CURIS INC

Previous wording

We will require substantial funds to maintain our research and development program and support operations. We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. As of December 31, 2023, we had $56.3 million in existing cash, cash equivalents and investments. We expect these available cash resources to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2025. We have based this assessment on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Based on our current cash, cash equivalents, and investments, recurring losses and cash outflows from operations since inception, an expectation of continuing losses and cash outflows from operations for the foreseeable future and the need to raise additional capital to finance our future operations, we have concluded that we do not have sufficient cash on hand to support current operations beyond the next 12 months from the date of filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Current wording

We will require substantial funds to maintain our research and development program and support operations in the near term. We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. As of December 31, 2024, we had $20.0 million in cash and cash equivalents. In March 2025, we completed a registered direct offering and concurrent private placement for net proceeds of approximately $9.0 million. We expect these available cash resources, together with the proceeds from the March 2025 offering, to fund our existing operations into the fourth quarter of 2025. We have based this assessment on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could exhaust our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Based on our current cash and cash equivalents, recurring losses and cash outflows from operations since inception, an expectation of continuing losses and cash outflows from operations for the foreseeable future and the need to raise additional capital to finance our future operations, we have concluded that we do not have sufficient cash on hand to support current operations beyond the next 12 months from the date of filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Previous wording

We will require additional funding to fund the development of emavusertib through regulatory approval and commercialization, and to support our continued operations. We will need to seek additional funding through a number of potential avenues, including private or public equity financings, collaborations, or other strategic transactions as needed. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, we will be forced to delay, reduce in scope or eliminate our research and development program for emavusertib, including related clinical trials and operating expenses, potentially delaying the time to market for, or preventing the marketing of, emavusertib, which could adversely affect our business prospects and our ability to continue operations, and would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategies. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, and it is likely that investors will lose all or a part of their investment. The report from our independent registered public accounting firm issued in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains, and future reports may contain, statements expressing substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide funding to us on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

Current wording

If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, and it is likely that investors will lose all or a part of their investment. The report from our independent registered public accounting firm issued in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains, and future reports may contain, statements expressing substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide funding to us on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

Previous wording

We have incurred substantial losses, expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future and may never generate significant revenue or achieve profitability.

Current wording

We have incurred substantial losses, expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future and may never generate significant revenue or achieve or maintain profitability.

Previous wording

We have incurred significant annual net operating losses in every year since our inception. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing net operating losses for at least the next several years. Our net loss was $47.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. As of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 billion. As noted above, we have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We have not completed the development of any drug candidate on our own. Other than Erivedge®, which is being commercialized and further developed by Genentech and Roche under our collaboration agreement with Genentech, we may never have a drug candidate approved for commercialization. Since our inception, we have funded our operations primarily through private and public placements of our equity securities, license fees, contingent cash payments, research and development funding from our corporate collaborators and the monetization of certain royalty rights. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development and general and administrative expense to support such research and development. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Current wording

We have incurred significant annual net operating losses in every year since our inception. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing net operating losses for at least the next several years. Our net loss was $43.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 billion. As noted above, we have identified conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We have not completed the development of any drug candidate on our own. Other than Erivedge®, which is being commercialized and further developed by Genentech and Roche under our collaboration agreement with Genentech, we may never have a drug candidate approved for commercialization. Since our inception, we have funded our operations primarily through private and public placements of our equity securities, license fees, contingent cash payments, research and development funding from our corporate collaborators and the monetization of certain royalty rights. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development and general and administrative expense to support such research and development. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Previous wording

