RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS INC

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 m IDH1, 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.

Current wording

The acquisition, asset purchase and in-licensing of products and product candidates 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 not to pursue identified targets. Even if we succeed in our efforts to obtain rights to suitable product candidates, the success of our investments in these areas, our investment strategy will remain subject to the inherent risks associated with the development and commercialization of the product, and with the competitive business environment in which we operate.

Previous wording

Because of the uncertainty of whether the preclinical evidence (pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety and toxicity, and/or other factors) or early clinical results will be observed in later clinical trials, we can make no assurances regarding the success of our clinical trials. The impact of those preclinical and clinical resultsmay require us to conduct additional studies, delay, limit or modify clinical trials, or result in more restrictive labeling or other regulatory actions. 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. Based on the result of the trial and the guidance from the FDA, we did not file an Supplemental New Drug Application (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 announced in November 2022 that the top-line results did not meet statistical significance in the primary efficacy endpoint. Upon further analysis, we discovered an error by the biostatistical 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.

Current wording

Because of the uncertainty of whether the preclinical evidence (pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety and toxicity, and/or other factors) or early clinical results will be observed in later clinical trials, we can make no assurances regarding the success of our clinical trials. The impact of those preclinical and clinical resultsmay require us to conduct additional studies, delay, limit or modify clinical trials, or result in more restrictive labeling or other regulatory actions. 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. Based on the result of the trial and the guidance from the FDA, we did not file a Supplemental New Drug Application (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 announced in November 2022 that the top-line results did not meet statistical significance in the primary efficacy endpoint. Upon further analysis, we discovered an error by the biostatistical 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.

Previous wording

On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 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 has impacted 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 are subject to increased prospects of litigation and judicial scrutiny.

Current wording

On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 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 impacted 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. This new framework may result in an increase in 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 are subject to increased prospects of litigation and judicial scrutiny.

Previous 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. 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.

Current wording

In addition, federal agency activities, priorities, leadership, policies, rulemaking, communications, spending and staffing has been significantly impacted by changes in presidential administrations 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. 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

The FDCA requires that an applicant for approval of a generic form of a branded drug certify either that its generic product does not infringe any of the patents listed by the owner of the branded drug in the FDA’s Orange Book or that those patents are not enforceable. This process is known as a paragraph IV challenge. Upon notice of a paragraph IV challenge, a patent owner has 45 days to bring a patent infringement suit in federal district court against the company seeking ANDA approval of a product covered by one of the owner’s patents. If this type of suit is commenced, the FDCA provides a 30-month stay on the FDA’s approval of the competitor’s application. If the litigation is resolved in favor of the ANDA applicant or the challenged patent expires during the 30-month stay period, the stay is lifted, and the FDA may thereafter approve the application based on the standards for approval of ANDAs. Once an ANDA is approved by the FDA, the generic manufacturer may market and sell the generic form of the branded drug in competition with the branded medicine.

Current wording

The FDCA requires that an applicant for approval of a generic form of a branded drug certifies either that its generic product does not infringe any of the patents listed by the owner of the branded drug in the FDA’s Orange Book or that those patents are not enforceable. This process is known as a paragraph IV challenge. Upon notice of a paragraph IV challenge, a patent owner has 45 days to bring a patent infringement suit in federal district court against the company seeking ANDA approval of a product covered by one of the owner’s patents. If this type of suit is commenced, the FDCA provides a 30-month stay on the FDA’s approval of the competitor’s application. If the litigation is resolved in favor of the ANDA applicant or the challenged patent expires during the 30-month stay period, the stay is lifted, and the FDA may thereafter approve the application based on the standards for approval of ANDAs. Once an ANDA is approved by the FDA, the generic manufacturer may market and sell the generic form of the branded drug in competition with the branded medicine.

