor. After correcting for this statistical error, the primary endpoint of the study was met. However, given the end of the federal COVID-19 PHE in May 2023, and based on feedback from the FDA, DOD and other advisors regarding the program’s regulatory requirements, costs, timeline and potential for success, we decided not to submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or sNDA.

Current wording

Because of the uncertainty of whether the accumulated preclinical evidence (pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety and/or other factors) or early clinical results will be observed in later clinical trials, we can make no assurances regarding the likely results from our future clinical trials or the impact of those results on our business. For example, we conducted a Phase 3 pivotal trial of fostamatinib in patients with warm auto immune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) initiated in March 2019 and completed in April 2022. In June 2022, we announced top-line efficacy and safety data results of the trial, and theresults did not demonstrate statistical significance in the primary efficacy endpoint of durable hemoglobin response in the overall study population. We conducted an in-depth analysis of these data to better understand differences in patient characteristics and outcomes and submitted these findings to the FDA. In October 2022, we announced that we received guidance from the FDA’s review of these findings. Based on the result of the trial and the guidance from the FDA, we did not file an sNDA for this indication. Further, we may experience errors, data capture discrepancies at initial data analysis and final study results, or other technical issues in the analysis of our clinical trial results. For example, we conducted our Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of fostamatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients launched in November 2020 and completed enrollment in July 2022. We previously announced in November 2022 the top-line results did not meet statistical significance in the primary efficacy endpoint. Upon further analysis, we discovered an error by the biostatistical contract research organization (CRO) in the application of a statistical stratification factor. After correcting for this statistical error, the primary endpoint of the study was met. However, given the end of the federal COVID-19 PHE in May 2023, and based on feedback from the FDA, DOD and other advisors regarding the program’s regulatory requirements, costs, timeline and potential for success, we decided not to submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or sNDA. In addition, in December 2024, we presented initial data from the dose escalation part of the Phase 1b study evaluating the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of R289 in patients with R/R lower-risk MDS. We reported that one HTB patient receiving 500 mg once daily achieved a minor HI-E response, with a 64% reduction in RBC transfusions compared to baseline; however, in the July 15, 2025 data cut, we determined that this patient had received blood transfusions that were not captured in the database at the time of the initial data analysis. Accordingly, this patient was subsequently determined to be a non-responder. As the study is ongoing, interim results represent information at the time of the data cut, and final study results will be available after the database lock at the end of the study…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In the US, these obligations include various federal, state, and local statutes, rules, and regulations relating to privacy and data security. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to regulate unfair or deceptive or practices, and has used this authority to initiate enforcement actions against companies that implement inadequate controls around privacy and information security in violation of their externally facing policies. The FTC has brought several cases alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act with respect to health information, and has proposed rulemaking on a variety of privacy and data security topics. Additionally, the FTC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 2022 on commercial surveillance and data security, and may propose regulation concerning the ways in which companies collect, aggregate, protect, use, analyze, and retain consumer data, as well as transfer, share, sell, or otherwise monetize that data in the coming years. The FTC has also been active with respect to enforcement of its Health Breach Notification Rule and in scrutinizing the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information. The FTC finalized changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule in April 2024. Moreover, the US federal government has also enacted statutes to address privacy and information security issues impacting particular industries or activities, including the following laws and regulations, including, but not limited to: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the CAN-SPAM Act, and other laws and regulations, and continues to consider comprehensive federal privacy legislation.

Current wording

In the US, these obligations include various federal, state, and local statutes, rules, and regulations relating to privacy and data security. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to regulate unfair or deceptive or practices, and has used this authority to initiate enforcement actions against companies that implement inadequate controls around privacy and information security in violation of their externally facing policies. The FTC has brought several cases alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act with respect to health information, and has proposed rulemaking on a variety of privacy and data security topics. Additionally, the FTC may propose regulation concerning the ways in which companies collect, aggregate, protect, use, analyze, and retain consumer data, as well as transfer, share, sell, or otherwise monetize that data in the coming years. The FTC has also been active with respect to enforcement of its Health Breach Notification Rule and in scrutinizing the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information. The FTC finalized changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule in April 2024. Moreover, the US federal government has also enacted statutes to address privacy and information security issues impacting particular industries or activities, including the following laws and regulations, including, but not limited to: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the CAN-SPAM Act, and other laws and regulations, and continues to consider comprehensive federal privacy legislation.

Previous wording

In addition, state legislatures have enacted statutes to address privacy and information security issues, including the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the CCPA). For example, the CCPA, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), establishes a privacy framework applicable to for-profit entities that are doing business in California, including an expansive definition of personal information and data privacy rights for California residents (as consumers, business contacts and employees), and authorizes potentially severe statutory damages and creates a private right of action for certain data security breaches. The CCPA also requires businesses subject to the law to provide disclosures to California residents and to provide them with rights with respect to their personal information, including the right to opt out of the sale of such information. Moreover, the CPRA, among other things, imposes requirements relating to data minimization and correction, and gives California residents additional rights over their personal information, including the right to opt-out of the use of their personal information in online behavioral advertising and to opt-out of certain types of consumer profiling. The CPRA also provides for penalties for CPRA violations concerning California residents under the age of 16, and established the California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the law. Although there are exemptions for PHI, clinical trial and other research-related data under the CCPA, the CCPA could impact our business depending on how it is interpreted by the California Privacy Protection Agency, as well from new regulations issued by the Agency to further implement the law. Compliance with the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability.

Current wording

In addition, state legislatures have enacted statutes to address privacy and information security issues, including the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the CCPA). For example, the CCPA, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), establishes a privacy framework applicable to for-profit entities that are doing business in California, including an expansive definition of personal information and data privacy rights for California residents (as consumers, business contacts and employees), and authorizes potentially severe statutory damages and creates a private right of action for certain data security breaches. The CCPA also requires businesses subject to the law to provide disclosures to California residents and to provide them with rights with respect to their personal information, including the right to opt out of the sale of such information. Moreover, the CPRA, among other things, imposes requirements relating to data minimization and correction, and gives California residents additional rights over their personal information, including the right to opt-out of the use of their personal information in online behavioral advertising and to opt-out of certain types of consumer profiling. The CPRA also provides for penalties for CPRA violations concerning California residents under the age of 16, and established the California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the law. Although there are exemptions for protected health information, clinical trial and other research-related data under the CCPA, the CCPA could impact our business depending on how it is interpreted by the California Privacy Protection Agency, as well from new regulations issued by the Agency to further implement the law. Compliance with the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability.

Previous wording

Multiple other states have followed California and enacted comprehensive privacy laws, or are considering similar legislation. While these new laws and proposals generally include exemptions for HIPAA-covered PHI and clinical trial data, they add layers of complexity to compliance in the US market, and could increase our compliance costs and adversely affect our business. Moreover, some states have enacted laws specific to health data privacy, which may cause additional compliance costs such as the Washington My Health My Data Act and Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Privacy Law. For example, the Washington My Health My Data Act regulates “consumer health data” which is defined as “personal information that is linked or reasonably linkable to a consumer and that identifies a consumer’s past, present, or future physical or mental health.” However, the My Health My Data Act provides exemptions for personal data used or shared in research, including data subject to 45 C.F.R. Parts 46, 50, and 56. States, such as Colorado, Utah and California, have passed or are considering legislation or regulation governing the development or use of artificial intelligence technologies, supplementing the existing consumer protection, FDA and other regulatory guidance that may apply to the use of AI technologies in our business, and which may impact our use of technology. Moreover, many states also have in place data security laws requiring companies to maintain certain safeguards with respect to the processing of personal information, and all states require companies to notify individuals or government regulators in the event of a data breach impacting such information.

