PROTHENA CORP PUBLIC LTD CO

Previous wording

We may not generate the cash that is necessary to finance our operations in the foreseeable future. We incurred net losses of$186.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2025, and$122.3 million and $147.0 million, and $116.9 million for theyears ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of$1.3 billion. We expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future as we:

Current wording

We may not generate the cash that is necessary to finance our operations in the foreseeable future. We incurred net losses of$222.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, and$122.3 million and $147.0 million, and $116.9 million for theyears ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of$1.3 billion. We expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future as we:

Previous wording

•supportthe Phase 1 clinical trials for PRX012, the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019, and potential additional clinical trials for these and other programs, including PRX123;

Current wording

•wind downthe Phase 1 clinical trials for PRX012 and Phase 3 clinical trial for birtamimab, and support the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019 and potential additional clinical trials for these and other programs;

Previous wording

•develop and possibly commercialize our drug candidates, including PRX012, and PRX123;

Current wording

•develop and possibly commercialize our drug candidates;

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents of$371.4 million. The majority of such cash is held in accounts at U.S. banking institutions that we believe are of high quality. Cash held in depository accounts may exceed the $250,000 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. If such banking institutions were to fail, we could lose all or a portion of those amounts held in excess of such insurance limitations. Alth ough we believe, based on our current business plans, that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our obligations for at least the next twelve months, we anticipate that we will require additional capital in order to continue the research and development, and eventual commercialization, of our drug candidates. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors that are currently unknown to us, including, without limitation:

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents of$330.8 million. The majority of such cash is held in accounts at U.S. banking institutions that we believe are of high quality. Cash held in depository accounts may exceed the $250,000 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. If such banking institutions were to fail, we could lose all or a portion of those amounts held in excess of such insurance limitations. Alth ough we believe, based on our current business plans, that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our obligations for at least the next twelve months, we anticipate that we will require additional capital in order to continue the research and development, and eventual commercialization, of our drug candidates. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors that are currently unknown to us, including, without limitation:

Previous wording

•the timing of progress, results, and costs of our clinical trials, including the Phase 2 clinical trial for prasinezumab being conducted by Roche, the Phase 2b clinical trial for prasinezumab being conducted by Roche, the Phase 2 clinical trial forcoramitug (formerly PRX004) being conducted by Novo Nordisk, the Phase 2 clinical trial for BMS-986446 being conducted by BMS, the Phase 1 clinical trials for PRX012, and the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019;

Current wording

•the timing of progress, results, and costs of our clinical trials, including the Phase 3 clinical trial for prasinezumab being conducted by Roche, the Phase 2 and 2b clinical trials for prasinezumab being conducted by Roche, the Phase 3 clinical trial forcoramitug (formerly PRX004) being conducted by Novo Nordisk, the Phase 2 clinical trial for BMS-986446 being conducted by BMS, and the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019;

Previous wording

•Geographic regions where we operate may be affected by war, terrorism, or political instability, and our operations may be vulnerable to disruption, including disturbances to the credit and financial markets (in such region or worldwide), or to services generally, including healthcare services. For example, the Phase 3 clinical trial for birtamimab has clinical trial sites located globally, including in Israel and Eastern Europe, and operations at such clinical trial sites may be disrupted by ongoing conflicts and/or new conflicts, which could result in (i) the inability or unwillingness of study participants, site investigators or other study personnel to travel to such clinical trial sites or otherwise follow study protocols, (ii) the diversion of healthcare resources away from the conduct of clinical trials, or (iii) the complete or partial cessation of operations at such clinical trial sites.

Current wording

•Geographic regions where we operate may be affected by war, terrorism, or political instability, and our operations may be vulnerable to disruption, including disturbances to the credit and financial markets (in such region or worldwide), or to services generally, including healthcare services. For example, operations at clinical trial sites may be disrupted by ongoing conflicts and/or new conflicts, which could result in (i) the inability or unwillingness of study participants, site investigators or other study personnel to travel to such clinical trial sites or otherwise follow study protocols, (ii) the diversion of healthcare resources away from the conduct of clinical trials, or (iii) the complete or partial cessation of operations at such clinical trial sites.