Previous wording

Finally, we may be affected by developments relating to the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program). Multiple states have recently enacted or are currently considering 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. HHS 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. However, the HRSA withdrew this proposal in January 2026 following litigation that resulted in a federal court granting temporary restraining order to block the program and has since requested information from stakeholders as to alternative rebate models. 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). Multiple states have recently enacted or are currently considering 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. HHS also issued a final rule on procedures for the 340B Program’s administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process in April 2024 and ADR decisions have been posted on HRSA's website. Additionally, under the Trump administration, several changes to the 340B program have been considered, including a proposal in the President’s 2027 budget to shift oversight of the 340B program from the HRSA to CMS. Moreover, after withdrawing a prior program, HSRA is expected to announce a new 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program that will be open to a selected group of drugs and manufacturers as a notice regarding the program is currently under review. CMS has also proposed new reporting requirements for 340B covered entities that purchase drugs that are also covered under Medicare Part D, among other reporting requirements, and has proposed significant cuts to reimbursement for 340B drugs paid under the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. Congress has also introduced 340B reform legislation. It is unclear how the pending litigation, proposed legislation, or future administrative actions relating to the 340B Program will impact our business.

Previous wording

We have indebtedness in the form of a term loan pursuant to the Credit Agreement with MidCap, which could adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to respond to changes in our business. Further, if we are unable to satisfy certain conditions of the Credit Agreement, we will be unable to draw down the remainder of the facility.*

Current wording

We have indebtedness in the form of a revolving credit facility pursuant to the Credit Agreement with MidCap, which could adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to respond to changes in our business. Further, if we are unable to satisfy certain conditions of the Credit Agreement, we will be unable to draw down the remainder of the facility.*

Previous wording

On May 5, 2026, we terminated the term loan facility and entered into a new Credit Agreement with MidCap providing for a revolving credit facility with a maximum borrowing capacity of $40.0 million, with an option to increase to $60.0 million, subject to customary conditions. As of the date of this filing, we had an outstanding borrowing of $8.0 million under the revolving credit facility. Borrowings under the revolving credit facility are subject to availability and ongoing compliance with certain conditions, and we may not be able to access the full amount of the facility when needed. Availability under the revolving credit facility is subject to a borrowing base based primarily on eligible accounts receivable and inventory. While the revolving credit facility enhances our financial flexibility to support operations and working capital needs, our liquidity is dependent on the level of borrowing base availability. In addition, the revolving credit facility may require us to seek additional financing over time to support our operations, and such financing may not be available on favorable terms, or at all.

Current wording

Borrowings under the revolving credit facility are subject to availability and ongoing compliance with certain conditions, and we may not be able to access the full amount of the facility when needed. Availability under the revolving credit facility is subject to a borrowing base based primarily on eligible accounts receivable and inventory. While the revolving credit facility enhances our financial flexibility to support operations and working capital needs, our liquidity is dependent on the level of borrowing base availability. In addition, the revolving credit facility may require us to seek additional financing over time to support our operations, and such financing may not be available on favorable terms, or at all.

Previous wording

The revolving credit facility bears interest at a variable rate based on SOFR, subject to a floor, which exposes us to the risk of increased interest expense in a rising interest rate environment. The Credit Agreement contains affirmative and restrictive covenants, including financial covenants. These and other terms must 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.

Current wording

The revolving credit facility bears interest at a variable rate based on SOFR, subject to a floor, which exposes us to the risk of increased interest expense in a rising interest rate environment. The new Credit Agreement contains affirmative and restrictive covenants, including financial covenants. These and other terms must 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.

Previous wording

The Credit Agreement contains provisions that could result in an event of default, including a mandatory prepayment provision that gives MidCap and/or its agent the right to demand payment of any outstanding borrowings, together with applicable interest and fees, upon the occurrence of an event of default. If we fail to comply with the covenants or other requirements under the revolving credit facility, an event of default could occur, which could result in the acceleration of any outstanding borrowings and the exercise of remedies by the lender, including foreclosure on substantially all of our assets. We may not have sufficient available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to repay amounts outstanding under the Credit Agreement.