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate significant revenue. Our only current source of revenues comprises licensing and royalty revenues that we earn under our collaboration with Genentech related to the development and commercialization of Erivedge. A significant portion of our royalty and royalty related revenues under our collaboration with Genentech will be paid to TPC Investments I LP and TPC Investments II LP, or the Purchasers, pursuant to the royalty interest purchase agreement we and Curis Royalty entered into with the Purchasers and Lind SA LLC, or Agent, on March 22, 2019, or the Oberland Purchase Agreement. In addition, in March 2023, Curis and Curis Royalty received a letter from counsel to Oberland Capital Management, LLC, the Purchasers and the Agent alleging certain defaults under the Oberland Purchase Agreement as described further below under “The alleged events of default, or any future allegations of an event of default, under the Oberland Purchase Agreement could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and stock price, including our ability to continue as a going concern.” We have not received any further communication on this topic from counsel to Oberland Capital Management, LLC or the Purchasers and the Agent since the March 2023 letter. As of December 31, 2023, the estimated amount of the Put/Call Price, as defined below, is $56.9 million. If Oberland elects to pursue such claims, and if Curis and Curis Royalty are unsuccessful in defending against such claims, it could have a material adverse impact on Curis and Curis Royalty, including their ability to continue as a going concern.

Current wording

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate significant revenue. Our only current source of revenues comprises licensing and royalty revenues that we earn under our collaboration with Genentech related to the development and commercialization of Erivedge. A significant portion of our royalty and royalty related revenues under our collaboration with Genentech will be paid to TPC Investments I LP and TPC Investments II LP, or the Purchasers, pursuant to the royalty interest purchase agreement we and Curis Royalty entered into with the Purchasers and Lind SA LLC, or Agent, on March 22, 2019, or the Oberland Purchase Agreement.

Previous wording

We will require substantial additional capital, which may be difficult to obtain, and if we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our drug development program or commercialization efforts.

Current wording

We will require substantial additional capital, which may be difficult to obtain, and if we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our drug development program or commercialization efforts, and our ability to continue operations could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

We will require substantial funds to continue our research and development program for emavusertib and to fulfill our planned operating goals. Our planned operating and capital requirements currently include the support of our current and future research and development activities for emavusertib, as well as other candidates we have, and may continue to license under our collaboration with Aurigene. We will require substantial additional capital to fund the further development of emavusertib, as well as to fund our general and administrative costs and expenses. Moreover, our agreements with collaborators impose significant potential financial obligations on us. For example, under our collaboration, license and option agreement with Aurigene, we are required to make milestone and royalty fee payments, which impose significant potential financial obligations on us.

Current wording

We will require substantial funds to continue our research and development program for emavusertib and to fulfill our planned operating goals. Our planned operating and capital requirements currently include the support of our current and future research and development activities for emavusertib, as well as other candidates we have, and may continue to license under our collaboration with Aurigene. We will require substantial additional capital to fund the further development of emavusertib, as well as to fund our general and administrative costs and expenses. Moreover, our agreements with collaborators impose significant potential financial obligations on us. For example, under our collaboration, license and option agreement with

Previous wording

Based upon our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and investments of $56.3 million as of December 31, 2023, should enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2025. We have based this assessment on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and it is possible that we will not achieve the progress that we expect with these funds because the actual costs and timing of clinical development and regulatory and commercial activities are difficult to predict and are subject to substantial risks and delays, and that we will use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. This estimate does not reflect any additional expenditures that may result from any further strategic transactions to expand and diversify our product pipeline, including acquisitions of assets, businesses, rights to products, drug candidates or technologies or strategic alliances or collaborations that we may pursue.

Current wording

In March 2025, we completed a registered direct offering and concurrent private placement for net proceeds of approximately $9.0 million. Based upon our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents of $20.0 million as of December 31, 2024, together with the proceeds from the March 2025 offering, should enable us to fund our existing operations into the fourth quarter of 2025. We have based this assessment on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and it is possible that we will not achieve the progress that we expect with these funds because the actual costs and timing of clinical development and regulatory and commercial activities are difficult to predict and are subject to substantial risks and delays, and that we will use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. This estimate does not reflect any additional expenditures that may result from any further strategic transactions to expand and diversify our product pipeline, including acquisitions of assets, businesses, rights to products, drug candidates or technologies or strategic alliances or collaborations that we may pursue.

