Kura Oncology, Inc.

Previous wording

We are highly dependent on the success of the continued development of ziftomenib in combination with other therapies and in the frontline AML setting, and we cannot give any assurance that ziftomenib will receive regulatory approval in such indications or that any of our other product candidates will receive regulatory approval in any indications, which is necessary before they can be commercialized in such indications. Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval and are commercialized in such indications, they may be less competitive and generate less revenue than we anticipate.

Current wording

We are highly dependent on the success of the continued development of ziftomenib and darlifarnib, and we cannot give any assurance that ziftomenib, darlifarnib or any of our other product candidates will receive regulatory approval in any indications, which is necessary before they can be commercialized in such indications. Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval and are commercialized in such indications, they may be less competitive and generate less revenue than we anticipate.

Previous wording

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about government-funded reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services, or HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often, but not always, follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Nonetheless, our products may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective.

Current wording

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about government-funded reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often, but not always, follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Nonetheless, our products may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective.

Previous wording

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our products. In addition, drug-pricing by pharmaceutical companies has come under increased scrutiny. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing by requiring drug companies to notify insurers and government regulators of price increases and provide an explanation of the reasons for the increase, reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Further, HHS imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to 20 products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our products, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the healthcare market.

Current wording

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our products. In addition, drug-pricing by pharmaceutical companies has come under increased scrutiny. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing by requiring drug companies to notify insurers and government regulators of price increases and provide an explanation of the reasons for the increase, reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Further, HHS imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to 20 products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our products, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the healthcare market.

Previous wording

the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires applicable manufacturers of certain drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as certain manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually ownership and investment interests held by physicians or their immediate family; and

Current wording

the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires applicable manufacturers of certain drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as certain manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually ownership and investment interests held by physicians or their immediate family;

Previous wording

analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers.

Current wording

analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. Further, some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, and/or drug pricing.

Previous wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, 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, starting in 2013, that due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect until 2032. Additionally, in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. These laws and other potential legislation may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

Current wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, 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, starting in 2013, that due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect until 2032. Additionally, in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. These laws and other potential legislation may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

Previous wording

The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, in September 2025, the current administration announced agreements with a major pharmaceutical companies that requires the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform (TrumpRx), U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions and proposals include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS to lower prescription drug costs for Medicare through a variety of initiatives; (3) imposing tariffs on certain imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could result in additional legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Current wording

The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, in September 2025, the current administration announced agreements with major pharmaceutical companies that requires the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform (TrumpRx), U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions and proposals include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS to lower prescription drug costs for Medicare through a variety of initiatives; (3) imposing tariffs on certain imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could result in additional legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Previous wording

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs. Future legislation could potentially change drug pricing dynamics. We cannot predict all of the ways in which future healthcare reform legislation or regulation could affect our business.

Current wording

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, on June 15, 2026, the FDA approved Colorado’s Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, proposal to import certain drugs from Canada for specific state healthcare programs. It is unclear how this and Florida’s similar program, approved by the FDA in 2024, will be implemented and whether they will overcome potential legal, regulatory, or industry challenges in the United States and/or Canada. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs. Future legislation could potentially change drug pricing dynamics. We cannot predict all of the ways in which future healthcare reform legislation or regulation could affect our business.

Previous wording

We are highly dependent on the success of the continued development of ziftomenib in combination with other therapies and in the frontline AML setting, and we cannot give any assurance that ziftomenib will receive regulatory approval in such indications or that any of our other product candidates will receive regulatory approval in any indications, which is necessary before they can be commercialized in such indications. Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval and are commercialized in such indications, they may be less competitive and generate less revenue than we anticipate.