Current wording

The new Credit Agreement contains provisions that could result in an event of default, including a mandatory prepayment provision that gives MidCap and/or its agent the right to demand payment of any outstanding borrowings, together with applicable interest and fees, upon the occurrence of an event of default. If we fail to comply with the covenants or other requirements under the revolving credit facility, an event of default could occur, which could result in the acceleration of any outstanding borrowings and the exercise of remedies by the lender, including foreclosure on substantially all of our assets. We may not have sufficient available cash or be able to obtain financing at the time we are required to repay amounts outstanding under the new Credit Agreement.

Previous wording

In addition, any significant disruption in the operation of the facility due to natural disaster or severe weather, or events such as fire, accidents, power outages, system failures, or other unforeseen causes, could devalue or damage a significant portion of our inventories and could adversely affect our product distribution and sales until such time as we could secure an alternative facility. Further, climate change may increase both the frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions and natural disasters, which may affect our business operations. If we encounter difficulties with any of our distribution facilities, whether due to the potential future impacts of a global pandemic (including as a result of disruptions of global shipping and the transport of products) or otherwise, or other problems or disasters arise, we cannot ensure that critical systems and operations will be restored in a timely manner or at all, and this would have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, growth could require us to further expand our current facility, which could affect us adversely in ways that we cannot predict.

Current wording

Our distribution operations for the sale of our products are currently concentrated in two distribution centers owned by a third-party logistics provider. Additionally, our distribution operations, if and when we launch any of our product candidates in the future, may also be concentrated in such distribution centers owned by a third-party logistics provider. Any errors in inventory level management and unforeseen inventory shortage could adversely affect our business. In addition, any significant disruption in the operation of the facility due to natural disaster or severe weather, or events such as fire, accidents, power outages, system failures, or other unforeseen causes, could devalue or damage a significant portion of our inventories and could adversely affect our product distribution and sales until such time as we could secure an alternative facility. Further, climate change may increase both the frequency and severity of extreme weather conditions and natural disasters, which may affect our business operations. If we encounter difficulties with any of our distribution facilities, whether due to the potential future impacts of a global pandemic (including as a result of disruptions of global shipping and the transport of products) or otherwise, or other problems or disasters arise, we cannot ensure that critical systems and operations will be restored in a timely manner or at all, and this would have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, growth could require us to further expand our current facility, which could affect us adversely in ways that we cannot predict.

Previous wording

For the three months ended March 31, 2026, in 2025 and 2024, we recognized income from operations primarily due to 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 are now recognizing income from operations, there can be no assurance that we will continue to 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 March 31, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $1.0 billion. The extent of our future losses or profitability, if any, is uncertain.

Current wording

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, in 2025 and 2024, we recognized income from operations primarily due to 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 are now recognizing income from operations, there can be no assurance that we will continue to 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. At June 30, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $997.1 million. The extent of our future losses or profitability, if any, is uncertain.

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. For example, in April 2026, we received written notice from Lilly of its election to terminate the Lilly Agreement, which will become effective June 15, 2026. Following termination of the Lilly Agreement, including the prior termination of the CNS disease program effective in November 2025, we do not expect to receive future milestones or royalties under the Lilly Agreement.

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, in April 2026, we received written notice from Lilly of its election to terminate the Lilly Agreement, which became effective June 15, 2026. Following termination of the Lilly Agreement, including the prior termination of the CNS disease program effective in November 2025, we do not expect to receive future milestones or royalties under the Lilly Agreement.

Previous wording

To date, a portion of our revenues have been related to the research or transition phase of each of our collaborative agreements. Such revenues are for specified periods, and the impact of such revenues on our results of operations is at least partially offset by corresponding research costs. Following the completion of the research or transition phase of each collaborative agreement, additional revenues may come only from payments triggered by milestones and/or the achievement of other contingent events, and royalties, which may not be paid, if at all, until certain conditions are met. This risk is heightened due to the fact that unsuccessful research efforts may preclude us from receiving any contingent payments under these agreements. Our receipt of revenues from collaborative arrangements is also significantly affected by the timing of efforts expended by us and our collaborators and the timing of lead compound identification. We have received payments from our collaborations including Lilly, Grifols, Kissei, Medison, Knight, Dr. Reddy's, BerGenBio, and Daiichi. Under several agreements, future payments may not be earned until the collaborator has advanced product candidates into clinical testing, which may never occur or may not occur until sometime well into the future. If we are not able to generate revenue under our collaborations when and in accordance with our expectations or the expectations of industry analysts, this failure could harm our business and have an immediate adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

Current wording

To date, a portion of our revenues has been generated under our collaborative and license agreements through upfront and milestone payments, royalties on commercial product sales, and sales of drug product and drug supplies to our collaborative partners. Following the completion of the research or transition phase of each collaborative agreement, additional revenues may come only from payments triggered by milestones and/or the achievement of other contingent events, and royalties, which may not be paid, if at all, until certain conditions are met. This risk is heightened due to the fact that unsuccessful research efforts may preclude us from receiving any contingent payments under these agreements. Our receipt of revenues from collaborative arrangements is also significantly affected by the timing of efforts expended by us and our collaborators and the timing of lead compound identification. We have received payments from our collaborations including Lilly, Grifols, Kissei, Medison, Knight, Dr. Reddy's, BerGenBio, and Daiichi. Under several agreements, future payments may not be earned until the collaborator has advanced product candidates into clinical testing, which may never occur or may not occur until sometime well into the future. If we are not able to generate revenue under our collaborations when and in accordance with our expectations or the expectations of industry analysts, this failure could harm our business and have an immediate adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

Previous wording

Recent healthcare reform measures, including the Inflation Reduction Act and changes to government healthcare programs, could adversely affect our business. U.S. federal and state healthcare reforms have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, significant changes to the pricing, reimbursement and coverage of pharmaceutical products. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain drugs, imposes inflation-based rebates for products covered under Medicare Parts B and D, and redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit in ways that increase financial obligations for manufacturers, while the elimination of the Medicaid drug rebate cap may increase our rebate liability. Additionally, OBBBA broadened the scope of IRA’s exclusion of certain orphan drugs from price negotiations. These and other reforms may reduce the prices we can charge for our products, increase our rebate and discount obligations, and negatively affect reimbursement, which could adversely impact our revenues, margins and operations. The full impact of these measures, as well as potential future legislative, regulatory or judicial developments, remains uncertain and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

Recent healthcare reform measures, including the Inflation Reduction Act and changes to government healthcare programs, could adversely affect our business. US federal and state healthcare reforms have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, significant changes to the pricing, reimbursement and coverage of pharmaceutical products. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain drugs, imposes inflation-based rebates for products covered under Medicare Parts B and D, and redesigns the Medicare Part D benefit in ways that increase financial obligations for manufacturers, while the elimination of the Medicaid drug rebate cap may increase our rebate liability. Additionally, OBBBA broadened the scope of IRA’s exclusion of certain orphan drugs from price negotiations. These and other reforms may reduce the prices we can charge for our products, increase our rebate and discount obligations, and negatively affect reimbursement, which could adversely impact our revenues, margins and operations. The full impact of these measures, as well as potential future legislative, regulatory or judicial developments, remains uncertain and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

Other proposed administrative actions may affect our government pricing responsibilities. For example, there are pending legal and legislative developments relating to the 340B Drug Pricing Program, including ongoing litigation challenging federal enforcement actions against manufacturers and recently introduced and enacted state legislation. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry. Although none of our products are currently subject to Medicare price negotiation under the IRA, the program is expected to expand to additional drugs in the future years. If any of our products were selected for negotiation, the negotiated prices could significantly lower than the prices we currently receive, which could materially reduce our revenues and profitability.

Current wording

Other proposed administrative actions may affect our government pricing responsibilities. For example, there are pending legal and legislative developments relating to the 340B Drug Pricing Program, including ongoing litigation challenging federal enforcement actions against manufacturers and recently introduced and enacted state legislation. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry. Although none of our products are currently subject to Medicare price negotiation under the IRA, the program is expected to expand to additional drugs in future years. If any of our products were selected for negotiation, the negotiated prices could be significantly lower than the prices we currently receive, which could materially reduce our revenues and profitability.