Current wording

Multiple other states have followed California and enacted comprehensive privacy laws, or are considering similar legislation. While these new laws and proposals generally include exemptions for HIPAA-covered protected health information and clinical trial data, they add layers of complexity to compliance in the US market, and could increase our compliance costs and adversely affect our business. Moreover, some states have enacted laws specific to health data privacy, which may cause additional compliance costs such as the Washington My Health My Data Act and Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Privacy Law. For example, the Washington My Health My Data Act regulates “consumer health data” which is defined as “personal information that is linked or reasonably linkable to a consumer and that identifies a consumer’s past, present, or future physical or mental health.” However, the My Health My Data Act provides exemptions for personal data used or shared in research, including data subject to 45 C.F.R. Parts 46, 50, and 56. States, such as Colorado, Utah and California, have passed or are considering legislation or regulation governing the development or use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, supplementing the existing consumer protection, FDA and other regulatory guidance that may apply to the use of AI technologies in our business, and which may impact our use of technology. Moreover, many states also have in place data security laws requiring companies to maintain certain safeguards with respect to the processing of personal information, and all states require companies to notify individuals or government regulators in the event of a data breach impacting such information.

Previous wording

Laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection, consumer protection, AI and information security are evolving and subject to potentially differing interpretations. These requirements may be interpreted and applied in a manner that varies from one jurisdiction to another and/or may conflict with other laws or regulations. New laws and regulations add additional complexity, requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk. Accordingly, compliance

Current wording

Laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection, consumer protection, AI and information security are evolving and subject to potentially differing interpretations. These requirements may be interpreted and applied in a manner that varies from one jurisdiction to another and/or may conflict with other laws or regulations. New laws and regulations add additional complexity, requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk. Accordingly, compliance programs may require additional investment in resources, and could impact availability of previously useful data.

Previous wording

Internationally, our operations abroad may also be subject to increased scrutiny or attention from foreign data protection authorities. For example, our clinical trial programs and research collaborations outside the US may implicate foreign data protection laws, including those in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and/or the UK (collectively, Europe). Many jurisdictions have established or are in the process of establishing privacy and data security legal frameworks with which we, our collaborators, service providers, including our CROs, and contractors must comply. For example, in the EU, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal data (i.e., data which identifies an individual or from which an individual is identifiable) is governed by the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the EU GDPR), which came into direct effect in all EU Member States on and from May 25, 2018. The UK has implemented the EU GDPR as the UK GDPR which sits alongside the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (the UK GDPR, and together with the EU GDPR, the GDPR). In October 2024, the UK government introduced to Parliament the Data (Use and Access) Bill (the DUA Bill) which is set to introduce reforms to the UK GDPR. The DUA Bill is currently progressing through the legislative process and is expected to be finalized during 2025. The GDPR has direct effect where an entity is established in the European Economic Area (EEA) or the UK (as applicable) and has extraterritorial effect, including where an entity established outside of the EEA or the UK processes personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA and/or the UK or the monitoring of their behavior.

Current wording

Internationally, our operations abroad may also be subject to increased scrutiny or attention from foreign data protection authorities. For example, our clinical trial programs and research collaborations outside the US may implicate foreign data protection laws, including those in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and/or the UK (collectively, Europe). Many jurisdictions have established or are in the process of establishing privacy and data security legal frameworks with which we, our collaborators, service providers, including our CROs, and contractors must comply. For example, in the EU, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal data (i.e., data which identifies an individual or from which an individual is identifiable) is governed by the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the EU GDPR), which came into direct effect in all EU Member States on and from May 25, 2018. The UK has implemented the EU GDPR as the UK GDPR which sits alongside the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (as amended by the UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025) (the UK GDPR, and together with the EU GDPR, the GDPR). The GDPR has direct effect where an entity is established in the European Economic Area (EEA) or the UK (as applicable) and has extraterritorial effect, including where an entity established outside of the EEA or the UK processes personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA and/or the UK or the monitoring of their behavior.

Previous wording

In addition, the EU GDPR prohibits the international transfer of personal data from the EEA to jurisdictions that the European Commission does not recognize as having an ‘adequate’ level of data protection unless a data transfer mechanism has been put in place or a derogation under the EU GDPR can be relied on. In certain cases (e.g., where transfers are made in reliance on EU SCCs) a company must also carry out a so-called transfer privacy impact assessment (TIA). A TIA, among other things, assesses laws governing access to personal data in the recipient country and considers whether supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under EU SCCs will need to be implemented to ensure an ‘essentially equivalent’ level of data protection to that afforded in the EEA.

Current wording

In addition, the EU GDPR prohibits the international transfer of personal data from the EEA to jurisdictions that the European Commission does not recognize as having an ‘adequate’ level of data protection unless a data transfer mechanism has been put in place or a derogation under the EU GDPR can be relied on. In certain cases (e.g., where transfers are made in reliance on EU standard contractual clauses (EU SCCs)) a company must also carry out a so-called transfer privacy impact assessment (TIA). A TIA, among other things, assesses laws governing access to personal data in the recipient country and considers whether supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under EU SCCs will need to be implemented to ensure an ‘essentially equivalent’ level of data protection to that afforded in the EEA.

Previous wording

Data protection supervisory authorities have the power under the GDPR to (amongst other thing) impose fines for serious breaches of up to the higher of 4% of the organization’s annual worldwide turnover or €20 million (under the EU GDPR) or £17.5 million (under the UK GDPR). The GDPR identifies a list of points to consider when determining the level of fines for data supervisory authorities to impose (including the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement). Data subjects also have a right to compensation, as a result of an organization’s breach of the GDPR which has affected them, for financial or non-financial losses (e.g., distress).

Current wording

Data protection supervisory authorities have the power under the GDPR to (amongst other things) impose fines for serious breaches of up to the higher of 4% of the organization’s annual worldwide turnover or €20 million (under the EU GDPR) or £17.5 million (under the UK GDPR). The GDPR identifies a list of points to consider when determining the level of fines for data supervisory authorities to impose (including the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement). Data subjects also have a right to compensation, as a result of an organization’s breach of the GDPR which has affected them, for financial or non-financial losses (e.g., distress).

Previous wording

In addition to data privacy requirements, cybersecurity requirements are laid down in various laws in the EU and the UK, the key ones being: (i) the GDPR (as discussed above), which requires controllers and processors to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard personal data to a level of security appropriate to the data protection risk; (ii) the UK Network and Information Systems Regulation 2018 (NIS Regulations), and (iii) the EU Network and Information Systems Security 2 Directive (NISD2).

Current wording

In addition to data privacy requirements, cybersecurity requirements are laid down in various laws in the EU and the UK, the key ones being: (i) the GDPR (as discussed above), which requires controllers and processors to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard personal data to a level of security appropriate to the risk; (ii) the UK Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 (NIS Regulations), and (iii) the EU Network and Information Systems 2 Directive (NISD2).

