CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC

Previous wording

•many physicians are inexperienced diagnosing or caring for patients with hypercortisolism and it can be hard to persuade them to identify appropriate patients and treat them with our Hypercortisolism Products;

Current wording

•many physicians are inexperienced in diagnosing or caring for patients with hypercortisolism and it can be hard to persuade them to identify appropriate patients and treat them with our Hypercortisolism Products;

Previous wording

•the preference of physicians or payors for competing treatments for hypercortisolism, including off-label treatments and generic versions of Korlym;

Current wording

•the preference of physicians or payors for competing treatments for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer or hypercortisolism, including off-label treatments and generic versions of Korlym;

Previous wording

In March 2018, we brought suit in Federal District Court to prevent Teva from violating our patents. In December 2023, the Court issued a ruling in Teva’s favor. In January 2024, Teva launched a generic version of Korlym. We appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In February 2026, the appellate court affirmed the

Current wording

In March 2018, we brought suit in Federal District Court to prevent Teva from violating our patents. In December 2023, the Court issued a ruling in Teva’s favor. In January 2024, Teva launched a generic version of Korlym. We appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In February 2026, the appellate court affirmed the District Court’s ruling. If Teva’s commercial efforts are successful, they may materially harm our results of operations and financial condition by reducing the number of tablets we sell or lowering their price or both.

Previous wording

We also have litigation settlements with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Sun”) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (“Hikma”) that allow them to begin selling mifepristone, with customary restrictions, provided the FDA has approved their products and Teva’s generic product remains commercially available. The availability and adoption of generic versions of Korlym from Sun or Hikma could materially harm our results of operations and financial condition by reducing the number of tablets we sell or lowering their price or both. Please see“Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings” for additional details.

Current wording

We also have litigation settlements with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Sun”) and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (“Hikma”) that allow them to begin selling mifepristone, with customary restrictions, provided the FDA has approved their products and Teva’s generic product remains commercially available. The availability and adoption of generic versions of Korlym from Sun or Hikma could materially harm our results of operations and financial condition by reducing the number of tablets we sell or lowering their price or both.

Previous wording

The commercial success of our Products depends on the availability of acceptable pricing and adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement. Government payers, including Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration, as well as private insurers and health maintenance organizations, are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting reimbursement for medicines. In many foreign markets, drug prices and the profitability of prescription medications are subject to government control. In the United States, we expect that there will continue to be federal and state proposals for similar controls. Also, the trends toward managed health care in the United States and recent laws and legislation intended to increase the public visibility of drug prices and reduce the cost of government and private insurance programs could significantly influence the purchase of health care services and products and may result in lower prices for our Products. If government or private payers cease to provide adequate and timely coverage, pricing and reimbursement for our Products, physicians may not prescribe the medication and patients may not purchase it, even if it is prescribed, or the price we receive may be reduced, which would reduce our revenue.

Current wording

The commercial success of our Products depends on the availability of acceptable pricing and adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement. Government payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense, as well as private insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting access and reimbursement for medicines. In many foreign markets, drug prices and the profitability of prescription medications are subject to government control. In the United States, we expect that there will continue to be federal and state proposals for similar controls. Also, the trends toward managed health care in the United States and recent laws and legislation intended to increase the public visibility of drug prices and reduce the cost of government and private insurance programs could significantly influence the purchase of health care services and products and may result in lower prices for our Products. If government or private payers cease to provide adequate and timely coverage, pricing and reimbursement for our Products, physicians may not prescribe the medication and patients may not purchase it, even if it is prescribed, or the price we receive may be reduced, which would reduce our revenue.