Previous wording

The current presidential administration has also signaled its intent to pursue healthcare reform measures, including those aimed at reducing prescription drug prices. For example, President Trump has signed multiple executive orders addressing prescription drug pricing and access, including: an order on May 12, 2025 aiming to establish a most favored nation (MFN) drug pricing policy that would tie US drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Since the May 12, 2025 MFN executive order, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement MFN pricing. Over a dozen large pharmaceutical manufacturers have entered into agreements with the Trump Administration to offer lower prices for their drugs. Additionally, CMS has taken action to implement the administration’s MFN pricing policy, including by announcing a new voluntary payment model where drug manufacturers may offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs to provide such Medicaid programs with a “most favored nation” price for participating manufacturers’ products, as well proposing mandatory payment models where, if finalized, manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D drugs would be assessed rebates if the prices for such products exceed those paid in economically comparable countries. The Trump administration also announced the launch of a new direct-to-consumer website in February 2026 that is intended to make certain drugs available to consumers at significant discounts. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry.

Current wording

The current presidential administration has also signaled its intent to pursue healthcare reform measures, including those aimed at reducing prescription drug prices. For example, President Trump signed an order on May 12, 2025 that aimed to establish a most favored nation (MFN) drug pricing policy to tie US drug prices to the prices paid for drugs in other countries. Since the May 12, 2025 MFN executive order, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on drug manufacturers to implement MFN pricing. Over a dozen large pharmaceutical manufacturers have entered into voluntary agreements with the Trump Administration to offer lower prices for their drugs. Additionally, CMS has taken action to implement the administration’s MFN pricing policy, including by announcing a new voluntary payment model where drug manufacturers may offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs to provide such Medicaid programs with a “most favored nation” price for participating manufacturers’ products, as well as proposing mandatory payment models where, if finalized, manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D drugs would be assessed rebates if the prices for such products exceed those paid in economically comparable countries. The Trump administration also announced the launch of a new direct-to-consumer website in February 2026 that is intended to make certain drugs available to consumers at significant discounts. It remains to be seen how these drug pricing initiatives will affect the broader pharmaceutical industry.

Previous wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of health reform initiatives that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. However, we expect these initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Further, certain broader legislation that is not targeted to the healthcare industry may nonetheless adversely affect our profitability. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Current wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of health reform initiatives that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. However, we expect these initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Further, certain broader legislation that is not targeted at the healthcare industry may nonetheless adversely affect our profitability. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Previous wording

While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities, our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications and patient populations that are specifically approved by the FDA. These “off-label” uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. We have implemented compliance and monitoring policies and procedures, including a process for internal review of promotional materials, to deter the promotion of our products for off-label uses. We cannot guarantee that these compliance activities will prevent or timely detect off-label promotion by sales representatives or other personnel in their communications with healthcare professionals, patients and others, particularly if these activities are concealed from us. Regulatory authorities in the US generally do not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use.

Current wording

While physicians may choose to prescribe drugs for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and for uses that differ from those tested in clinical studies and approved by the regulatory authorities, our ability to promote the products is limited to those indications and patient populations that are specifically approved by the FDA. These “off-label” uses are common across medical specialties and may constitute an appropriate treatment for some patients in varied circumstances. We have implemented compliance and monitoring policies and procedures, including a process for internal review of promotional materials, to deter the promotion of our products for off-label uses. We cannot guarantee that these compliance activities will prevent or timely detect off-label promotion by sales representatives or other personnel in their communications with healthcare professionals, patients and others, particularly if these activities are concealed from us. Regulatory authorities in the US generally do not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. Regulatory authorities do, however, restrict communications by pharmaceutical companies on the subject of off-label use. If our promotional activities fail to comply with the FDA’s or other competent national authority’s regulations or guidelines, we may be subject to warnings from, or enforcement action by, these regulatory authorities. In addition, our failure to follow FDA rules and guidelines relating to promotion and advertising may cause the FDA to issue warning letters or untitled letters, suspend or withdraw an approved product from the market, require a recall or institute fines, which could result in the disgorgement of money, operating restrictions, injunctions or civil or criminal enforcement, and other consequences, any of which could harm our business.