Previous wording

Our business is increasingly dependent on critical, complex, and interdependent information technology systems to support business processes as well as internal and external communications. Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our current and any future CROs and other contractors, consultants, and collaborators, have been subject to and remain vulnerable to damage from cyberattacks, “phishing” attacks, ransomware, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication or electrical failures. Attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication, and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to or to sabotage systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Any breakdown, malicious intrusion, or computer virus could result in the impairment of key business processes or breach of data security, which could result in a material disruption of our development programs and cause interruptions in our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other intellectual property or lead to unauthorized disclosure of personal data of our employees, third parties with which we do business, clinical trial participants, or others. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, such a breach may require notification to governmental agencies, the media, or individuals pursuant to applicable data privacy and security law and regulations. Such an event could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Current wording

Our business is increasingly dependent on critical, complex, and interdependent information technology systems to support business processes as well as internal and external communications. Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our current and any future CROs and other contractors, consultants, and collaborators, have been subject to and remain vulnerable to damage from cyberattacks, “phishing” attacks, ransomware, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication or electrical failures. Attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication, and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. We may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to or to sabotage systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Any breakdown, malicious intrusion, or computer virus could result in the impairment of key business processes or breach of data security, which could result in a material disruption of our development programs and cause interruptions in our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other intellectual property or lead to unauthorized disclosure of personal data of our employees, third parties with which we do business, clinical trial participants, or others. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, such a breach may require notification to governmental agencies, the media, or individuals pursuant to applicable data privacy and security law and regulations. Such an event could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Previous wording

We are also or may become subject to rapidly evolving data protection laws, rules, and regulations in foreign jurisdictions. For example, in the European Union (“EU”), the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “EU GDPR”) governs the collection of, and other processing activities involving, personal data (i.e., data which identifies an individual or from which an individual is identifiable), including clinical trial data, and grants individuals various data protection rights (e.g., the right to the erasure of personal data). The EU GDPR imposes a number of obligations on companies, including inter alia: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, and enhanced requirements for obtaining valid consent; (ii) obligation to consider data protection when any new products or services are developed, and to limit the amount of personal data processed; and (iii) obligations to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard personal data and to report certain personal data breaches to: (x) the data protection supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours, where feasible) after becoming aware of the personal data breach, unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the data subjects’ rights and freedoms; and (y) affected data subjects where the personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms. In addition, the EU GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data from the European Economic Area (“EEA”) to jurisdictions that the European Commission does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws unless a data transfer mechanism has been put in place or a derogation under the EU GDPR can be relied on. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework for purposes of international transfers and imposing further restrictions on the use of standard contractual clauses (“EU SCCs”) including, a requirement for companies to carry out a transfer privacy impact assessment (“TIA”), which, among other things, assesses the laws governing access to personal data in the recipient country and considers whether supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under the EU SCCs will need to be implemented to ensure an “essentially equivalent” level of data protection to that afforded in the EEA. On July 31, 2023, the European Commission adopted its Final Implementing Decision granting the United States adequacy (“Adequacy Decision”), for EU-U.S. transfers of personal data for entities self-certified to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). Entities relying on EU SCCs for transfers to the United States are also able to rely on the analysis in the Adequacy Decision as support for their TIA regarding the equivalence of U.S. national security safeguards and redress. The EU G…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Area (“EEA”) to jurisdictions that the European Commission does not recognize as having “adequate” data protection laws unless a data transfer mechanism has been put in place or a derogation under the EU GDPR can be relied on. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework for purposes of international transfers and imposing further restrictions on the use of standard contractual clauses (“EU SCCs”) including, a requirement for companies to carry out a transfer privacy impact assessment (“TIA”), which, among other things, assesses the laws governing access to personal data in the recipient country and considers whether supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under the EU SCCs will need to be implemented to ensure an “essentially equivalent” level of data protection to that afforded in the EEA. On July 31, 2023, the European Commission adopted its Final Implementing Decision granting the United States adequacy (“Adequacy Decision”), for EU-U.S. transfers of personal data for entities self-certified to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). Entities relying on EU SCCs for transfers to the United States are also able to rely on the analysis in the Adequacy Decision as support for their TIA regarding the equivalence of U.S. national security safeguards and redress. The EU GDPR imposes substantial fines for breaches and violations (up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of the noncompliant company’s total annual global turnover). The EU GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with data protection supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the EU GDPR.

Previous wording

There is no assurance that the results of the Phase 2 clinical trial for prasinezumab, the Phase 2b clinical trial for prasinezumab, the Phase 2 clinical trial forcoramitug, the Phase 2 clinical trial for BMS-986446, the Phase 1 clinical trials for PRX012, and the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019 will support further development of these drug candidates. In addition, we currently do not, and may never, have any other drug candidates in clinical trials, and we have not identified drug candidates for many of our research programs.

Current wording

There is no assurance that the results of the Phase 3 clinical trial for prasinezumab, the Phase 2 and 2b clinical trials for prasinezumab, the Phase 3 clinical trial forcoramitug, the Phase 2 clinical trial for BMS-986446, and the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019 will support further development of these drug candidates. In addition, we currently do not, and may never, have any other drug candidates in clinical trials, and we have not identified drug candidates for many of our research programs.

Previous wording

We cannot predict whether we, or our partners (as applicable), will encounter problems with the Phase 2 clinical trial for prasinezumab, the Phase 2b clinical trial for prasinezumab, the Phase 2 clinical trial forcoramitug, the Phase 2 clinical trial for BMS-986446, the Phase 1 clinical trials for PRX012, the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019, or any other future clinical trials that will cause us or any regulatory authority to delay, suspend or terminate those clinical trials or delay the analysis of data derived from them. A number of events, including any of the following, could delay the completion of our ongoing or planned clinical trials and negatively impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and to market and sell, a particular drug candidate:

Current wording

We cannot predict whether we, or our partners (as applicable), will encounter problems with the Phase 3 clinical trial for prasinezumab, the Phase 2 and 2b clinical trials for prasinezumab, the Phase 3 clinical trial forcoramitug, the Phase 2 clinical trial for BMS-986446, the Phase 1 clinical trial for PRX019, or any other future clinical trials that will cause us or any regulatory authority to delay, suspend or terminate those clinical trials or delay the analysis of data derived from them. A number of events, including any of the following, could delay the completion of our ongoing or planned clinical trials and negatively impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and to market and sell, a particular drug candidate:

Previous wording

We are dependent upon Roche with respect to further development of prasinezumab. Under the terms of our collaboration with Roche, Roche is responsible for that further development, including the conduct of the ongoing Phase 2 and Phase 2b clinical trials and any future clinical trial of that drug candidate.

Current wording

We are dependent upon Roche with respect to further development of prasinezumab. Under the terms of our collaboration with Roche, Roche is responsible for that further development, including the conduct of the Phase 3, Phase 2, and Phase 2b clinical trials and any future clinical trial of that drug candidate.

Previous wording

We are dependent upon Novo Nordisk with respect to further development ofcoramitug, including the Phase 2 clinical trial and any future clinical trial of that drug candidate.

Current wording

We are dependent upon Novo Nordisk with respect to further development ofcoramitug, including the Phase 3 clinical trial and any future clinical trial of that drug candidate.