Previous wording

In the United States, there have been and continue to be legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The IRA significantly changed the way Medicare pays for prescription drugs. The IRA requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare prices for selected drugs and biologicals, including both physician-administered products covered under Medicare’s Part B benefit and self-administered drugs such as our Products that are covered under the Part D benefit. Each year, the Secretary will select for price negotiation a specified number of negotiation-eligible drugs with the highest total Part B or D expenditures over the preceding 12-month period. To be eligible for price negotiation a drug must have been on the market for at least seven years without generic competition. Orphan drugs, such as our Hypercortisolism Products, that are indicated for only one rare disease or condition and drugs with less than $200 million in annual Medicare expenditures are exempt from the negotiation program. For the first two years of the program, 2026 and 2027, only Part D drugs are eligible. The Secretary will publish the negotiated price, known as the “Maximum Fair Price” (“MFP”), for each of the selected products. Manufacturers of selected drugs would be required to offer the drug for Medicare recipients at the MFP. Manufacturers who fail to negotiate with the Secretary or offer their drug to Medicare recipients at the MFP can face significant civil money penalties or excise tax liability on sales of that drug. Several pharmaceutical companies, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have filed lawsuits 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 U.S. Constitution and is otherwise unlawful. The HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and several federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. The HHS has generally continued to win the substantive disputes in appeals, although certain cases continue to seek appellate review. If our Products or any drug we commercialize become eligible for Medicare negotiation, the revenue we generate from sales of those drugs may be significantly reduced.

Current wording

In the United States, there have been and continue to be legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The IRA significantly changed the way Medicare pays for prescription drugs. The IRA requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare prices for selected drugs and biologicals, including both physician-administered products covered under Medicare’s Part B benefit and self-administered drugs such as our Products that are covered under the Part D benefit. Each year, the Secretary will select for price negotiation a specified number of negotiation-eligible drugs with the highest total Part B or D expenditures over the preceding 12-month period. To be eligible for price negotiation, a drug must have been on the market for at least seven years without generic competition. Orphan drugs, such as our Hypercortisolism Products, that are indicated for only one rare disease or condition and drugs with less than $200 million in annual Medicare expenditures are exempt from the negotiation program. For the first two years of the program, 2026 and 2027, only Part D drugs are eligible. The Secretary will publish the negotiated price, known as the “Maximum Fair Price” (“MFP”), for each of the selected products. Manufacturers of selected drugs would be required to offer the drug to Medicare recipients at the MFP. Manufacturers who fail to negotiate with the Secretary or offer their drug to Medicare recipients at the MFP can face significant civil money penalties or excise tax liability on sales of that drug. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has implemented the IRA through guidance documents but has announced a proposed rulemaking to transition the implementation of the program to formal rulemaking. Several pharmaceutical companies, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have filed lawsuits 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 U.S. Constitution and is otherwise unlawful. The HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases. The HHS has generally continued to win the substantive disputes in appeals, and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari, thus leaving intact these appellate decisions in favor of HHS. If our Products or any drug we commercialize become eligible for Medicare negotiation, the revenue we generate from sales of those drugs may be significantly reduced.

Previous wording

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 created under the IRA. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Furthermore, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, which reduced funding to federal healthcare programs and imposed additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs.

Current wording

Congress could also introduce and ultimately pass additional health care legislation changing the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA, which may lower the price that we receive for our Products. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Furthermore, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the OBBBA was signed into law, which reduced funding to federal healthcare programs and imposed additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs.

Previous wording

Any expansion, finalization or implementation of these or similar MFN-based pricing initiatives could subject our Products to additional rebate obligations, negatively impact our pricing strategies, product demand, or competitive positioning across global markets, and may result in reduced revenue.

Current wording

Any expansion, finalization or implementation of these or similar most favored nation (“MFN”) or MFN-based pricing initiatives could subject our Products to additional rebate obligations, negatively impact our pricing strategies, product demand, or competitive positioning across global markets, and may result in reduced revenue.

Previous wording

Other companies offer medications that treat patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer by mechanisms different than Lifyorli’s. The availability of such competing treatments could limit our product revenue.

Current wording

Other companies offer medications to treat patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The availability of such competing treatments could limit our product revenue.

Previous wording

In April 2024, Daiichi-Sankyo Company, Limited & AstraZeneca PLC received approval to market trastuzumab deruxtecan as a treatment for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, with tumors that express the HER-2 receptor at specified levels.