Previous wording

On February 8, 2024, we entered into an amended and restated sales agreement, or the 2024 Sales Agreement, with Cantor and JonesTrading, which supersedes the 2021 Sales Agreement and pursuant to which, from time to time, we may offer and sell through Cantor and JonesTrading up to $100.0 million of our common stock registered under our universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in one or more "at-the-market" offerings. The extent to which we utilize the 2024 Sales Agreement with Cantor and JonesTrading as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the prevailing market price of our common stock, general market conditions and other restrictions and the extent to which we are able to secure funds from other sources. Accordingly, we may not be able to sell additional shares under the 2024 Sales Agreement at prices or amounts that we deem acceptable, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to sell any additional shares of common stock contemplated under the 2024 Sales Agreement.

Current wording

In February 2024, we entered into an amended and restated sales agreement, or the 2024 Sales Agreement, with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., or Cantor, and JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC, or JonesTrading, to sell from time to time up to $100.0 million shares of our common stock through an “at-the-market offering” program under which Cantor and JonesTrading act as sales agents. The extent to which we utilize the 2024 Sales Agreement with Cantor and JonesTrading as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the prevailing market price of our common stock, general market conditions and other restrictions and the extent to which we are able to secure funds from other sources. Accordingly, we may not be able to sell additional shares under the 2024 Sales Agreement at prices or amounts that we deem acceptable, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to sell any additional shares of common stock contemplated under the 2024 Sales Agreement. We sold 188,316 shares of common stock under the 2024 Sales Agreement representing gross proceeds of $1.2 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2024.

Previous wording

•the timing and amount of milestone payments, royalties and other payments, including payments due to licensors, including Aurigene, for patent rights and technology used in our drug development program;

Current wording

•payments due to licensors, including Aurigene, for patent rights and technology used in our drug development programs;

Previous wording

•unplanned costs to prepare, file, prosecute, defend, and enforce patent claims and other patent-related costs, including litigation costs and technology license fees;

Current wording

•unplanned costs to prepare, file, prosecute, defend, and enforce patent claims and other patent-related costs, including litigation costs and technology license fees; and

Previous wording

Upon the occurrence and continuance of an event of default under the security agreement, the Agent may exercise its rights and remedies under the security agreement with respect to Curis Royalty and to the collateral pledged thereunder, including, among other things, acceleration of the obligations under the security agreement, the sale or other realization of the collateral and performance of Curis Royalty’s obligations under the purchase and sale agreement. Additionally, Curis granted to the Agent a first priority lien and security interest of Curis’ equity interest in Curis Royalty pursuant to a pledge agreement. Upon the occurrence and continuance of an event of default under the security agreement, the Agent may exercise its rights and remedies under the pledge agreement with respect to the equity interests, including, among other things, the rights to receive distributions and exercise voting rights with respect to the equity interests and to sell or otherwise realize upon the collateral in satisfaction of the obligations. The exercise by the Agent of the foregoing rights shall be deemed to constitute an exercise by the Purchasers of their put option under the Oberland Purchase Agreement.

Current wording

Upon the occurrence and continuance of an event of default under the security agreement, the Agent may exercise its rights and remedies under the security agreement with respect to Curis Royalty and to the collateral pledged thereunder, including, among other things, acceleration of the obligations under the security agreement, the sale or other realization of the collateral and performance of Curis Royalty’s obligations under the purchase and sale agreement that we entered into in 2012 with Curis Royalty pursuant to which we transferred to Curis Royalty rights to certain royalty and royalty-related payments owed by Genentech to us under our collaboration agreement with Genentech. Additionally, Curis granted to the Agent a first priority lien and security interest of Curis’ equity interest in Curis Royalty pursuant to a pledge agreement. Upon the occurrence and continuance of an event of default under the security agreement, the Agent may exercise its rights and remedies under the pledge agreement with respect to the equity interests, including, among other things, the rights to receive distributions and exercise voting rights with respect to the equity interests and to sell or otherwise realize upon the collateral in satisfaction of the obligations. The exercise by the Agent of the foregoing rights shall be deemed to constitute an exercise by the Purchasers of their put option under the Oberland Purchase Agreement.