Previous wording

In the UK, the NIS Regulations apply to ‘operators of essential services’ (OES) and ‘relevant digital service providers’ (RDSP) and following the UK General Election in July 2024, the new UK Government has announced it intends to introduce a Cyber Security and Resilience Bill to the UK Parliament. The NIS Regulations require that appropriate and proportionate technical and organizational measures are implemented to manage the risk of network and information systems, and impose requirements related to incident handling and notification in relation to incidents with significant disruptive effect. Under the NIS Regulations, the ICO may issue fines of up to £17 million and take other action following non-compliance.

Current wording

In the UK, the NIS Regulations apply to ‘operators of essential services’ (OES) and ‘relevant digital service providers’ (RDSP) and the UK Government has introduced a Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to the UK Parliament in November 2025. The NIS Regulations require that appropriate and proportionate technical and organizational measures are implemented to manage the risk of network and information systems, and impose requirements related to incident handling and notification in relation to incidents with significant disruptive effect. Under the NIS Regulations, the ICO may issue fines of up to £17 million and take other action following non-compliance.

Previous wording

In addition, the EU Critical Entities Resilience Directive (CER) is aimed at strengthening the resilience of ‘critical infrastructure’ against specific threats including cyber incidents, natural hazards, terrorist attacks, insider threats, and sabotage. The scope of CER includes entities designated as ‘critical’ under CER and includes (among other things) the health sector and the manufacturers of medical devices as ‘essential services.’ The CER imposes cybersecurity and resilience requirements in particular in relation to incidents with so-called ‘significant disruptive effects’ – which are incidents that are able to significantly impact the continuation of the critical infrastructure service offering in the EU. Requirements include to: (i) identify relevant risks that may significantly disrupt the provision of essential services (i.e., pursuant to a risk assessment); (ii) take appropriate and proportionate technical, security and organizational measures to ensure resilience (i.e., based on the outcome of the risk assessment); and (iii) notify disruptive incidents to the competent authorities within 24 hours after becoming aware of an incident. The CER is enforceable on a national EU Member State level by the competent authorities, and allows EU Member States to set penalties as long as they are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. Our entities may be in scope of the CER where they qualify as critical entities within the meaning of CER. The CER has not to date been transposed by all EU Member States despite the deadline for doing so having passed.

Current wording

In addition, the EU Critical Entities Resilience Directive (CER) is aimed at strengthening the resilience of ‘critical infrastructure’ against specific threats including cyber incidents, natural hazards, terrorist attacks, insider threats, and sabotage. The scope of CER includes entities designated as ‘critical’ under CER and includes (among other things) the health sector and the manufacturers of medical devices as ‘essential services.’ CER imposes cybersecurity and resilience requirements in particular in relation to incidents with so-called ‘significant disruptive effects’ – which are incidents that are able to significantly impact the continuation of the critical infrastructure service offering in the EU. Requirements include to: (i) identify relevant risks that may significantly disrupt the provision of essential services (i.e., pursuant to a risk assessment); (ii) take appropriate and proportionate technical, security and organizational measures to ensure resilience (i.e., based on the outcome of the risk assessment); and (iii) notify disruptive incidents to the competent authorities within 24 hours after becoming aware of an incident. CER is enforceable on a national EU Member State level by the competent authorities, and allows EU Member States to set penalties as long as they are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. Our entities may be in scope of CER where they qualify as critical entities within the meaning of CER. CER has not to date been transposed by all EU Member States despite the deadline for doing so having passed.

Previous wording

In the EU, a number of new laws related to digital data and AI have recently entered into force, are expected to enter into force in the foreseeable future, or have been proposed and are being considered. We are still assessing the scope of application, impact, and risk of these recent EU laws on our business, and will continue to assess this moving forward, including for example: (i) the EU’s Data Act, which – came into force on January 11, 2024 and which seeks to, among other things regulate the use of, and access to, data generated through connected (or Internet-of-Things) devices and introduces a new means for public sector bodies to access, use and re-use private sector data. EU Member State competent authorities are empowered to enforce the Data Act and determine the appropriate sanction provided penalties are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and (ii) the European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDS), which was

Current wording

In the EU, a number of new laws related to digital data and AI have recently entered into force, are expected to enter into force in the foreseeable future, or have been proposed and are being considered. We are still assessing the scope of application, impact, and risk of these recent EU laws on our business, and will continue to assess this moving forward, including for example: (i) the EU’s Data Act, which – came into force on January 11, 2024 and which seeks to, among other things regulate the use of, and access to, data generated through connected (or Internet-of-Things) devices and introduces a new means for public sector bodies to access, use and re-use private sector data. EU Member State competent authorities are empowered to enforce the Data Act and determine the appropriate sanction provided penalties are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and (ii) the European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDS), which was formally adopted on January 8, 2025 and entered into force on March 26, 2025 and which seeks to, among other things, provide individuals with more control over their electronic health data (EHD), enable cross-border sharing of EHD between national EU healthcare systems and facilitate the sharing of EHD for secondary research purposes.

Previous wording

The EU has developed a standalone law to govern the offering and use of AI systems in the EU (the “AI Act”) which entered into force on August 1, 2024 and will become applicable in a gradual manner between 2025-2027 depending on the requirement. The AI Act imposes regulatory requirements onto AI system providers, importers, distributors, and deployers, in accordance with the level of risk involved with the AI system (“unacceptable”, “high”, “limited”, and “minimal” risk). Unacceptable-risk AI systems are banned from being offered and used in the EU, and high-risk AI systems (which include AI used as part of medical devices in certain instances) are subject to a set of regulatory requirements under the AI Act including to establish quality and post-marketing monitoring and risk assessment systems, requirements related to the training of AI systems and training data, and requirements related to human oversight. Limited-risk AI systems are subject mainly to transparency requirements only and minimal-risk AI systems are not subject to obligations under the AI Act. General-purpose AI systems are subject to a number of requirements – mostly akin to the requirements that apply to high-risk AI systems under the AI Act.

Current wording

The EU has developed a standalone law to govern the offering and use of AI systems in the EU (AI Act) which entered into force on August 1, 2024 and is becoming applicable in a gradual manner between 2025-2027 depending on the requirements. The AI Act imposes regulatory requirements onto AI system providers, importers, distributors, and deployers, in accordance with the level of risk involved with the AI system (“unacceptable”, “high”, “limited”, and “minimal” risk). Unacceptable-risk AI systems are banned from being offered and used in the EU, and high-risk AI systems (which include AI used as part of medical devices in certain instances) are subject to a set of regulatory requirements under the AI Act including to establish quality and post-marketing monitoring and risk assessment systems, requirements related to the training of AI systems and training data, and requirements related to human oversight. Limited-risk AI systems are subject mainly to transparency requirements only and minimal-risk AI systems are not subject to obligations under the AI Act. General-purpose AI systems are subject to a number of requirements – mostly akin to the requirements that apply to high-risk AI systems under the AI Act.

Previous wording

Non-compliance with the AI Act may be subject to regulatory fines of up to 7% of annual worldwide turnover. In parallel, on October 10, 2024, the EU adopted the EU Product Liability Directive to regulate non-contractual and non-fault based liability for defective products, including digital products and AI, and has introduced a new EU AI Liability Directive to facilitate claims for damages brought by EU users of AI systems.

Current wording

Non-compliance with the AI Act may be subject to regulatory fines of up to the higher of 7% of annual worldwide turnover or €35 million. In parallel, on October 10, 2024, the EU adopted the EU Product Liability Directive to regulate non-contractual and non-fault based liability for defective products, including digital products and AI.