Current wording

In April 2024, Daiichi-Sankyo Company, Limited and AstraZeneca PLC received approval to market trastuzumab deruxtecan as a treatment for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, with tumors that express the HER-2 receptor at specified levels.

Previous wording

•the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. And, although we structure our applicable business arrangements in accordance with the safe harbors, it is difficult to determine exactly how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that certain practices of ours may be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. From a liability perspective, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

Current wording

•the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. And, although we structure our applicable business arrangements in accordance with the safe harbors, it is difficult to determine exactly how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that certain practices of ours may be challenged under the federal

Previous wording

Third-party clinical investigators and clinical sites enroll patients and CROs manage many of our trials and perform data collection and analysis. Because we currently rely and intend to continue to rely on these third parties, we will have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of preclinical studies and clinical trials than we would have had we conducted them independently. These parties are not, and will not be, our employees and we will have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable trial protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs, clinical trial sites, and other third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities. If any of our vendors does not perform its duties or meet expected deadlines or fails to adhere to applicable GCPs, or if the quality or accuracy of the data it produces is compromised, affected clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may be unable to obtain approval for our product candidates. Outside parties may have staffing difficulties, may undergo changes in priorities or may become financially distressed, adversely affecting their willingness or ability to conduct our clinical trials. Problems with the timeliness or quality of the work of a CRO may lead us to seek to terminate the relationship and use an alternative service provider. However, making this change may be costly and may delay our trials, and it may be challenging to find a replacement organization that can conduct our trials in an acceptable manner and at an acceptable cost. If we, our CROs, clinical trial sites, or other third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP or other regulatory requirements, we or they may be subject to enforcement or other legal actions, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. Moreover, our business may be significantly impacted if our CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties violate federal or state healthcare fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Current wording

Third-party clinical investigators and clinical sites enroll patients and CROs manage many of our trials and perform data collection and analysis. Because we currently rely and intend to continue to rely on these third parties, we will have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of preclinical studies and clinical trials than we would have had we conducted them independently. These parties are not, and will not be, our employees and we will have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable trial protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs, clinical trial sites, and other third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities. If any of our vendors does not perform its duties or meet expected deadlines or fails to adhere to applicable GCPs, or if the quality or accuracy of the data it produces is compromised, affected clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may be unable to obtain approval for our product candidates. Outside parties may have staffing difficulties, may undergo changes in priorities or may become financially distressed, adversely affecting their willingness or ability to conduct our clinical trials. Problems with the timeliness or quality of the work of a CRO may lead us to seek to terminate the relationship and use an alternative service provider. However, making this change may be costly and may delay our trials, and it may be challenging to find a replacement organization that can conduct our trials in an acceptable manner and at an acceptable cost. If we, our CROs, clinical trial sites, or other third parties fail to comply with applicable GCPs or other regulatory requirements, we or they may be subject to enforcement or other legal actions, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. Moreover, our business may be significantly impacted if our CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties violate federal or state healthcare fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Previous wording

Any replacement of our manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party. The process of changing manufacturers is extensive and time-consuming and could cause delays or interruptions in our product candidate supply. Further, if we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with all applicable regulations and guidelines, including cGMPs, and that the post-change material is comparable to pre-change. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

Current wording

Any replacement of our manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party. The process of changing manufacturers is extensive and time-consuming and could cause delays or interruptions in our product candidate supply. Further, if we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with all applicable regulations and guidelines, including cGMPs, and that the post-change material is comparable to pre-change material. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

Previous wording

•failure of patients or investigators to comply with the clinical trial protocol or for us or our vendors to comply with other regulatory requirements;

Current wording

•failure of patients or investigators to comply with the clinical trial protocol or of us or our vendors to comply with other regulatory requirements;

Previous wording

Our inability or the inability of our vendors to comply with applicable FDA and other regulatory requirements can result in delays in or denials of new product approvals, suspending or withdrawing our existing regulatory approvals, mandatory modifications to labeling or promotional materials, requirements to provide corrective information to healthcare professionals, warning letters, untitled letters, fines, consent decrees restricting or suspending manufacturing operations, injunctions, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, product detention or refusing to permit import or export of our Products, total or partial suspension of product sales and criminal prosecution. We may seek to commercialize our Products in international markets, which would require us to receive a marketing authorization and, in many cases, pricing approval, from the appropriate regulatory authorities. Approval procedures vary between countries and can require additional pre-clinical or clinical studies. Obtaining approval may take longer than it does in the United States. Although approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by others, failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. Any of these or other regulatory actions could materially harm our business and financial condition.