Current wording

We are highly dependent on the success of the continued development of ziftomenib and darlifarnib, and we cannot give any assurance that ziftomenib, darlifarnib or any of our other product candidates will receive regulatory approval in any indications, which is necessary before they can be commercialized in such indications. Even if our product candidates receive regulatory approval and are commercialized in such indications, they may be less competitive and generate less revenue than we anticipate.*

Previous wording

Our future success further depends on the successful development and commercialization of product candidates beyond ziftomenib. Our product candidates will require additional clinical development, evaluation of clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We are not permitted to market or promote any product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approvals. Although the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, in some countries there are additional regulatory requirements and potential regulatory risks and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.

Current wording

Our future success further depends on the successful development and commercialization of darlifarnib and other product candidates. Our product candidates will require additional clinical development, evaluation of clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We are not permitted to market or promote any product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approvals. Although the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, in some countries there are additional regulatory requirements and potential regulatory risks and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.

Previous wording

We are currently developing our product candidates, and may develop future product candidates, for use in combination with one or more other cancer therapies, such as venetoclax, azacitidine, cytarabine, daunorubicin, quizartinib, gilteritinib, FLAG-IDA, LDAC and imatinib, in the case of ziftomenib, and cabozantinib and adagrasib, in the case of darlifarnib, or other drugs, both approved and unapproved. Our ability to develop and ultimately commercialize our current product candidates and any future product candidates used in combination with another drug or biologic will depend on our ability, or the ability of third-party clinical trial sites on which we rely, to access such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms for the clinical trials and their availability for use with the commercialized product, if approved. We cannot be certain that we, or third-party clinical trial sites on which we rely, will be able to secure a steady supply of such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Current wording

We are currently developing our product candidates, and may develop future product candidates, for use in combination with one or more other cancer therapies, such as venetoclax, azacitidine, cytarabine, daunorubicin, quizartinib, gilteritinib, FLAG-IDA, LDAC and imatinib, in the case of ziftomenib, and cabozantinib, adagrasib, and daraxonrasib, in the case of darlifarnib, or other drugs, both approved and unapproved. Our ability to develop and ultimately commercialize our current product candidates and any future product candidates used in combination with another drug or biologic will depend on our ability, or the ability of third-party clinical trial sites on which we rely, to access such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms for the clinical trials and their availability for use with the commercialized product, if approved. We cannot be certain that we, or third-party clinical trial sites on which we rely, will be able to secure a steady supply of such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Previous wording

We have observed serious adverse events in conducting clinical trials of our product candidates. The most common treatment-related serious adverse event observed to date with ziftomenib, occurring in more than 10% of patients, is DS. While no Grade 4 or Grade 5 treatment-related DS has been observed in patients with NPM1-mutated AML treated with ziftomenib, we note that during its review of the NDA for ziftomenib for the treatment of adult patients with NPM1-mutated AML, the FDA adjudicated two cases with fatal outcomes where DS could not be ruled out as a contributing factor, although the investigators who reported such cases suspected alternate etiologies. Other treatment-related serious adverse events observed with ziftomenib monotherapy, occurring in fewer than 10% of patients, include febrile neutropenia, leukocytosis, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, nausea, diarrhea, and increased white blood cell count. Across ongoing combination studies with ziftomenib, the most common treatment-related serious adverse events observed to date include DS, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and tumor lysis syndrome.

Current wording

We have observed serious adverse events in conducting clinical trials of our product candidates. The most common treatment-related serious adverse event observed to date with ziftomenib monotherapy, occurring in more than 10% of patients, is DS. While no Grade 4 or Grade 5 treatment-related DS has been observed in patients with NPM1-mutated AML treated with ziftomenib, we note that during its review of the NDA for ziftomenib for the treatment of adult patients with NPM1-mutated AML, the FDA adjudicated two cases with fatal outcomes where DS could not be ruled out as a contributing factor, although the investigators who reported such cases suspected alternate etiologies. Other treatment-related serious adverse events observed with ziftomenib monotherapy, occurring in fewer than 10% of patients, include febrile neutropenia, leukocytosis, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, nausea, diarrhea, and increased white blood cell count. Across ongoing combination studies with ziftomenib, the most common treatment-related serious adverse events observed to date include DS, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, pneumonia, vomiting, and tumor lysis syndrome.