Previous wording

Although Curis and Curis Royalty dispute these allegations, if Oberland elects to pursue these claims, and if Curis and Curis Royalty are unsuccessful in defending against these claims, Curis Royalty may not have sufficient funds to pay the Put/Call Price or other amounts claimed by the Purchasers and the Agent could foreclose on the secured royalty and royalty related payment stream and/or our equity interests in Curis Royalty. In such an event, we could lose our right to royalty and royalty related payments not transferred to the Purchasers pursuant to the Oberland Purchase Agreement and we could lose our rights in Curis Royalty. The Oberland Purchase Agreement also contains exculpation and indemnification obligations of Curis and Curis Royalty on behalf of the Agent and the Purchasers, and the Purchasers’ claims, if successful, could result in liabilities of Curis and Curis Royalty. Further, the encumbrance of all of Curis Royalty’s assets, including the right to royalties from sales of Erivedge, and our equity interests in Curis Royalty pursuant to the security agreement and pledge agreement, respectively, may inhibit us from raising additional funds or entering into other strategic arrangements. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, we may expend significant management time and attention and funds to defend against such claims.

Current wording

If any of the above events of default were to occur, Curis Royalty may not have sufficient funds to pay the Put/Call Price and the Agent could foreclose on the secured royalty and royalty related payment stream and/or our equity interests in Curis Royalty. In such an event, we could lose our right to royalty and royalty related payments not transferred to the Purchasers pursuant to the Oberland Purchase Agreement and we could lose our rights in Curis Royalty. In addition, in the event Genentech exercises its set-off rights against royalty payments to Curis Royalty pursuant to our collaboration agreement with Genentech, Curis Royalty may be required to satisfy its royalty-sharing obligations to the Purchasers with amounts from its working capital. The Oberland Purchase Agreement also contains exculpation and indemnification obligations of Curis and Curis Royalty on behalf of the Agent and the Purchasers. Further, the encumbrance of all of Curis Royalty’s assets, including the right to royalties from sales of Erivedge, and our equity interests in Curis Royalty pursuant to the security agreement and pledge agreement, respectively, may inhibit us from raising additional funds or entering into other strategic arrangements. Any of these consequences of an event of default could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and stock price, including our ability to continue as a going concern.

Previous wording

In March 2023, Curis and Curis Royalty received a letter from counsel to Oberland Capital Management, LLC, the Purchasers and the Agent alleging defaults under Sections 4.04 and 6.04(b) of the Oberland Purchase Agreement and demanding cure of the asserted default under Section 6.04(b) of the Oberland Purchase Agreement. The asserted basis for the alleged defaults is that Curis and Curis Royalty were required to disclose, and failed to disclose, certain information prior to execution of the Oberland Purchase Agreement and that Curis and Curis Royalty have since failed to disclose certain information that has been requested by the Purchasers pursuant to Section 6.04(b) of the Oberland Purchase Agreement. The letter further alleges that these alleged defaults are events of default under the Oberland Purchase Agreement and that each alleged default separately entitles the Purchasers to exercise the put option, which would require Curis Royalty to repurchase the Purchased Receivables at the Put/Call Price. The Purchasers have not attempted to exercise that put option but have purported to reserve their alleged right to exercise it without further notice. The Purchasers have also reserved other asserted rights in respect of the alleged defaults, including the asserted right to seek judicial remedies, including for damages and rescission, and to assert alleged claims against Curis and Curis Royalty for indemnification on the basis of material breach and fraud in the inducement. We have not received any further communication on this topic from counsel to Oberland Capital Management, LLC, or the Purchasers and the Agent since the March 2023 letter. As of December 31, 2023, the estimated amount of the Put/Call Price is $56.9 million.

Current wording

In March 2023, Curis and Curis Royalty received a letter from counsel to Oberland Capital Management, LLC, the Purchasers and the Agent alleging defaults under Sections 4.04 and 6.04(b) of the Oberland Purchase Agreement and demanding cure of the asserted default under Section 6.04(b) of the Oberland Purchase Agreement, which each such alleged default separately entitles the Purchasers to exercise the put option, which would require Curis Royalty to repurchase the Purchased Receivables at the Put/Call Price. Curis and Curis Royalty dispute these allegations. However, if Oberland elects to pursue these claims, and if Curis and Curis Royalty are unsuccessful in defending against these claims, it could have a material adverse impact on Curis and Curis Royalty, including their ability to continue as a going concern. We have not received any further communication on this topic from counsel to Oberland Capital Management, LLC, or the Purchasers and the Agent since the March 2023 letter. As of December 31, 2024, the estimated amount of the Put/Call Price is approximately $110.0 million.

Previous wording

Pursuant to the terms of our collaboration agreement with Genentech, our subsidiary Curis Royalty is entitled to receive royalties on net sales of Erivedge that range from 5% to 7.5% based upon global Erivedge sales by Roche and Genentech. The royalty rate applicable to Erivedge may be decreased in certain specified circumstances, including when a competing drug product that binds to the same molecular target as Erivedge is approved by the applicable country’s regulatory authority and is being sold in such country by a third party for use in the same indication as Erivedge, or when there is no issued intellectual property covering Erivedge in a territory in which sales are recorded. In 2015, the FDA and the CHMP approved an additional Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor marketed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., or Sun Pharmaceutical, sonidegib (Odomzo®), for the treatment of adults with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, or BCC. Accordingly, Genentech reduced royalties on its net sales in the U.S. of Erivedge from 5-7.5% to 3-5.5%. Furthermore, Genentech has reduced by 2% royalties on net sales of Erivedge outside of the United States on a country-by-country basis to the extent that sonidegib is approved by the applicable country’s regulatory authority and is being sold in such country. We also believe that sales of sonidegib have, and are likely to continue to, adversely affect sales of Erivedge, including those in the U.S. and ex-U.S. countries, which would adversely affect the resulting revenue we may receive from Genentech. A decrease in sales of Erivedge, or in the royalty rate that we receive for sales of Erivedge, could adversely affect our operating results.

Current wording

Pursuant to the terms of our collaboration agreement with Genentech, our subsidiary Curis Royalty is entitled to receive royalties on net sales of Erivedge that range from 5% to 7.5% based upon global Erivedge sales by Roche and Genentech. The royalty rate applicable to Erivedge may be decreased in certain specified circumstances, including when a competing drug product that binds to the same molecular target as Erivedge is approved by the applicable country’s regulatory authority and is being sold in such country by a third party for use in the same indication as Erivedge, or when there is no issued intellectual property covering Erivedge in a territory in which sales are recorded. In 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, approved an additional Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor marketed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., or Sun Pharmaceutical, sonidegib (Odomzo®), for the treatment of adults with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, or BCC. Accordingly, Genentech reduced royalties on its net sales in the U.S. of Erivedge from 5-7.5% to 3-5.5%. Furthermore, Genentech has reduced by 2% royalties on net sales of Erivedge outside of the United States on a country-by-country basis to the extent that sonidegib is approved by the applicable country’s regulatory authority and is being sold in such country. We also believe that sales of sonidegib have, and are likely to continue to, adversely affect sales of Erivedge, including those in the U.S. and ex-U.S. countries, which would adversely affect the resulting revenue we may receive from Genentech. A decrease in sales of Erivedge, or in the royalty rate that we receive for sales of Erivedge, could adversely affect our operating results.

Previous wording

We, and any collaborators, are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any drug candidate in the U.S. without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, impose similar requirements. We, and any collaborators, must complete extensive preclinical development and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of emavusertib in humans before we will be able to obtain these approvals.

Current wording

We, and any collaborators, are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any drug candidate in the U.S. without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities, such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, impose similar requirements. We, and any collaborators, must complete extensive preclinical development and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of emavusertib in humans before we will be able to obtain these approvals.

Previous wording

•we cannot be certain that we will not observe safety events in our clinical trials, similar to that which resulted in partial clinical holds and subsequent removal of the partial clinical holds in our TakeAim Leukemia Phase 1/2 study and TakeAim Lymphoma Phase 1/2 study, which may lead to future clinical holds, or necessitate additional or amended trials.