Current wording

Our inability or the inability of our vendors to comply with applicable FDA and other regulatory requirements can result in delays in or denials of new product approvals, suspending or withdrawing our existing regulatory approvals, mandatory modifications to labeling or promotional materials, requirements to provide corrective information to healthcare professionals, warning letters, untitled letters, fines, consent decrees restricting or suspending manufacturing operations, injunctions, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, product detention or refusal to permit import or export of our Products, total or partial suspension of product sales and criminal prosecution. We may seek to commercialize our Products in international markets, which would require us to receive a marketing authorization and, in many cases, pricing approval, from the appropriate regulatory authorities. Approval procedures vary between countries and can require additional pre-clinical or clinical studies. Obtaining approval may take longer than it does in the United States. Although approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by others, failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. Any of these or other regulatory actions could materially harm our business and financial condition.

Previous wording

We submitted an NDA for relacorilant as a treatment for patients with hypercortisolism. On December 30, 2025, the FDA issued a CRL declining to approve relacorilant for the proposed use and stating that additional evidence of effectiveness was required. We are working with the FDA to determine the best path to approval. We have also submitted to the EMA an MAA for relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel as a treatment for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with a likely regulatory decision date in the fourth quarter of 2026. These applications may be delayed and there is no assurance that they will be approved.

Current wording

We submitted an NDA for relacorilant as a treatment for patients with hypercortisolism. On December 30, 2025, the FDA issued a CRL declining to approve relacorilant for the proposed use and stating that additional evidence of effectiveness was required. In April 2026, the FDA asked us to conduct additional analyses of the data included in our NDA. Based on the outcome of those analyses, we resubmitted our NDA to the FDA on June 17, 2026. The FDA has assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of December 17, 2026 to complete its review. We have also submitted to the EMA an MAA for relacorilant in combination with nab-paclitaxel as a treatment for patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with a likely regulatory decision date in the fourth quarter of 2026. These applications may be delayed and there is no assurance that they will be approved.

Previous wording

The FDA’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper decision could result in additional legal challenges to regulations and guidance issues by federal agencies, including the FDA, on which we rely. Any such legal challenges, if successful, could have a material impact on our business. The Loper decision also may result in increased regulatory uncertainty, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and other impacts to the agency rulemaking process, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which could adversely affect business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Current wording

The FDA’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper decision could result in additional legal challenges to regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies, including the FDA, on which we rely. Any such legal challenges, if successful, could have a material impact on our business. The Loper decision also may result in increased regulatory uncertainty, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and other impacts to the agency rulemaking process, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Previous wording

We cannot assure investors that a liquid trading market for our common stock will exist at any particular time. As a result, holders of our common stock may not be able to sell shares quickly or at the current market price. During the 52-week period ended April 23, 2026, our average daily trading volume was approximately 1,407,089 shares and the intra-day sales prices per share of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market ranged from $28.66 to $91.00.

Current wording

We cannot assure investors that a liquid trading market for our common stock will exist at any particular time. As a result, holders of our common stock may not be able to sell shares quickly or at the current market price. During the 52-week period ended July 22, 2026, our average daily trading volume was approximately 1,347,543 shares and the intra-day sales prices per share of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market ranged from $28.66 to $95.79.

Previous wording

We have in the past and may in the future be subject to short selling strategies that may drive down the market price of our common stock and increase its volatility.

Current wording

We have in the past been, and may in the future be, subject to short selling strategies that may drive down the market price of our common stock and increase its volatility.