Previous wording

The UK to date has not adopted dedicated AI legislation, instead looking to rely on a principles-based, sector-specific approach to AI regulation. However, in July 2024 it was announced that new AI regulation would in fact be introduced.

Current wording

The UK to date has not adopted dedicated AI legislation, instead looking to rely on a principles-based, sector-specific approach to AI regulation.

Previous wording

There is uncertainty surrounding potential changes to the regulatory environment in the US, particularly as it relates to healthcare regulation and related programs, following the outcome of the recent US Presidential election which may have an adverse effect on our business. For example, the new administration issued an executive order establishing an agency to reform federal government processes and reduce expenditures. Pressures on and uncertainty surrounding the US federal government’s budget, and potential changes in budgetary priorities, could adversely affect the funding for individual programs, including Medicare and other government programs upon which our business depends. Additionally, changes in legislation and regulations (including those related to taxation, trade and importation), economic and monetary policies, geopolitical matters, among other potential impacts, could adversely impact the global economy and our operating results. The potential impact of new policies that may be implemented as a result of the new administration is currently uncertain.

Current wording

Additionally, further changes in legislation and regulations (including those related to taxation, trade and importation), economic and monetary policies, geopolitical matters, among other potential impacts, could adversely impact the global economy and our operating results. The potential impact of new policies that may be implemented as a result of the current administration is currently uncertain.

Previous wording

The biopharmaceutical industry is subject to extensive regulatory obligations and policies that may be subject to change, including due to judicial challenges, election cycles, and resulting regulatory updates and changes in policy priorities.

Current wording

The biopharmaceutical industry is subject to extensive regulatory obligations and policies that are subject to significant and abrupt change, including due to judicial challenges, election cycles, and resulting regulatory updates and changes in policy priorities.

Previous wording

On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that courts reviewing agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act “must exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” The decision will have a significant impact on how lower courts evaluate challenges to agency interpretations of law, including those by the FDA, DHHS, CMS and other agencies with significant oversight of the biopharmaceutical industry. The new framework is likely to increase both the frequency of such challenges and their odds of success by eliminating one way in which the government previously prevailed in such cases. As a result, significant regulatory policies will be subject to increased litigation and judicial scrutiny.

Current wording

On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that courts reviewing agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “must exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” The decision will have a significant impact on how lower courts evaluate challenges to agency interpretations of law, including those by HHS, CMS, FDA and other agencies with significant oversight of the biopharmaceutical industry. The new framework is likely to increase both the frequency of such challenges and their odds of success by eliminating one way in which the government previously prevailed in such cases. As a result, significant regulatory policies will be subject to increased litigation and judicial scrutiny.

Previous wording

In addition, federal agency priorities, leadership, policies, rulemaking, communications, spending and staffing may be significantly impacted by election cycles. For example, the current presidential administration aims to significantly reduce government spending through cuts to federal healthcare programs and reductions in the workforces of key government agencies, such as the FDA, DHHS, and CMS. Efforts by the current administration to limit federal agency budgets or personnel may result in reductions to agency budgets, employees and operations, which may lead to slower response times and longer review periods, potentially affecting our ability to progress development of our product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. Any resulting changes in regulation may result in unexpected delays, increased costs, or other negative impacts on our business that are difficult to predict.

Current wording

In addition, federal agency activities, priorities, leadership, policies, rulemaking, communications, spending, and staffing may be significantly impacted by election cycles and legislative developments. For example, the current US presidential administration has committed to significantly reduce government spending through cuts to federal healthcare programs and reductions in the workforces of key government agencies, such as HHS, FDA, and CMS. Further efforts by the current administration to reduce federal spending may result in reductions to agency budgets, employees, and operations, which may lead to slower response times, less guidance and longer review periods, potentially affecting our ability to progress development of our product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. The administration and agencies have also made abrupt announcements about new or changed regulatory policies, such as policies related to use of AI to review product applications. And, federal government shutdowns may prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, and may significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions. These developments may lead to greater uncertainty regarding FDA policies, slower response times, longer review periods, unexpected delays, increased costs, or other negative impacts on our business that are difficult to predict. These changes may potentially affect our ability to progress development of our product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Previous wording

To help patients afford our products, we have a manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance program that helps financially needy patients in the US access our therapies. This type of program has become the subject of enforcement scrutiny in recent years. For example, some pharmaceutical manufacturers have been named in lawsuits challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws. In addition, certain state and federal enforcement authorities continue to pursue investigations and enter into settlements related to manufacturers’ support of patient assistance programs, and members of Congress have also initiated inquiries on topics that include, for example, manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs, co-payment assistance programs, and manufacturer contributions to independent charitable patient assistance programs. Moreover, the DHHS, Office of the Inspector General continues to publish advisory opinions and other agency guidance on the topic of patient assistance, which reflects the government’s continued scrutiny of manufacturer sponsored or supported patient assistance programs. Numerous organizations, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been subject to ongoing litigation, enforcement activities and settlements related to their patient support programs and certain of these organizations have entered into, or have otherwise agreed to, significant civil settlements with applicable enforcement authorities. It is possible that future legislation may be proposed that would establish requirements or restrictions with respect to these programs and/or support that would affect pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Current wording

To help patients afford our products, we have a manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance program that helps eligible financially needy patients in the US access our therapies. This type of program has become the subject of enforcement scrutiny in recent years. For example, some pharmaceutical manufacturers have been named in lawsuits challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws. In addition, certain state and federal enforcement authorities continue to pursue investigations and enter into settlements related to manufacturers’ support of patient assistance programs, and members of Congress have also initiated inquiries on topics that include, for example, manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs, co-payment assistance programs, and manufacturer contributions to independent charitable patient assistance programs. Moreover, the DHHS, Office of the Inspector General continues to publish advisory opinions and other agency guidance on the topic of patient assistance, which reflects the government’s continued scrutiny of manufacturer sponsored or supported patient assistance programs. Numerous organizations, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been subject to ongoing litigation, enforcement activities and settlements related to their patient support programs and certain of these organizations have entered into, or have otherwise agreed to, significant civil settlements with applicable enforcement authorities. It is possible that future legislation may be proposed that would establish requirements or restrictions with respect to these programs and/or support that would affect pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Previous wording

clinical studies, an ANDA applicant usually needs only to submit data demonstrating that its product has the same active ingredient(s), strength, dosage form and route of administration and that it is bioequivalent to the branded product. In September 2019, the FDA published product-specific bioequivalence guidance on fostamatinib disodium to let potential ANDA applicants understand the data FDA would expect to see for approval of a generic version of our products.

Current wording

Under the FDCA, the FDA can approve an ANDA for a generic version of a branded drug without the ANDA applicant undertaking the clinical testing necessary to obtain approval to market a new drug. Generally, in place of such clinical studies, an ANDA applicant usually needs only to submit data demonstrating that its product has the same active ingredient(s), strength, dosage form and route of administration and that it is bioequivalent to the branded product. In September 2019, the FDA published product-specific bioequivalence guidance on fostamatinib disodium to let potential ANDA applicants understand the data FDA would expect to see for approval of a generic version of our products.