Current wording

•we cannot be certain that we will not observe safety events in our clinical trials, which may lead to future clinical holds, or necessitate additional or amended trials.

Previous wording

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on our research and clinical development program for emavusertib as we believe it may have the best potential in certain specific indications. As a result, we have and may delay or forgo pursuit of certain opportunities with our other drug candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future proprietary research and development program for emavusertib for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable drug. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular drug candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that drug candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such drug candidate. For example, in November 2022, as a result of our strategic reprioritization, while we had not yet reached the maximum tolerated dose in our Phase 1 trial of CI-8993, we deprioritized and did not exercise our option to license this candidate

Current wording

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on our research and clinical development program for emavusertib as we believe it may have the best potential in certain specific indications. As a result, we have and may delay or forgo pursuit of certain opportunities with our other drug candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future proprietary research and development program for emavusertib for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable drug. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular drug candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that drug candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such drug candidate.

Previous wording

Emavusertib and Erivedge, our outlicensed program, face competition from existing and new technologies and drugs being developed by biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities and other research institutions. There are several companies developing drug candidates that target the same molecular targets and signaling pathways, and in some cases the same cancer indications, that are being pursued by us.

Current wording

Emavusertib and Erivedge, our outlicensed program, face competition from existing and new technologies and drugs being developed by biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities and other research institutions. There are several companies developing drug candidates that target the same molecular targets and signaling pathways, and in some cases the same cancer indications, which are being pursued by us.

Previous wording

We believe our primary competitors for emavusertib are those companies pursuing oncology indications in IRAK4, R/R AML or hrMDS with a FLT3 or Splicesome mutation, R/R PCNSL, and frontline AML combinations with azacitidine and venetoclax.

Current wording

We believe our primary competitors for emavusertib are those companies pursuing oncology indications in IRAK4, R/R AML or hrMDS with a FLT3 mutation, R/R PCNSL, and frontline AML combinations with azacitidine and venetoclax.

Previous wording

Companies pursuing IRAK 4 inhibitors include two clinical stage companies: Kurome Therapeutics (IRAK1/4) and Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (R289).

Current wording

Companies pursuing IRAK 4 inhibitors include a pre-clinical stage company, Kurome Therapeutics (IRAK1/4) and a clinical stage company, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (R289).

Previous wording

Astellas Pharma, Inc. (gilteritinib) has an approved FLT3 inhibitor. Other companies developing FLT3 inhibitors include: Aptose Biosciences, Inc. (tuspetinib), Nerviano Medical Sciences, S.r.l. (NMS-088), HEC Pharma Co., Ltd. (HEC73543), Ellipses Pharma (EP0042), CSPC Pharmaceuticals Group Limited (SKLB1028), and Kronos Bio, Inc. (lanraplenib in combination with gilteritinib).

Current wording

Astellas Pharma, Inc. (gilteritinib) has an approved FLT3 inhibitor. Other companies developing FLT3 inhibitors include: Aptose Biosciences, Inc. (tuspetinib), HEC Pharma Co., Ltd. (HEC73543), Ellipses Pharma (EP0042), CSPC Pharmaceuticals Group Limited (SKLB1028), and Eilean Therapeutics (lomonitnib).

Previous wording

Abbvie, Inc. has an approved BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, which is being used as a treatment for PCNSL. Other companies pursuing R/R PCNSL are Bayer AG (copanlisib in combination with ibrutinib), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (axicabtagene ciloleucel), Ono Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (tirabrutinib), and BeiGene, Ltd. (zanubrutinib in combination with rituximab and methotrexate). Additionally, there are several approved compounds that are being studied in combination as a treatment for PCNSL (ibrutinib, rituximab and lenalidomide).

Current wording

Abbvie, Inc. has an approved BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, which is being used pursuant to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment for PCNSL. Other companies pursuing R/R PCNSL are Bayer AG (copanlisib in combination with ibrutinib), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (axicabtagene ciloleucel), Ono Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (tirabrutinib), and BeiGene, Ltd. (zanubrutinib in combination with rituximab and methotrexate). Additionally, there are several marketed products that are being studied in combination as potential treatments for PCNSL (ibrutinib, rituximab and lenalidomide).

Previous wording

Companies pursuing frontline AML in combination with azacitidine and venetoclax include: Faron Pharmaceuticals Oy (bexmarilimab), Novartis AG (sabatolimab), OncoVerity, Inc. (cusatuzumab), Glycomimetics, Inc. (uproleselan), Shattuck Labs, Inc. (SL-17254), Bio-Path Holdings, Inc. (prexigebersen), Astellas Pharma, Inc. (gilteritinib), and ImmunoGen, Inc. (pivekimab sunirine).

Current wording

Companies pursuing frontline AML in combination with either azacitidine and venetoclax, or both, include: Faron Pharmaceuticals Oy (bexmarilimab), Novartis AG (sabatolimab), OncoVerity, Inc. (cusatuzumab), Glycomimetics, Inc. (uproleselan), Bio-Path Holdings, Inc. (prexigebersen), Astellas Pharma, Inc. (gilteritinib), and ImmunoGen, Inc. (pivekimab sunirine).

Previous wording

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the drug candidates involved. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information, including manufacturing information, to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate’s safety and efficacy. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that emavusertib is not safe and effective, only moderately effective or has undesirable or unintended

Current wording

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the drug candidates involved. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information, including manufacturing information, to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the drug candidate’s safety and efficacy. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that emavusertib is not safe and effective, only moderately effective or has undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

Previous wording

In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products.

Current wording

In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan, or DAP, for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance.

Previous wording

Further, on January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public. We have not previously secured authorization to conduct clinical studies in the EU pursuant to this new regulation and, accordingly, there is a risk that we may be delayed in commencing such studies.

Current wording

Further, on January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a drug candidate. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that (i) our drug candidate is not safe and effective, only moderately effective or has undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use; (ii) the dose used in a clinical trial has not been optimized and require us to conduct additional dose optimization studies; or (iii) the comparator arm in a trial is no longer the appropriate comparator due to the evolution of the competitive landscape or subsequent data of the comparator product, even if the FDA or other regulatory authority had previously approved the trial design, and we may be required to amend the trial or we may not receive approval of the indication. Any marketing approval we, or any future collaborators, ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. Finally, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be threatened by ongoing litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Specifically, on April 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a REMS. In reaching that decision, the district court made a number of findings that numerous representatives of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry believe will chill the development, approval and distribution of new drug products in the United States. Among other determinations, the district court substituted its scientific judgement for that of the FDA and it held that FDA must provide a special justification for any differences between an approved drug’s labeling and the conditions that existed in the drug’s clinical trials. Further, the district court read the jurisdictional requirements governing litigation in federal court so as to potentially allow virtually any party to bring a lawsuit against the FDA in connection with its decision to approve an NDA or establish requirements under a REMS.

Current wording

Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a drug candidate. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that (i) our drug candidate is not safe and effective, only moderately effective or has undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use; (ii) the dose used in a clinical trial has not been optimized and require us to conduct additional dose optimization studies; or (iii) the comparator arm in a trial is no longer the appropriate comparator due to the evolution of the competitive landscape or subsequent data of the comparator product, even if the FDA or other regulatory authority had previously approved the trial design, and we may be required to amend the trial or we may not receive approval of the indication. Any marketing approval we, or any future collaborators, ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Previous wording

The United Kingdom left the EU on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit. The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Single Market and European Union Customs Union as of January 1, 2021. A trade and cooperation agreement that outlines the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU was agreed to in December 2020 and entered into force on May 1, 2021. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas Northern Ireland will continue to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol (as amended by the so-called Windsor Framework relating to Northern Ireland agreed to in February 2023). The MHRA relies on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law of the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering the quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval and commercialization of our drug candidates in the United Kingdom. For example, the United Kingdom is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorization from the EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our drug candidates in the United Kingdom. Until December 31, 2023, it was possible for the MHRA to rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization via the centralized procedure. From January 1, 2024 on, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the E.U. centralized procedure and the Mutual Recognition/Decentralised Reliance, or MRDC, procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom for our drug candidates, which c…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the United Kingdom, or UK, as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). At the same time, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area, or EEA, member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Previous wording