Previous wording

Short sellers have, and likely will continue to, attempt to drive down the price of our common stock. Short selling is the practice of selling stock the seller does not own with the intention of buying it back later at a lower price, thereby profiting from any decline in the price of the stock between the time it is sold and the time it is repurchased. To support their efforts, short sellers often publish, or arrange for others to publish, negative opinions regarding the relevant issuer and its business prospects. These publications are often made to appear as if they were objective journalism or unbiased “research reports” of the type distributed by credible Wall Street firms and independent research analysts. Short seller publications are not regulated by any governmental, self-regulatory organization or other authority in the United States and the opinions they express are often based on distortions, omissions or fabrications. Short attacks supported by such publications have, in the past, led to selling of our stock and at least temporary reductions in its price. Companies that are subject to unfavorable allegations, even if untrue, may have to expend a significant amount of resources to investigate such allegations and/or defend themselves, including shareholder suits against the company that may be prompted by such allegations. We have been, and may in the future be, the subject of shareholder suits prompted by allegations made by short sellers.

Current wording

Short sellers have attempted, and likely will continue to attempt, to drive down the price of our common stock. Short selling is the practice of selling stock the seller does not own with the intention of buying it back later at a lower price, thereby profiting from any decline in the price of the stock between the time it is sold and the time it is repurchased. To support their efforts, short sellers often publish, or arrange for others to publish, negative opinions regarding the relevant issuer and its business prospects. These publications are often made to appear as if they were objective journalism or unbiased “research reports” of the type distributed by credible Wall Street firms and independent research analysts. Short seller publications are not regulated by any governmental, self-regulatory organization or other authority in the United States and the opinions they express are often based on distortions, omissions or fabrications. Short attacks supported by such publications have, in the past, led to selling of our stock and at least temporary reductions in its price. Companies that are subject to unfavorable allegations, even if untrue, may have to expend a significant amount of resources to investigate such allegations and/or defend themselves, including shareholder suits against the company that may be prompted by such allegations. We have been, and may in the future be, the subject of shareholder suits prompted by allegations made by short sellers.

Previous wording

It is likely the administration will adopt new policies or take new actions that make it more difficult and costly to develop our product candidates. Significant cuts or disruptions to the staffing of government agencies and their budgets may delay review of current and future NDAs and may hamper our ability to advance our other clinical programs. The research programs of our academic collaborators may be canceled or their funding reduced. All of these actions may be taken with little or no advance notice.

Current wording

It is likely the administration will adopt new policies or take new actions that make it more difficult and costly to develop our product candidates. Significant cuts or disruptions to the staffing of government agencies and their budgets may delay review of current and future NDAs and may hamper our ability to advance our other clinical programs. The research programs of our academic collaborators may be canceled or their funding reduced. These actions may be taken with little or no advance notice.

Previous wording

The imposition of tariffs on materials we or our vendors and collaborators use to conduct experiments or to make our Products or product candidates have increased our costs and may increase them further. The United States’ tariff regime and the tariff regime of its trading partners are in constant flux. Although we monitor the situation closely, the tariffs that may affect our business are difficult to predict. It is unlikely that we will be able to anticipate new trade measures or mitigate their impacts, which could be material. Additionally, the laws and regulations governing our operations, as well as the application of those laws and regulations, may change without notice. Failure by us or our vendors to comply with new laws or regulations or to respond in a timely way to abrupt changes in the application of existing laws and regulations could adversely affect our operations, cash flow and financial condition or otherwise harm our business.

Current wording

The imposition of tariffs on materials we or our vendors and collaborators use to conduct experiments or to make our Products or product candidates has increased our costs and may increase them further. The United States’ tariff regime and the tariff regime of its trading partners are in constant flux. Although we monitor the situation closely, the tariffs that may affect our business are difficult to predict. It is unlikely that we will be able to anticipate new trade measures or mitigate their impacts, which could be material. Additionally, the laws and regulations governing our operations, as well as the application of those laws and regulations, may change without notice. Failure by us or our vendors to comply with new laws or regulations or to respond in a timely way to abrupt changes in the application of existing laws and regulations could adversely affect our operations, cash flow and financial condition or otherwise harm our business.