Previous wording

Our FIT-001 trial represents the first time our darlifarnib compound has been tested in humans. To date, treatment-related serious adverse events have been reported in fewer than 15% of patients treated with darlifarnib, and include neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and pneumonia.

Current wording

Our FIT-001 trial represents the first time our darlifarnib compound has been tested in humans. To date, treatment-related serious adverse events have been reported in fewer than 15% of patients treated with darlifarnib, and the most commonly reported events include neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and pneumonia.

Previous wording

Pursuant to our Amended and Restated 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, or 2014 Plan, we are authorized to grant equity awards consisting of shares of our common stock to our employees, directors and consultants. As of March 31, 2026, we had 4,170,290 shares of common stock available for grant under the 2014 Plan, options to purchase up to an aggregate of 15,799,492 shares of common stock outstanding, 2,253,663 unvested restricted stock units outstanding and 824,433 unvested performance-based restricted stock units outstanding. Also, pursuant to our 2023 Inducement Option Plan, as amended, or Inducement Plan, we are authorized to grant nonstatutory stock options to individuals that were not previously our employees or directors (or following a bona fide period of non-employment), as an inducement material to the individuals’ entry into employment with us, pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). As of March 31, 2026, we had 768,866 shares of common stock available for grant under the Inducement Plan and options to purchase up to an aggregate of 2,481,134 shares of common stock outstanding.

Current wording

Pursuant to our Amended and Restated 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, or 2014 Plan, we are authorized to grant equity awards consisting of shares of our common stock to our employees, directors and consultants. As of June 30, 2026, we had 10,691,119 shares of common stock available for grant under the 2014 Plan, options to purchase up to an aggregate of 15,818,261 shares of common stock outstanding, 2,219,116 unvested restricted stock units outstanding and 824,433 unvested performance-based restricted stock units outstanding. Also, pursuant to our 2023 Inducement Option Plan, as amended, or Inducement Plan, we are authorized to grant nonstatutory stock options to individuals that were not previously our employees or directors (or following a bona fide period of non-employment), as an inducement material to the individuals’ entry into employment with us, pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). As of June 30, 2026, we had 509,100 shares of common stock available for grant under the Inducement Plan and options to purchase up to an aggregate of 2,732,150 shares of common stock outstanding.

Previous wording

In addition, we may grant or provide for the grant of rights to purchase shares of our common stock pursuant to our 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or ESPP. As of March 31, 2026, we had 327,697 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under the ESPP.

Current wording

In addition, we may grant or provide for the grant of rights to purchase shares of our common stock pursuant to our 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or ESPP. As of June 30, 2026, we had 2,655,344 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under the ESPP.

Previous wording

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could affect the tax treatment of our domestic and foreign earnings. Any new taxes could adversely affect our domestic and international business operations, and our business and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. The OBBBA enacted in 2025, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 enacted in 2022, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act enacted in 2020, and legislation informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017, made significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required taxpayers to capitalize and amortize U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based research and experimental, or R&E, expenditures over five and fifteen years, respectively. The OBBBA restored the deductibility of domestic R&E expenditures in the year incurred for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, but retained the capitalization and amortization requirement for foreign R&E expenditures. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to any legislation may affect us, and certain aspects of such legislation could be repealed or modified or sunset in future years. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.

Current wording

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could affect the tax treatment of our domestic and foreign earnings. Any new taxes could adversely affect our domestic and international business operations, and our business and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. The OBBBA enacted in 2025, the Inflation Reduction Act enacted in 2022, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act enacted in 2020, and legislation informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017, made significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required taxpayers to capitalize and amortize U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based research and experimental, or R&E, expenditures over five and fifteen years, respectively. The OBBBA restored the deductibility of domestic R&E expenditures in the year incurred for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, but retained the capitalization and amortization requirement for foreign R&E expenditures. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to any legislation may affect us, and certain aspects of such legislation could be repealed or modified or sunset in future years. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to federal tax laws. Future tax reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.