The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the agency to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the court’s order, FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA or Congress may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

Current wording

The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a September 2021 decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In Catalyst Pharms, Inc. v. Becerra, or Catalyst, held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” in the statute means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use.” Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the approved “indication or use.” Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of the Catalyst court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug is approved. More recently however, on February 14, 2025, a federal district court in Washington, DC fully embraced the reasoning of the Catalyst decision in another decision challenging the scope of orphan drug exclusivity. The implications of this decision, and its impact on the FDA’s implementation of the Orphan Drug Act, are unclear at this point.

Previous wording

If we, or our collaborators, obtain marketing approval for emauvsertib, it will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to quality control and manufacturing, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. In addition, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the medicine, including the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. Accordingly, if we receive marketing approval for emavusertib, we will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could have the marketing approvals for our product withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our ability to market any products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

Current wording

If we, or our collaborators, obtain marketing approval for emauvsertib, it will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, current Good Manufacturing Practices, or similar foreign standards, which we refer to as cGMPs, relating to quality control and manufacturing, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. In addition, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the medicine, including the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. Accordingly, if we receive marketing approval for emavusertib, we will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could have the marketing approvals for our product withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our ability to market any products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

Previous wording

In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug. Moreover, with passage of the PIE Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in October 2023, the FDA published draft guidance outlining the agency’s non-binding policies governing the distribution of scientific information on unapproved uses to healthcare providers. This draft guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased and include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use.

Current wording

We will also need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the Agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product.

Previous wording

and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drug candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Current wording

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drug candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Further, while the FDA’s review of NDAs and other applications is funded through the user fee program established under PDUFA, the Trump Administration has indicated that it will be reviewing that program and its implementation.

Previous wording

The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the sponsor may submit its application four years following approval of the reference listed drug.

Current wording

The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of regulatory exclusivity for the reference listed drug has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of regulatory exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the sponsor may submit its application four years following approval of the reference listed drug.

Previous wording

Generic drug manufacturers may seek to launch generic products following the expiration of any applicable exclusivity period we obtain if our products are approved, even if we still have patent protection for such products. Competition that our product could face from generic versions of our product could materially and adversely affect our future revenue, profitability, and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in the drug candidate.

Current wording

Generic drug manufacturers may seek to launch generic products following the expiration of any applicable regulatory exclusivity period we obtain if our products are approved, even if we still have patent protection for such products. Competition that our product could face from generic versions of our product could materially and adversely affect our future revenue, profitability, and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in the drug candidate.

Previous wording

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the CARES Act. Pursuant to subsequent legislation, however, these Medicare sequester reductions were and reduced in 2021 and 2022 but, as of July 1, 2022, the full 2% cut resumed. Under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, in August 2022, Congress extended the expansion of PPACA premium tax credits through 2025.

Current wording

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the CARES Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, in August 2022, Congress extended the expansion of PPACA premium tax credits through 2025.

Previous wording

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court heard this case on November 10, 2020 and on June 17, 2021, dismissed this action after finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Current wording

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019 Further, on June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an action challenging the PPACA after finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Litigation and legislation over the PPACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

Previous wording

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Nine states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Certain of these states have submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals and are awaiting FDA approval. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would also eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager service fees. It was originally set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the IRA has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.

Current wording

In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Seven states have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. Two states have passed legislation establishing workgroups to examine the impact of a state importation program. As of May 2024, five states had submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals to the FDA and, on January 5, 2024, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. That state now has authority to import certain drugs from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each drug selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the drugs and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards.

Previous wording

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years, but it does not apply to drugs that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years.

Current wording

Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years.

Previous wording

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Current wording

On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. Certain of these cases are now on appeal and, on October 30, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in three of these cases. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.