Previous wording

New laws and regulations, as well as changes to existing laws and regulations, including statutes and regulations concerning taxes and the development, approval, marketing and pricing of medications, the provisions of the ACA requiring the reporting of aggregate spending related to health care professionals, the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd Frank Act of 2010 and rules adopted by the SEC and by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC have and will likely continue to increase our cost of doing business and divert management’s attention from revenue-generating activities.

Current wording

New laws and regulations, as well as changes to existing laws and regulations, including statutes and regulations concerning taxes and the development, approval, marketing and pricing of medications, the provisions of the ACA requiring the reporting of aggregate spending related to health care professionals, the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and rules adopted by the SEC and by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC have increased and will likely continue to increase our cost of doing business and divert management’s attention from revenue-generating activities.

Previous wording

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy, laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. Requirements for compliance under HIPAA are also subject to change, as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights issued a proposed rule that would amend certain security compliance requirements for covered entities and business associates.

Current wording

In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. Requirements for compliance under HIPAA are also subject to change, as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights issued a proposed rule that would amend certain security compliance requirements for covered entities and business associates.

Previous wording

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health-related and other personal information in certain circumstances, some of which may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information than HIPAA and many of which may differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act imposes restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information. Further, the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), revised and amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA” and collectively, the “CCPA”), created individual privacy rights for California consumers and increased the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information as well as limitation on data uses, audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA is enforced by the California Privacy Protection Agency, which is authorized to issue substantive regulations resulting in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Several other states have implemented similar comprehensive privacy laws that took effect in the past year or will take effect in the near future, and states have implemented or are considering laws that specifically focus on the processing of personal data related to individuals’ health, including Washington’s My Health My Data Act and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. As a result, additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. In the event that we are subject to or affected by HIPAA, the CCPA or other domestic privacy and data protection laws, any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition. Additional legislation proposed at the federal level and in other states, along with increased regulatory action, reflect a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States.

Current wording

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health-related and other personal information in certain circumstances, some of which may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information than HIPAA and many of which may differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act imposes restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information. Further, the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), revised and amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA” and collectively, the “CCPA”), created individual privacy rights for California consumers and increased the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal information as well as limitations on data uses, audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA is enforced by the California Privacy Protection Agency, which is authorized to issue substantive regulations resulting in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Several other states have implemented similar comprehensive privacy laws that took effect in the past year or will take effect in the near future, and states have implemented or are considering laws that specifically focus on the processing of personal data related to individuals’ health, including Washington’s My Health My Data Act and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. As a result, additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. In the event that we are subject to or affected by HIPAA, the CCPA or other domestic privacy and data protection laws, any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition. Additional legislation proposed at the federal level and in other states, along with increased regulatory action, reflects a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States.

