Arcus Biosciences, Inc.

Previous wording

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. All of our investigational products are in development, and none have been approved for commercial sale, nor have we ever generated any revenue from product sales. Our revenues to date have been primarily from upfront and milestone payments, R&D support and clinical materials reimbursement from our strategic partners. For the three months ended March 31, 2025 and year ended December 31, 2024, we had net losses of $112 million and $283 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 billion. While we may receive income from year to year under the Gilead Agreement and the Taiho Agreement, we generally expect to incur substantial and increasing levels of operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we advance our investigational products. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Current wording

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history that may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability. All of our investigational products are in development, and none have been approved for commercial sale, nor have we ever generated any revenue from product sales. Our revenues to date have been primarily from upfront and milestone payments, R&D support and clinical materials reimbursement from our strategic partners. For the six months ended June 30, 2025 and year ended December 31, 2024, we had net income of $— million and net loss of $283 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 billion. While we may receive income from year to year under the Gilead Agreement and the Taiho Agreement, we generally expect to incur substantial and increasing levels of operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we advance our investigational products. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, we had $1.0 billion of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, which, together with our available facilities, we believe will be sufficient to provide funding through our initial pivotal read-outs for domvanalimab, quemliclustat and casdatifan, which include PEAK-1. This is based on disciplined prioritization of our resources to these programs. For example, we have paused further development for etrumadenant in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer to focus our resources on our late stage clinical portfolio and research programs. However, we cannot guarantee that we will not need additional capital and if so, that we will be able to obtain additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some or all of our R&D programs or future commercialization efforts. In addition, if we need and are able to raise additional capital, raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our intellectual property or investigational products. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors related to the cost and timing of developing our investigational products, including:

Current wording

As of June 30, 2025, we had $927 million of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, which, together with our available facilities, we believe will be sufficient to provide funding through our initial pivotal read-outs for domvanalimab, quemliclustat and casdatifan, which include PEAK-1. This is based on disciplined prioritization of our resources to these programs. For example, we have paused further development for etrumadenant in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer to focus our resources on our late stage clinical portfolio and research programs. However, we cannot guarantee that we will not need additional capital and if so, that we will be able to obtain additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we would be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate some or all of our R&D programs or future commercialization efforts. In addition, if we need and are able to raise additional capital, raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our intellectual property or investigational products. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors related to the cost and timing of developing our investigational products, including:

Previous wording

We have no products approved for sale and our investigational products must be approved by the FDA in the U.S. and similar regulatory authorities outside the U.S., such as the EMA, prior to commercialization. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the U.S. and abroad, is expensive and takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the investigational product’s safety and efficacy, or with respect to biological investigational products, safety, purity and potency. Securing marketing approval also requires, among other things, the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities, among other requirements. Our investigational products may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, may not have an acceptable durability of response, may not have an acceptable risk-benefit profile or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude us from obtaining marketing approval or limit their commercial use. Our investigational products may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in any Phase 3 clinical trials or other registrational trials we or our collaborators conduct.

Current wording

We have no products approved for sale and our investigational products must be approved by the FDA in the U.S. and similar regulatory authorities outside the U.S., such as the European Medicines Agency ("EMA"), prior to commercialization. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the U.S. and abroad, is expensive and takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the investigational product’s safety and efficacy, or with respect to biological investigational products, safety, purity and potency. Securing marketing approval also requires, among other things, the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities, among other requirements. Our investigational products may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, may not have an acceptable durability of response, may not have an acceptable risk-benefit profile or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude us from obtaining marketing approval or limit their commercial use. Our investigational products may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in any Phase 3 clinical trials or other registrational trials we or our collaborators conduct.

Previous wording

•such authorities may not agree that the data collected from clinical trials of our investigational products are acceptable or sufficient to support the submission of a BLA, NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the U.S. or elsewhere;

Current wording

•such authorities may not agree that the data collected from clinical trials of our investigational products are acceptable or sufficient to support the submission of a BLA, new drug application ("NDA") or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval in the U.S. or elsewhere;

Previous wording

•IRBs refusing to approve, suspending or terminating the trial at an investigational site, precluding enrollment of additional subjects, or withdrawing their approval of the trial;

Current wording

•Institutional Review Board ("IRB") refusing to approve, suspending or terminating the trial at an investigational site, precluding enrollment of additional subjects, or withdrawing their approval of the trial;

Previous wording

•failure by our CROs to perform in accordance with GCP requirements or applicable regulatory rules and guidelines in other countries;

Current wording

•failure by our CROs to perform in accordance with good clinical practice ("GCP") requirements or applicable regulatory rules and guidelines in other countries;

Previous wording

•or failure of our CMOs to produce clinical trial materials in sufficient quantities in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”), regulations or other applicable requirements; and

Current wording

•or failure of our Contract Manufacturing Organization ("CMO") to produce clinical trial materials in sufficient quantities in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP"), regulations or other applicable requirements; and

Previous wording

Most of our clinical trials, including our Phase 3 trials, are open-label studies in which both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational products or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Open-label clinical trials are susceptible to bias that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect or overestimate the risk associated with the investigational product. Patients may perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Investigators may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given their awareness of the treatment regimen or may attribute safety risks to the investigational product. If regulatory agencies feel that we have not implemented sufficient controls to prevent such biases or that the controls we have implemented were ineffective, we may experience delays or negative outcomes in our applications for drug approval. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may disfavor the use of open-studies, or otherwise not agree that the results from open-label studies, regardless of outcome, will support submission of an application for marketing approval in the indications we are targeting, and we may be required to conduct randomized trials evaluating our investigational products before we are able to able to obtain marketing approval of our investigational products, if ever.

Current wording

Most of our clinical trials, including some of our Phase 3 trials, are open-label studies in which both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational products or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Open-label clinical trials are susceptible to bias that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect or overestimate the risk associated with the investigational product. Patients may perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Investigators may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given their awareness of the treatment regimen or may attribute safety risks to the investigational product. If regulatory agencies feel that we have not implemented sufficient controls to prevent such biases or that the controls we have implemented were ineffective, we may experience delays or negative outcomes in our applications for drug approval. In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities may disfavor the use of open-studies, or otherwise not agree that the results from open-label studies, regardless of outcome, will support submission of an application for marketing approval in the indications we are targeting, and we may be required to conduct randomized trials evaluating our investigational products before we are able to able to obtain marketing approval of our investigational products, if ever.

Previous wording

Additionally, if any of our investigational products receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such investigational product outweigh the risks, which REMS may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We may also be required to engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop.

Current wording

Additionally, if any of our investigational products receives regulatory approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such product, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result. For example, the FDA could require us to adopt a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy ("REMS") to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such investigational product outweigh the risks, which REMS may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We may also be required to engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any product that we develop.

Previous wording

•we have appointed three individuals that were designated by Gilead to our board of directors pursuant to the terms of the Investor Rights Agreement, and Gilead owns approximately 29.7% of our outstanding common stock as of March 31, 2025. They have the right (but not the obligation) to acquire additional shares from us up to an amount resulting in Gilead owning a total of 35% of our outstanding common stock and, as a result, may be able to exert significant influence over our company;

Current wording

•we have appointed three individuals that were designated by Gilead to our board of directors pursuant to the terms of the Investor Rights Agreement and Gilead owns approximately 29.5% of our outstanding common stock as of June 30, 2025. As a result, they may be able to exert significant influence over our company;

Previous wording

Even if we receive marketing approval for one or more of our investigational products, our commercial success is dependent on obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor, which coverage may be delayed or may not be sufficient to cover our costs.

Current wording

Even if we receive marketing approval for one or more of our investigational products, our commercial success is dependent on obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from a government or other third-party payor, which coverage may be delayed or may not be sufficient to cover our costs.

Previous wording

Our commercial success is dependent on obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor, which is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us and any collaborators to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Obtaining reimbursement for our products may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with branded therapeutics and therapeutics administered under the supervision of a physician. Additionally, our collaborators will be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any related companion diagnostics tests they develop separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our investigational products, once approved.

Current wording

Our commercial success is dependent on obtaining coverage and reimbursement for any product for which we receive approval from private or government third-party payors, which is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us and any collaborators to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Obtaining reimbursement for our products may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with branded therapeutics and therapeutics administered under the supervision of a physician. Additionally, our collaborators will be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any related companion diagnostics tests they develop separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our investigational products, once approved.

Previous wording

The BPCIA created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until twelve years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this twelve-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

Current wording

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until twelve years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this twelve-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

Previous wording

Zimberelimab and domvanalimab are biological products and we may develop additional biological products in the future. We believe that any of our current and future investigational products approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the twelve-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to Congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our investigational products to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, could be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors.

Current wording

BLA should qualify for the twelve-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to Congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our investigational products to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, could be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors.

Previous wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. However, the patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions 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 obtain and enforce patent rights in the future. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. and other countries could increase the uncertainties and costs. For example, in September 2011 the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "America Invents Act") was signed into law and included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law as then existed. 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 America Invents Act, the U.S. 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. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications

Current wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. However, the patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions 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 obtain and enforce patent rights in the future. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. and other countries could increase the uncertainties and costs. For example, in September 2011 the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "America Invents Act") was signed into law and included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law as then existed. 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 America Invents Act, the U.S. 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. However, the America Invents 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 prospects.

Previous wording

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biopharmaceuticals industry depends upon our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled and experienced personnel with scientific, medical, regulatory, manufacturing and management skills and experience. We conduct our operations in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region that is home to many other biopharmaceutical companies as well as many academic and research institutions, resulting in fierce competition for qualified personnel and rapidly increasing wages. Our industry also has experienced a high rate of turnover in recent years. While we have expanded a number of our in-office roles to permit remote work arrangements, allowing us to seek talent from outside the San Francisco Bay Area, we still may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel among biopharmaceutical companies.

Current wording

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biopharmaceuticals industry depends upon our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled and experienced personnel with scientific, medical, regulatory, manufacturing and management skills and experience. We conduct our operations in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region that is home to many other biopharmaceutical companies as well as many academic and research institutions, resulting in fierce competition for qualified personnel and rapidly increasing wages. Our industry also has experienced a high rate of turnover in recent years. While we have expanded a number of our in-office roles to permit remote work arrangements, allowing us to seek talent from outside the San Francisco Bay Area, we still may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel among biopharmaceutical companies. Many of the other biopharmaceutical companies we compete with have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. Our competitors may provide higher compensation, more diverse opportunities and/or better opportunities for career advancement. Any or all of these competing factors may limit our ability to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, which could negatively affect our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our investigational products and to grow our business and operations as currently contemplated.

Previous wording

information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third parties we rely on experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if these third parties fail to satisfy their privacy- or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such an award. In addition, supply chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or our third-party partners’ supply chains have not been compromised.

Current wording

We also have outsourced elements of our operations to third parties, and as a result we manage a number of third-party contractors and other parties who have access to our sensitive information. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third parties we rely on experience a security incident or other interruption, we could experience adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if these third parties fail to satisfy their privacy- or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such an award. In addition, supply chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or our third-party partners’ supply chains have not been compromised.

Previous wording

Both our current and our future unused losses (and tax credit carryforwards) may be subject to further limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "IRC"), if we undergo an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. We performed an analysis under IRC Section 382 and 383 through October 31, 2020 with respect to our NOL and credit carryforwards. We concluded that an ownership change, as defined under IRC Section 382, occurred in previous years, but that such ownership change did not result in the expiration of our NOL or credit carryforwards prior to utilization. We may incur additional ownership changes in the future in connection with any equity issuance, including any additional issuances to Gilead. If we experience any such ownership change, we may be limited in our ability to use our NOL and credit carryforwards and be required to make material cash tax payments.

Current wording

Both our current and our future unused losses (and tax credit carryforwards) may be subject to further limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "IRC"), if we undergo an "ownership change," generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. We performed an analysis under IRC Section 382 and 383 through October 31, 2020 with respect to our NOL and credit carryforwards. We concluded that an ownership change, as defined under IRC Section 382, occurred in previous years, but that such ownership change did not result in the expiration of our NOL or credit carryforwards prior to utilization. We may incur additional ownership changes in the future in connection with any equity issuance. If we experience any such ownership change, we may be limited in our ability to use our NOL and credit carryforwards and be required to make material cash tax payments.

Previous wording

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. We actively monitor legislative and regulatory developments that may affect our tax liability in order to identify and evaluate if such proposals would have a material impact, whether detrimental or beneficial, on our financial results. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminates the option to currently deduct R&D expenditures and requires taxpayers to capitalize and amortize U.S. based and non-U.S. based R&D expenditures over five and fifteen years, respectively, pursuant to IRC Section 174. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued, which could result in an increase in our or our stockholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law.