Previous wording

In June 2022, we received a notice letter regarding an ANDA submitted to the FDA by Annora, requesting approval to market a generic version of TAVALISSE. The notice letter included a Paragraph IV certification with respect to our US Patent Nos. 7,449,458; 8,263,122; 8,652,492; 8,771,648 and 8,951,504, which are listed in the Orange Book. The notice letter asserts that these patents will not be infringed by Annora’s proposed product, are invalid and/or are unenforceable. Annora’s notice letter does not provide a Paragraph IV certification against our other patents listed in the Orange Book. On July 25, 2022, we filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey against Annora and its affiliates, Hetero Labs Ltd., and Hetero USA, Inc., for infringement of our US patents identified in Annora’s Paragraph IV certification. On September 21, 2022, Annora and its affiliates answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’458, ’122, ’492, ’648, and ’504 patents. We filed an answer to Annora’s counterclaims on October 12, 2022. Annora served invalidity and non-infringement contentions on December 31, 2022. We filed an answer to Annora’s invalidity and non-infringement contentions in March 2023. Litigation continues, and no trial date is currently set. We intend to vigorously enforce and defend our intellectual property related to TAVALISSE. We cannot be assured that such lawsuit will prevent the introduction of a generic version of TAVALISSE for any particular length of time, or at all. If an ANDA from Annora or any other generic manufacturer is approved, and a generic version of TAVALISSE is introduced, whether following the expiration of our patents, the invalidation of our patents as a result of any litigation, or the determination that the proposed generic product does not infringe on our patents, our sales of TAVALISSE would be adversely affected. In addition, we cannot predict what additional ANDAs could be filed by Annora or other potential generic competitors requesting approval to market generic forms of our products, which would require us to incur significant additional expense and result in distraction for our management team, and if approved, result in significant decreases in the revenue derived from sales of our marketed products and thereby materially harm our business and financial condition.

Current wording

We intend to vigorously enforce and defend our intellectual property related to our products. We cannot be assured that we will prevent the introduction of a generic version of our products for any particular length of time, or at all. If an ANDA from generic manufacturers is approved, and generic versions of our products are introduced, whether following the expiration of our patents, the invalidation of our patents as a result of any litigation, or the determination that the proposed generic product does not infringe on our patents, our sales of our products would be adversely affected. In addition, we cannot predict what additional ANDAs could be filed by potential generic competitors requesting approval to market generic forms of our products, which would require us to incur significant additional expense and result in distraction for our management team, and if approved, result in significant decreases in the revenue derived from sales of our marketed products and thereby materially harm our business and financial condition.

Previous wording

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed reduced patient-doctor interactions and our representatives had fewer visits with health care providers, which negatively affected our product sales. Physicians with practices severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, or a pandemic occurring in the future, and who currently prescribe our products, may eventually decide to close their independent practices and join a larger medical organization with a practice that does not prescribe our products. Additionally, a pandemic, including COVID-19 or any resurgence thereof, may impact commercial-related activities, such as our marketing programs, speaker bureaus, and market access initiatives which may be required to be conducted virtually, delayed or cancelled, all of which occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to deploy resources to enable our field-based employees to continue to engage with health care providers in hybrid virtual and in-person interactions, which may be required in the event a pandemic occurs in the future.

Current wording

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed reduced patient-doctor interactions and our representatives had fewer visits with healthcare providers, which negatively affected our product sales. Physicians with practices severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, or a pandemic occurring in the future, and who currently prescribe our products, may eventually decide to close their independent practices and join a larger medical organization with a practice that does not prescribe our products. Additionally, a pandemic, including COVID-19 or any resurgence thereof, may impact commercial-related activities, such as our marketing programs, speaker bureaus, and market access initiatives which may be required to be conducted virtually, delayed or cancelled, all of which occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to deploy resources to enable our field-based employees to continue to engage with healthcare providers in hybrid virtual and in-person interactions, which may be required in the event a pandemic occurs in the future.

Previous wording

Health regulatory agencies globally may experience prolonged disruptions in their operations as a result of pandemics. For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA delayed inspections and evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites We cannot predict whether, and when, health regulatory agencies will decide to pause or resume inspections due to pandemics. Any de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay

Current wording

Health regulatory agencies globally may experience prolonged disruptions in their operations as a result of pandemics. For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA delayed inspections and evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites We cannot predict whether, and when, health regulatory agencies will decide to pause or resume inspections due to pandemics. Any de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay in regulatory review resulting from such disruptions could materially affect the completion of our clinical trials.

Previous wording

We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as administered by CMS, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, as administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, and other federal and state government drug pricing programs in the US, and we may participate in additional government pricing programs in the future. These programs generally require us to pay rebates or otherwise provide discounts to government payors and/or required covered entities in connection with drugs that are dispensed to beneficiaries/recipients of these programs. In some cases, such as with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the rebates are based on pricing metrics that we report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the government agencies that administer the programs. Pricing requirements and rebate/discount calculations are complex, vary among products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The requirements of these programs, including, by way of example, their respective terms and scope, change frequently. For example, in September 2024, CMS published a final rule that included significant revisions to certain Medicaid Drug Rebate Program provisions, including, but not limited to: (i) new definitions for key terms under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, such as “covered outpatient drug” and “market date”; (ii) revised processes for identifying drug misclassifications, as well as additional penalties that can be imposed against manufacturers in connection with such misclassifications; and (iii) a new 12-quarter time limit for manufacturers to initiate disputes, hearing requests, and audits for state-invoiced rebate amounts. Responding to current and future changes may increase our costs, and the complexity of compliance will be time consuming. Invoicing for rebates is provided in arrears, and there is frequently a time lag of up to several months between the sales to which rebate notices relate and our receipt of those notices, which further complicates our ability to accurately estimate and accrue for rebates related to the Medicaid program as implemented by individual states. Thus, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all factors that may cause our discount and rebate payment obligations to vary from period to period, and our actual results may differ significantly from our estimated allowances for discounts and rebates. Changes in estimates and assumptions may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Current wording

We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as administered by CMS, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, as administered by the HSRA, and other federal and state government drug pricing programs in the US, and we may participate in additional government pricing programs in the future. These programs generally require us to pay rebates or otherwise provide discounts to government payors and/or required covered entities in connection with drugs that are dispensed to beneficiaries/recipients of these programs. In some cases, such as with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the rebates are based on pricing metrics that we report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the government agencies that administer the programs. Pricing requirements and rebate/discount calculations are complex, vary among products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The requirements of these programs, including, by way of example, their respective terms and scope, change frequently. For example, in September 2024, CMS published a final rule that included significant revisions to certain Medicaid Drug Rebate Program provisions, including, but not limited to: (i) new definitions for key terms under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, such as “covered outpatient drug” and “market date”; (ii) revised processes for identifying drug misclassifications, as well as additional penalties that can be imposed against manufacturers in connection with such misclassifications; and (iii) a new 12-quarter time limit for manufacturers to initiate disputes, hearing requests, and audits for state-invoiced rebate amounts. Responding to current and future changes may increase our costs, and ensuring compliance will be time consuming. Invoicing for rebates is provided in arrears, and there is frequently a time lag of up to several months between the sales to which rebate notices relate and our receipt of those notices, which further complicates our ability to accurately estimate and accrue for rebates related to the Medicaid program as implemented by individual states. Thus, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all factors that may cause our discount and rebate payment obligations to vary from period to period, and our actual results may differ significantly from our estimated allowances for discounts and rebates. Changes in estimates and assumptions may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Previous wording

In addition, the DHHS, Office of Inspector General and other governmental enforcement and administrative bodies have increased their focus, including through recent enforcement actions against manufacturers, on pricing requirements for products, including, but not limited to the methodologies used by manufacturers to calculate average manufacturer price and best price for compliance with reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data and for any overcharging of government payors. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify overpayments could result in allegations against us under the federal False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Any required refunds to the US government or response to a government investigation or enforcement action would be expensive and time consuming and could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, in the event that CMS were to terminate

Current wording

In addition, the DHHS, Office of Inspector General and other governmental enforcement and administrative bodies have increased their focus, including through recent enforcement actions against manufacturers, on pricing requirements for products, including, but not limited to the methodologies used by manufacturers to calculate average manufacturer price and best price for compliance with reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data and for any overcharging of government payors. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify overpayments could result in allegations against us under the federal False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Any required refunds to the US government or response to a government investigation or enforcement action would be expensive and time consuming and could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, in the event that CMS were to terminate our rebate agreement, no federal payments would be available under Medicaid for our covered outpatient drugs or under Medicare Part B for any of our products that may be reimbursed under Part B.

Previous wording

Finally, we may be affected by developments relating to the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program). For example, since 2021, multiple manufacturers have implemented policies to reduce diversion and inappropriate claims for discounts by placing restrictions on 340B pricing for drugs dispensed through contract pharmacies. The DHHS sent several of these manufacturers’ letters claiming that the policies violate the 340B statute and referring the manufacturers for potential enforcement action. Manufacturers challenged these letters in federal court, and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit have ruled in favor of several manufacturers, finding that the policies were consistent with the 340B statute. Multiple states have recently enacted laws that require manufacturers to ship 340B drugs to certain contract pharmacies and impose various civil and criminal penalties on manufacturers that do not comply. These laws have been challenged in federal court and many of the cases are pending. In March 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit upheld the Arkansas law prohibiting drug makers for restricting 340B drug discounts for providers using contract pharmacies. DHHS also issued a final rule on procedures for the 340B Program’s administrative dispute resolution process in April 2024. It is unclear how the other pending litigation, proposed legislation, or future administrative action relating to the 340B Program will impact our business.

Current wording

Finally, we may be affected by developments relating to the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program). For example, since 2021, multiple manufacturers have implemented policies to reduce diversion and inappropriate claims for discounts by placing restrictions on 340B pricing for drugs dispensed through contract pharmacies. The DHHS sent several of these manufacturers’ letters claiming that the policies violate the 340B statute and referring the manufacturers for potential enforcement action. Manufacturers challenged these letters in federal court, and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit have ruled in favor of several manufacturers, finding that the policies were consistent with the 340B statute. Multiple states have recently enacted laws that require manufacturers to ship 340B drugs to certain contract pharmacies and impose various civil and criminal penalties on manufacturers that do not comply. These laws have been challenged in federal court and many of the cases are pending. In March 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit upheld the Arkansas law prohibiting drug makers for restricting 340B drug discounts for providers using contract pharmacies. DHHS also issued a final rule on procedures for the 340B Program’s administrative dispute resolution process in April 2024. Additionally, under the Trump administration, several changes to the 340B program have been considered, including a proposal in the President’s 2026 budget to shift oversight of the 340B program from the HRSA to CMS. Additionally, on July 31, 2025, the HRSA announced that it will implement a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program that will be open to a selected group of drugs and manufacturers. The 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program was intended to become effective January 1, 2026, but implementation has been paused due to ongoing litigation. It is unclear how the other pending litigation, proposed legislation, or future administrative action relating to the 340B Program will impact our business.

Previous wording

We will need additional capital in the future to sufficiently fund our operations and research.

Current wording

We may need to seek additional capital in the future to sufficiently fund our operations, research and corporate development opportunities.

Previous wording

We have consumed substantial amounts of capital to date as we continue our research and development activities, including preclinical studies and clinical trials and for the commercialization of our products. We may seek another collaborator or licensee in the future for further clinical development and commercialization of our products, as well as our other clinical programs, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to support our current and projected funding requirements, including the continued commercialization of our products through at least the next 12 months. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with commercial launch, the development of our product candidates and other research and development activities, we are unable to estimate with certainty our future product revenues, our revenues from our current and future collaborative partners, the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenditures associated with our current and anticipated clinical trials and other research and development activities.

Current wording

We have consumed substantial amounts of capital to date as we continue our research and development activities, including preclinical studies and clinical trials and for the commercialization of our products, as well as corporate development opportunities. We may seek another collaborator or licensee in the future for further clinical development and commercialization of our products, as well as our other clinical programs, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We believe that our existing capital resources will be sufficient to support our current and projected funding requirements, including the continued commercialization of our products through at least the next 12 months. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with commercial launch, the development of our product candidates and other research and development activities, we are unable to estimate with certainty our future product revenues, our revenues from our current and future collaborative partners, the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenditures associated with our current and anticipated clinical trials and other research and development activities.

Previous wording

We will continue to need additional capital and the amount of future capital needed will depend largely on the success of our commercialization of our products, and the success of our internally developed programs as they proceed in later and more expensive clinical trials, including any additional clinical trials that we may decide to conduct with respect to our products. While we intend to opportunistically seek access to additional funds through public or private equity offerings or debt financings, we do not know whether additional financing will be available when needed, or that, if available, we will obtain financing on reasonable terms. Our ability to raise additional capital, including our ability to secure new collaborations and continue to support existing collaboration efforts with our partners, may also be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the recent disruptions to, and volatility in, the credit and financial markets in the US and worldwide resulting from a global pandemic and the global tensions arising from the Russia-Ukraine war and the Hamas-Israel war. Unless and until we are able to generate a sufficient amount of product, royalty or milestone revenue, which may never occur, we expect to finance future cash needs through public and/or private offerings of equity securities, debt financings or collaboration and licensing arrangements, as well as through proceeds from the exercise of stock options and interest income earned on the investment of our cash balances and short-term investments. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities in the future, our stockholders could at that time experience substantial dilution. In addition, we have a significant number of stock options outstanding. To the extent that outstanding stock options have been or may be exercised or other shares issued, our stockholders may experience further dilution. Further, we may choose to raise additional capital due to market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Our credit facility with MidCap includes certain covenants that may restrict our business, and any other debt financing that we are able to obtain in the future may involve operating covenants that restrict our business. To the extent that we raise additional funds through any new collaboration and licensing arrangements, we may be required to refund certain payments made to us, relinquish some rights to our technologies or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Current wording

While we intend to opportunistically seek access to additional funds through public or private equity offerings or debt financings, we do not know whether additional financing will be available when needed, or that, if available, we will obtain financing on reasonable terms. Our ability to raise additional capital, including our ability to secure new collaborations and continue to support existing collaboration efforts with our partners, may also be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the recent disruptions to, and volatility in, the credit and financial markets in the US and worldwide resulting from global geopolitical tensions. Unless and until we are able to generate a sufficient amount of product, royalty or milestone revenue, which may never occur, we expect to finance future cash needs through public and/or private offerings of equity securities, debt financings or collaboration and licensing arrangements, as well as through proceeds from the exercise of stock options and interest income earned on the investment of our cash balances and short-term investments. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities in the future, our stockholders could at that time experience substantial dilution. In addition, we have a significant number of stock options outstanding. To the extent that outstanding stock options have been or may be exercised or other shares issued, our stockholders may experience further dilution. Further, we may choose to raise additional capital due to market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Our credit facility with MidCap includes certain covenants that may restrict our business, and any other debt financing that we are able to obtain in the future may involve operating covenants that restrict our business. To the extent that we raise additional funds through any new collaboration and licensing arrangements, we may be required to refund certain payments made to us, relinquish some rights to our technologies or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Previous wording

We entered into a Credit Agreement with MidCap on September 27, 2019, amended on March 29, 2021, February 11, 2022, July 27, 2022, and April 11, 2024. The Credit Agreement provides for a $60.0 million term loan credit facility. As of December 31, 2024, the outstanding principal balance of the loan was $60.0 million, and no remaining funds were available under the term loan credit facility. Under the Credit Agreement, we are required to repay amounts due when there is an event of default for the term loans that results in the principal, premium, if any, and interest, if any, becoming due prior to the maturity date for the term loans. The Credit Agreement also contains a number of other affirmative and restrictive covenants. See “Note 11 – Debt” to our “Notes to Financial Statements” contained in “Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K” for additional details of the Credit Agreement. These and other terms in the Credit Agreement have to be monitored closely for compliance and could restrict our ability to grow our business or enter into transactions that we believe would be beneficial to our business. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our

Current wording

We entered into a Credit Agreement with MidCap on September 27, 2019, amended on March 29, 2021, February 11, 2022, July 27, 2022, and April 11, 2024. The Credit Agreement provides for a $60.0 million term loan credit facility, and as of December 31, 2025, the outstanding principal balance of the loan was $52.5 million. Under the Credit Agreement, we are required to repay amounts due when there is an event of default for the term loans that results in the principal, premium, if any, and interest, if any, becoming due prior to the maturity date for the term loans. The Credit Agreement also contains a number of other affirmative and restrictive covenants. See “Note 11 – Debt” to our “Notes to Financial Statements” contained in “Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K” for additional details of the Credit Agreement. These and other terms in the Credit Agreement have to be monitored closely for compliance and could restrict our ability to grow our business or enter into transactions that we believe would be beneficial to our business. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and support our growth strategies. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as restructuring our debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our current debt obligations. In addition, we cannot be sure that additional financing will be available when required or, if available, will be on terms satisfactory to us. Further, even if we are able to obtain additional financing, we may be required to use such proceeds to repay a portion of our debt.

Previous wording

For the year ended December 31, 2024, we recognized income from operations of $24.2 million primarily due to higher net product sales and collaboration revenues, partially offset by our operating expenses. Historically, we have incurred losses from operations each year since we were incorporated in June 1996 other than in fiscal year 2010, due in large part to the significant research and development expenditures and costs of our ongoing commercial efforts. Although we recognized income from operations for the current period, there can be no assurance that we will generate annual operating income in the foreseeable future. Currently, our potential sources of revenues include sales of our products, as well as upfront, milestones and royalty payments pursuant to our collaboration arrangements, all of which may never materialize if sales of our products decline or if our collaboration partners do not achieve certain events or generate net sales to which these contingent payments are dependent on. If our future drug candidates fail or do not gain regulatory approval, or if our drugs do not achieve sustainable market acceptance, we may not be profitable. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $1.4 billion. The extent of our future losses or profitability, if any, is highly uncertain.

Current wording

In 2025 and 2024, we recognized income from operations primarily due to higher net product sales and collaboration revenues, partially offset by our operating expenses. Historically, we have incurred losses from operations each year since we were incorporated in June 1996 other than in fiscal year 2010, due in large part to the significant research and development expenditures and costs of our ongoing commercial efforts. Although we recognized income from operations in 2025 and 2024, there can be no assurance that we will generate annual operating income in the foreseeable future. Currently, our potential sources of revenues include sales of our products, as well as upfront, milestones and royalty payments pursuant to our collaboration arrangements, all of which may never materialize if sales of our products decline or if our collaboration partners do not achieve certain events or generate net sales to which these contingent payments are dependent on. If our future drug candidates fail or do not gain regulatory approval, or if our drugs do not achieve sustainable market acceptance, we may not be profitable. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $1.0 billion. The extent of our future losses or profitability, if any, is uncertain.

Previous wording

Our strategy depends upon the formation and sustainability of multiple collaborative arrangements and license agreements with third parties now and in the future. We rely on these arrangements for not only financial resources, but also for expertise we need now and in the future relating to clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and marketing, and for licenses to technology rights. To date, we have entered into several such arrangements with corporate collaborators; however, we do not know if these collaborations or additional collaborations with third parties, if any, will dedicate sufficient resources or if any development or commercialization efforts by third parties will be successful. In addition, our corporate collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a drug candidate or development program. Should a collaborative partner fail to develop or commercialize a compound or product to which it has rights from us for any reason, including corporate restructuring, such failure might delay our ongoing research and development efforts, because we might not receive any future payments, and we would not receive any royalties associated with such compound or product. We may seek another collaborator or licensee in the future for clinical development and commercialization of our products, as well as our other

Current wording

Our strategy depends upon the formation and sustainability of multiple collaborative arrangements and license agreements with third parties now and in the future. We rely on these arrangements for not only financial resources, but also for expertise we need now and in the future relating to clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and marketing, and for licenses to technology rights. To date, we have entered into several such arrangements with corporate collaborators; however, we do not know if these collaborations or additional collaborations with third parties, if any, will dedicate sufficient resources or if any development or commercialization efforts by third parties will be successful. In addition, our corporate collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a drug candidate or development program. Should a collaborative partner fail to develop or commercialize a compound or product to which it has rights from us for any reason, including corporate restructuring, such failure might delay our ongoing research and development efforts, because we might not receive any future payments, and we would not receive any royalties associated with such compound or product. We may seek another collaborator or licensee in the future for clinical development and commercialization of our products, as well as our other clinical programs, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to form new collaborations or enter into new license agreements, our research and development efforts could be delayed. In addition, the continuation of some of our partnered drug discovery and development programs may be dependent on the periodic renewal of our corporate collaborations.

Previous wording

Each of our collaborations could be terminated by the other party at any time, and we may not be able to renew these collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all, or negotiate additional corporate collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all. If these collaborations terminate or are not renewed, any resultant loss of revenues from these collaborations or loss of the resources and expertise of our collaborative partners could adversely affect our business.

Current wording

Each of our collaborations could be terminated by the other party at any time, and we may not be able to renew these collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all, or negotiate additional corporate collaborations on acceptable terms, if at all. If these collaborations terminate or are not renewed, any resultant loss of revenues from these collaborations or loss of the resources and expertise of our collaborative partners could adversely affect our business. For example, on October 1, 2025, we received notice from Lilly of its intent to terminate the CNS disease program under the Lilly Agreement, and such termination became effective on November 30, 2025. Following the termination of the CNS disease program, we expect that we will no longer realize any future milestone and royalty payments associated with this program.

Previous wording

Conflicts also might arise with collaborative partners concerning proprietary rights to particular compounds. While our existing collaborative agreements typically provide that we retain milestone payments, royalty rights and/or revenue sharing with respect to drugs developed from certain compounds or derivative compounds, any such payments or royalty rights may be at reduced rates, and disputes may arise over the application of payment provisions or derivative payment provisions to such drugs, and we may not be successful in such disputes. For example, in September 2018, BerGenBio served us with a notice of arbitration seeking declaratory relief related to the interpretation of provisions under our June 2011 license agreement, particularly as they relate to the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of the license or sale of a product in the program by BerGenBio and/or the sale of BerGenBio to a third party. The arbitration panel dismissed four of the six declarations sought by BerGenBio, and we thereafter consented to one of the remaining declarations requested by BerGenBio. On February 27, 2019, the arbitration panel issued a determination granting the declaration sought by BerGenBio on the remaining issue, and held that in the event of a sale of shares by BerGenBio’s shareholders where there is no monetary benefit to BerGenBio, we would not be entitled to a portion of the proceeds from such a sale. In this circumstance where the revenue share provision is not triggered, the milestone and royalty payment provisions remain in effect. While we do not believe that the determination will have an adverse effect on our operations, cash flows or financial condition, we can make no assurance regarding any such impact. Additionally, the management teams of our collaborators may change for various reasons including due to being acquired. Different management teams or an acquiring company of our collaborators may have different priorities which may have adverse results on the collaboration with us.

Current wording

Conflicts also might arise with collaborative partners concerning proprietary rights to particular compounds. While our existing collaborative agreements typically provide that we retain milestone payments, royalty rights and/or revenue sharing with respect to drugs developed from certain compounds or derivative compounds, any such payments or royalty rights may be at reduced rates, and disputes may arise over the application of payment provisions or derivative payment provisions to such drugs, and we may not be successful in such disputes. Additionally, the management teams of our collaborators may change for various reasons including due to being acquired. Different management teams or an acquiring company of our collaborators may have different priorities which may have adverse results on the collaboration with us.

Previous wording

An adverse outcome may allow third parties to use our intellectual property without a license and/or allow third parties to introduce generic and other competing products, any of which would negatively impact our business. For example, in June 2022, we received a notice letter from Annora advising that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA for a generic version of TAVALISSE and asserting that certain patents related to TAVALISSE that are listed in the Orange Book will not be infringed by Annora’s proposed product, are invalid and/or are unenforceable. In July 2022, we filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey against Annora and its subsidiaries for infringement of those US patents. In September 2022, Annora and its subsidiaries answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of those patents. We filed an answer to Annora’s counterclaims on October 12, 2022. Annora served invalidity and non-infringement contentions on December 31, 2022. We filed an answer to Annora’s invalidity and non-infringement contentions in March 2023. Litigation continues, and no trial date is currently set. We intend to vigorously enforce and defend our intellectual property rights related to TAVALISSE. Should Annora or any other third parties receive FDA approval of an ANDA for a generic version of fostamatinib or a 505(b)(2) NDA with respect to fostamatinib, and if our patents covering fostamatinib were held to be invalid (or if such competing generic versions of fostamatinib were found to not infringe our patents), then they could introduce generic versions of fostamatinib or other such 505(b)(2) products before our patents expire, and the resulting competition would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Please also see the risk factor entitled, “If manufacturers obtain approval for generic versions of our products, or of products with which we compete, our business may be harmed.” In the future, there might be other claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages or other remedies, and the cost to defendmay also be significant.

Current wording

We intend to vigorously enforce and defend our intellectual property rights related to our products. Should any third parties receive FDA approval of an ANDA for a generic version of our products or a 505(b)(2) NDA with respect to our products, and if our patents covering our products were held to be invalid (or if such competing generic versions of our products were found to not infringe our patents), then they could introduce generic versions of our products or other such 505(b)(2) products before our patents expire, and the resulting competition would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Please also see the risk factor entitled, “If manufacturers obtain approval for generic versions of our products, or of products with which we compete, our business may be harmed.” In the future, there might be other claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages or other remedies, and the cost to defendmay also be significant.

Previous wording

We are subject to taxation in numerous US states and territories. As a result, our effective tax rate is derived from a combination of applicable tax rates in the various places that we operate. In preparing our financial statements, we estimate the amount of tax that will become payable in each of such places. Nevertheless, our effective tax rate may be different than experienced in the past due to numerous factors, including passage of the newly enacted federal income tax law, changes in the mix of our profitability from state to state, the results of examinations and audits of our tax filings, our inability to secure or sustain acceptable agreements with tax authorities, changes in accounting for income taxes and changes in tax laws. Any of these factors could cause us to experience an effective tax rate significantly different from previous periods or our current expectations and may result in tax obligations in excess of amounts accrued in our financial statements.

Current wording

We are subject to taxation in numerous US states and territories. As a result, our effective tax rate is derived from a combination of applicable tax rates in the various places that we operate. In preparing our financial statements, we estimate the amount of tax that will become payable in each of such jurisdictions. Nevertheless, our effective tax rate may be different than experienced in the past due to numerous factors, including passage of the newly enacted federal income tax law, changes in the mix of our profitability from state to state, the results of examinations and audits of our tax filings, our inability to secure or sustain acceptable agreements with tax authorities, changes in accounting for income taxes and changes in tax laws. Any of these factors could cause us to experience an effective tax rate significantly different from previous periods or our current expectations and may result in tax obligations in excess of amounts accrued in our financial statements.

Previous wording

Our ability to use our federal and state NOLs to offset potential future taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due is dependent upon our generation of future taxable income before the expiration dates of the NOLs, and we cannot predict with certainty when, or whether, we will generate sufficient taxable income to use all of our NOLs. Federal NOLs generated prior to 2018 will continue to be governed by the NOL carryforward rules as they existed prior to the adoption of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act), which means that generally they will expire 20 years after they were generated if not used prior thereto. Many states have similar laws. Accordingly, our federal and state NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. Moreover, federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs may be limited to 80% of current year taxable income for tax years beginning after January 1, 2021. In June 2024, California Senate Bill 167 was signed into law which suspends NOL deductions for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2024 and before January 1, 2027 for taxpayers with net business income or modified adjusted gross income of at least $1.0 million for the tax year. The legislation also limits the aggregate use of otherwise allowable business credits to $5.0 million for each tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2024 but before January 1, 2027 (except for certain credits not subject to the limitation). Further, the Tax Act requires the taxpayers to capitalize Research and Experimental (R&E) expenditures under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (Code), effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, which will reduce our NOLs beginning in 2022. R&E expenditures attributable to US-based research must be amortized over a period of 5 years and R&E expenditures attributable to research conducted outside of the US must be amortized over a period of 15 years.

Current wording

Our ability to use our federal and state NOLs to offset potential future taxable income and related income taxes that would otherwise be due dependent upon our generation of future taxable income before the expiration dates of the NOLs, and we cannot predict with certainty when, or whether, we will generate sufficient taxable income to use all of our NOLs. Federal NOLs generated prior to 2018 will continue to be governed by the NOL carryforward rules as they existed prior to the adoption of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which means that generally they will expire 20 years after they were generated if not used prior thereto. Many states have similar laws. Accordingly, our federal and state NOLs could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. Moreover, federal NOLs generated in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs may be limited to 80% of current year taxable income for tax years beginning after January 1, 2021. In June 2024, California Senate Bill 167 was signed into law which suspends NOL deductions for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2024 and before January 1, 2027 for taxpayers with net business income or modified adjusted gross income of at least $1.0 million for the tax year. The legislation also limits the aggregate use of otherwise allowable business credits to $5.0 million for each tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2024 but before January 1, 2027 (except for certain credits not subject to the limitation). Although the TCJA required taxpayers to capitalize research and experimental expenditures under Section 174 for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022, the OBBBA restored and made permanent the ability for taxpayers to make immediate deductions for research and experimental expenditures generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.