Previous wording

In addition, the strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field can be uncertain, and evaluating the scope of such patents involves complex legal, factual, and scientific analyses and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation, resulting in court decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, which have increased uncertainties as to the ability to enforce patent rights in the future. We cannot guarantee that any patents will issue from any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us or our affiliates. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Consequently, we may not obtain or maintain adequate patent protection for any of our programs and product candidates. Even if patents have issued or will issue, we cannot guarantee that the claims of these patents are or will be valid or enforceable or will provide us with any significant protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially valuable to us. Patent applications in the U.S. are maintained in confidence for up to 18 months after their filing. In some cases, however, patent applications remain confidential in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) for the entire time prior to issuance as a U.S. patent. Similarly, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors or co-owners were the first to invent, or the first to file patent applications on, our drug candidates or their use as drugs. In the event that a third party has also filed a U.S. patent application relating to our drug candidates or a similar invention, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the U.S. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial and it is possible that our efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position. Furthermore, we may not have identified all U.S. and non-U.S. patents or published applications that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our drugs or by covering similar technologies. Composition-of-matter patents on the biological or chemical active pharmaceutical ingredient are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our patent applications covering composition-of-matter of our drug candidates will be considered patentable by the USPTO and courts in the U.S. or by the patent offices and courts in other countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in our issued composition-of-matter patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged. Method-of-use pate…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Similarly, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors or co-owners were the first to invent, or the first to file patent applications on, our drug candidates or their use as drugs. In the event that a third party has also filed a U.S. patent application relating to our drug candidates or a similar invention, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the U.S. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial and it is possible that our efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position. Furthermore, we may not have identified all U.S. and non-U.S. patents or published applications that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our drugs or by covering similar technologies. Composition-of-matter patents on the biological or chemical active pharmaceutical ingredient are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our patent applications covering composition-of-matter of our drug candidates will be considered patentable by the USPTO and courts in the U.S. or by the patent offices and courts in other countries, nor can we be certain that the claims in our issued composition-of-matter patents will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged. Method-of-use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method-of-use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.

Previous wording

USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our drug candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or growth prospects.

Current wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is costly, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. Recent patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our drug candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

As with any publicly traded company, your percentage ownership in us may be diluted in the future because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital raising transactions (including the sale of ordinary shares pursuant to our Amended Distribution Agreement, as may be further amended from time to time), or otherwise. We may need to raise additional capital in the future. If we are able to raise additional capital, we may issue equity or convertible debt instruments, which may severely dilute your ownership interest in us. In addition, we intend to continue to grant option awards to our directors, officers and employees, which would dilute your ownership stake in us. As of June 30, 2025, the number of ordinary shares available for issuance pursuant to outstanding and future equity awards under our equity planswas 17,193,490.

Current wording

As with any publicly traded company, your percentage ownership in us may be diluted in the future because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital raising transactions (including the sale of ordinary shares pursuant to our Amended Distribution Agreement, as may be further amended from time to time), or otherwise. We may need to raise additional capital in the future. If we are able to raise additional capital, we may issue equity or convertible debt instruments, which may severely dilute your ownership interest in us. In addition, we intend to continue to grant option awards to our directors, officers and employees, which would dilute your ownership stake in us. As of September 30, 2025, the number of ordinary shares available for issuance pursuant to outstanding and future equity awards under our equity planswas 16,764,284.

Previous wording

Under current law, we are treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes. However, changes to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, U.S. Treasury Regulations or other IRS guidance thereunder could adversely affect our status as a foreign corporation or otherwise affect our effective tax rate. For example, in 2017 the United States enacted tax reform that contained significant changes to corporate taxation, including a provision that requires capitalization and amortization of research and development costs over five years for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. In addition, the Irish Government, Irish Revenue, U.S. Congress, the IRS, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), and other governments and agencies in jurisdictions where we do business have recently focused on issues related to the taxation of multinational corporations, including the OECD’s Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), which apply a 15% global minimum tax rate on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis to groups with turnover of not less than €750 million in at least two of the four prior fiscal years. Pillar Two has been implemented into Irish law with effect for periods beginning on or after December 31, 2023. As a result of Pillar Two or other policy changes, whether at national or supranational level, the tax laws in Ireland, the U.S., and other countries in which we do business could change on a prospective or retroactive basis, and any such changes could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or growth prospects.

Current wording

Under current law, we are treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes. However, changes to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, U.S. Treasury Regulations or other IRS guidance thereunder could adversely affect our status as a foreign corporation or otherwise affect our effective tax rate. In addition, the Irish Government, Irish Revenue, U.S. Congress, the IRS, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), and other governments and agencies in jurisdictions where we do business have recently focused on issues related to the taxation of multinational corporations, including the OECD’s Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), which apply a 15% global minimum tax rate on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis to groups with turnover of not less than €750 million in at least two of the four prior fiscal years. Pillar Two has been implemented into Irish law with effect for periods beginning on or after December 31, 2023. As a result of Pillar Two or other policy changes, whether at national or supranational level, the tax laws in Ireland, the U.S., and other countries in which we do business could change on a prospective or retroactive basis, and any such changes could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and/or growth prospects.