Current wording

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. We actively monitor legislative and regulatory developments that may affect our tax liability in order to identify and evaluate if such proposals would have a material impact, whether detrimental or beneficial, on our financial results. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, as amended by the statute commonly referred to as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025", eliminate the option to currently deduct non-U.S. R&D expenditures and require taxpayers to capitalize and amortize non-U.S. R&D expenditures over fifteen years. We cannot predict whether, when, in what form, or with what effective dates, tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued, which could result in an increase in our or our stockholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law.

Previous wording

We and third parties upon whom we rely may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection, privacy, and information security laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements, and other obligations. In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC 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 collaborators. 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. While we do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly regulated under HIPAA, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information.

Current wording

We and third parties upon whom we rely may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection, privacy, and information security laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements, and other obligations. In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") 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 collaborators. 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 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). While we do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly regulated under HIPAA, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information.

Previous wording

We may also be subject to new laws governing the privacy of consumer health data. For example, Washington’s My Health My Data Act ("MHMD") broadly defines consumer health data, places restrictions on processing such data (including imposing stringent requirements for consent), provides consumers certain rights with respect to their health data, and creates a private right of action to allow individuals to sue for violations of the law. Other states are considering and may adopt similar laws.

Current wording

(including imposing stringent requirements for consent), provides consumers certain rights with respect to their health data, and creates a private right of action to allow individuals to sue for violations of the law. Other states are considering and may adopt similar laws.

Previous wording

In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the U.S. or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the U.S. and other to countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the U.S. in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant organizations based in the U.S. who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the U.S. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the U.S., or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the U.S., are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations.

Current wording

In the ordinary course of business, we may transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the U.S. or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area ("EEA") and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the U.S. and other to countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the U.S. in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant organizations based in the U.S. who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the U.S. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the U.S., or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the U.S., are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations.

Previous wording

Our operations are subject to various U.S. federal and state health care laws, including fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations, and similar laws in other jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. These laws may impact, among other things, our research and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain the business of financial arrangements and relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the False Claims Act; HIPAA; federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws; the federal transparency requirements under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the "Sunshine Act"); state and foreign law equivalents of each of these federal laws; and state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs. Many of these laws are discussed in detail above under “Item 1. Business—Government Regulation—Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements”.

Current wording

Our operations are subject to various U.S. federal and state health care laws, including fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations, and similar laws in other jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. These laws may impact, among other things, our research and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain the business of financial arrangements and relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the False Claims Act; HIPAA; federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws; the federal transparency requirements under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the "Sunshine Act"); state and foreign law equivalents of each of these federal laws; and state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs. Many of these laws are discussed in detail under "Item 1. Business—Government Regulation—Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 25, 2025.

Previous wording

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of investigational products, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell investigational products for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. Many of these initiatives are discussed in detail above under “Item 1. Business—Government Regulation—Healthcare Reform" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 25, 2025.

Current wording

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of investigational products, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell investigational products for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any product candidates approved for sale. New and changing laws and regulations may also create uncertainty about how such laws and regulations will be interpreted and applied. If we are found to have violated laws and regulations, it could materially adversely affect our business.

Previous wording

Based upon shares outstanding as of March 31, 2025, our executive officers, directors and the holders of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially owned approximately 50.0% of our common stock. In particular, as of March 31, 2025, Gilead owns approximately 29.7% of our outstanding common stock (and has the right to acquire additional shares of our common stock from us to enable it to own up to 35% of our outstanding common stock), and we have appointed its three designees to our board of directors pursuant to the terms of the Investor Rights Agreement. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, will have significant influence over all matters that require approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Corporate actions might be taken even if other stockholders oppose them. This concentration of ownership might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company that other stockholders may view as beneficial.

Current wording

Based upon shares outstanding as of June 30, 2025, our executive officers, directors and the holders of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially owned approximately 55.3% of our common stock. In particular, as of June 30, 2025, Gilead owns approximately 29.5% of our outstanding common stock and we have appointed its three designees to our board of directors pursuant to the terms of the Investor Rights Agreement. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, have significant influence over all matters that require approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Corporate actions might be taken even if other stockholders oppose them. This concentration of ownership might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company that other stockholders may view as beneficial.