Previous wording

Outside the United States, many jurisdictions have or are in the process of enacting extensive data privacy regulations. In Europe, the GDPR took effect in 2018, and is imposing stringent data protection requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of individuals within the EEA, particularly with respect to clinical trials. The GDPR provides that EEA member states may make further laws and regulations limiting the processing of health data, which could limit our ability to use and share personal data or could cause our costs to increase and harm our business and financial condition. In addition, the GDPR increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. Legal developments have added complexity and compliance uncertainty regarding certain transfers of information from the EEA to the United States. Following EU court decisions, updated standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) were adopted to account for these judicial decisions, imposing new requirements on data transfers. The revised SCCs must be used for relevant new data transfers from September 27, 2021, and existing SCC arrangements were required to be retired by December 27, 2022. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results. Further, on July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision on the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). The decision, which took effect on the day of its adoption, concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EEA to companies certified to the DPF. It is currently unclear how the future of DPF will evolve and what impact it will have on our international activities. The GDPR imposes substantial fines for breaches of data protection requirements, which can be up to four percent of global revenue for the preceding financial year or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects for breaches of data protection requirements. Compliance with European data protection laws is a rigorous and time intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. From January 1, 2021, we have had to comply with the…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Outside the United States, many jurisdictions have or are in the process of enacting extensive data privacy regulations. In Europe, the GDPR took effect in 2018, and is imposing stringent data protection requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of individuals within the EEA, particularly with respect to clinical trials. The GDPR provides that EEA member states may make further laws and regulations limiting the processing of health data, which could limit our ability to use and share personal data or could cause our costs to increase and harm our business and financial condition. In addition, the GDPR increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. Legal developments have added complexity and compliance uncertainty regarding certain transfers of information from the EEA to the United States. Following EU court decisions, updated standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) were adopted to account for these judicial decisions, imposing new requirements on data transfers. The revised SCCs must be used for relevant new data transfers from September 27, 2021, and existing SCC arrangements were required to be retired by December 27, 2022. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results. Further, on July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision on the E.U.-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). The decision, which took effect on the day of its adoption, concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EEA to companies certified to the DPF. It is currently unclear how the future of the DPF will evolve and what impact it will have on our international activities. The GDPR imposes substantial fines for breaches of data protection requirements, which can be up to four percent of global revenue for the preceding financial year or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects for breaches of data protection requirements. Compliance with European data protection laws is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. From January 1, 2021, we have had to comply with…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We store valuable confidential information relating to our business, patients and employees on our computer networks and on the networks of our vendors. In addition, we rely heavily on internet technology, including video conference, teleconference and file-sharing services, to conduct business. Despite our security measures, our networks and the networks of our vendors are at risk of break-ins, installation of malware or ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, data theft and other forms of malfeasance by persons seeking to commit fraud or theft, which could result in unauthorized access to, and/or misuse of, our clinical data or other confidential information, including confidential information relating to our patients or employees. We may continue to increase our cybersecurity risks, due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees that are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities.

Current wording

We store valuable confidential information relating to our business, patients and employees on our computer networks and on the networks of our vendors. In addition, we rely heavily on internet technology, including video conferencing, teleconferencing and file-sharing services, to conduct business. Despite our security measures, our networks and the networks of our vendors are at risk of break-ins, installation of malware or ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, data theft and other forms of malfeasance by persons seeking to commit fraud or theft, which could result in unauthorized access to, and/or misuse of, our clinical data or other confidential information, including confidential information relating to our patients or employees.

Previous wording

In January 2024, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $200 million of our common stock pursuant to the Stock Repurchase Program. In addition, we sometimes accept, in our sole discretion, shares equal in value to any tax and exercise price liability due from option holders at the time of exercise and remit the applicable tax amounts to the tax authorities. Neither our Stock Repurchase Program nor the acceptance of shares at the time of options exercise require us to acquire shares. Furthermore, the Stock Repurchase Program may be modified, suspended or discontinued at any time without notice. It is possible that other uses of our capital would have been more advantageous or that our future capital requirements increase unexpectedly. By reducing our cash balance, our repurchases of common stock could hamper our ability to execute our plans, meet financial obligations or access financing.

Current wording

In January 2024, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $200 million of our common stock pursuant to the Stock Repurchase Program. In addition, we sometimes accept, in our sole discretion, shares equal in value to any tax and exercise price liability due from option holders at the time of exercise and remit the applicable tax amounts to the tax authorities. Neither our Stock Repurchase Program nor the acceptance of shares at the time of options exercise requires us to acquire shares. Furthermore, the Stock Repurchase Program may be modified, suspended or discontinued at any time without notice. It is possible that other uses of our capital would have been more advantageous or that our future capital requirements would increase unexpectedly. By reducing our cash balance, our repurchases of common stock could hamper our ability to execute our plans, meet financial obligations or access financing.

Previous wording

As of April 23, 2026, our officers and directors beneficially owned approximately 21 percent of our common stock. Acting together, these stockholders could significantly influence any matter requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combinations. The interests of this group may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders and may prevent or delay a change in control. This significant concentration of share ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock because many investors perceive disadvantages to owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders.

Current wording

As of July 22, 2026, our officers and directors beneficially owned approximately 20 percent of our common stock. Acting together, these stockholders could significantly influence any matter requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combinations. The interests of this group may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders and may prevent or delay a change in control. This significant concentration of share ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock because many investors perceive disadvantages to owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders.