Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Previous wording

A trend in the healthcare industry is cost containment. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs by, among other methods, limiting or preventing (for example via prior authorization, prior therapy or step edit requirements) coverage for particular medications, requiring drug companies to provide them with varying levels of discounts from list prices and/or challenging the value of list prices charged for medical products. Similarly, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal, national, and state governments around the world. Coverage decisions may depend upon the size of a patient population, perceptions of clinical efficacy and economic standards that may disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available.

Current wording

A trend in the healthcare industry is cost containment. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs by, among other methods, limiting or preventing (for example via prior authorization, prior therapy or step edit requirements) coverage for particular medications, requiring drug companies to provide them with varying levels of discounts from list prices and/or challenging the value of list prices charged for medical products. Similarly, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal, national, and state governments around the world. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. HHS has also been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven (7) years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. Coverage decisions may depend upon the size of a patient population, perceptions of clinical efficacy and economic standards that may disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available.

Previous wording

We expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. Moreover, in December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, (“HTA”), amending Directive 2011/24/EU (“HTA Regulation”), was adopted in the EU. The Regulation entered into application on January 12, 2025 through a phased implementation. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicines, and providing the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those product candidates in the EU could be negatively affected.

Current wording

We expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. On January 12, 2025, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, amending Directive 2011/24/EU (the “Regulation”), entered into application through a phased implementation. The Regulation initially applies to new active substances for oncology and advanced therapy medicinal products. It will be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028 and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Select high-risk medical devices also came into scope in 2026. It is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicines. The Regulation establishes a framework for joint clinical assessments, increasing cooperation among EU Member States on clinical aspects of health technology evaluation. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those product candidates in the EU could be negatively affected.

Previous wording

In clinical trials of Livmarli in ALGS, the most commonly reported AEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain and vomiting, and were mostly mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature. Additionally, AEs reported in greater than 5% of patients included fat-soluble vitamin deficiency, nausea, liver transaminase increases, and bone fracture. The frequency of observed AEs has not increased over time. In the pivotal trial of Livmarli in PFIC, adverse reactions reported in greater than 5% of patients and greater than placebo included diarrhea, abdominal pain, increased transaminases, hematochezia or rectal hemorrhage, and bone fractures. Prescribing information for Livmarli includes warnings and precautions related to monitoring for and the risk of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal adverse reactions, fat-soluble vitamin deficiency and risk of propylene glycol toxicity (pediatric patients less than 5 years of age). In clinical trials of volixibat, the most common AEs reported were mild to moderate GI events (diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting) observed in the volixibat groups. In the interim analysis of the PBC VANTAGE study, the incidence of diarrhea in patients on volixibat was 77% with all cases mild to moderate; one patient discontinued the study due to an AE of diarrhea. The most common adverse reactions for Cholbam (≥1%) are diarrhea, reflux esophagitis, malaise, jaundice, skin lesion, nausea, abdominal pain, intestinal polyp, urinary tract infection, and peripheral neuropathy. The most common (> 20%) AEs seen in patients on chenodiol in the RESTORE clinical trial included diarrhea, constipation and headache.

Current wording

In clinical trials of Livmarli in ALGS, the most commonly reported AEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain and vomiting, and were mostly mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature. Additionally, AEs reported in greater than 5% of patients included fat-soluble vitamin deficiency, nausea, liver transaminase increases, and bone fracture. The frequency of observed AEs has not increased over time. In the pivotal trial of Livmarli in PFIC, adverse reactions reported in greater than 5% of patients and greater than placebo included diarrhea, abdominal pain, increased transaminases, hematochezia or rectal hemorrhage, and bone fractures. Prescribing information for Livmarli includes warnings and precautions related to monitoring for and the risk of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal adverse reactions, fat-soluble vitamin deficiency and risk of propylene glycol toxicity (pediatric patients less than 5 years of age).

Previous wording

We participate in, or are subject to, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as administered by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and other federal and state government pricing programs in the U.S., and we may participate, or be asked to participate, in additional government pricing programs or supplemental rebates in the future. These programs generally require us to pay rebates or otherwise provide discounts to government payors in connection with drugs that are dispensed to beneficiaries/recipients of these programs. In some cases, such as with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the rebates are based on pricing that we report to the government agencies that administer the programs. Pricing requirements and rebate/discount calculations are complex, vary among products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The requirements of these programs, including, by way of example, their respective terms and scope, change frequently. For example, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer’s price (“AMP”), for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. Responding to current and future changes may increase our costs, and the complexity of compliance will be time consuming. Invoicing for rebates is provided in arrears, and there is frequently a time lag of up to several months between the sales to which rebate notices relate and our receipt of those notices, which further complicates our ability to accurately estimate and accrue for rebates related to the Medicaid program as implemented by individual states. Thus, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all factors that may cause our discount and rebate payment obligations to vary from period to period, and our actual results may differ significantly from our estimated allowances for discounts and rebates. Changes in estimates and assumptions may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Inspector General and other Congressional, enforcement and administrative bodies have recently increased their focus on pricing requirements for products, including, but not limited to the methodologies used by manufacturers to calculate AMP, and best price, for compliance with reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, several states have a practice of asking, or are increasing activity in requesting supplemental rebates, for covered products. We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data and for any overcharging of government payors. For example, failure to submit monthly/quarterly AMP and best price data on a timely basis could result in significant civil mo…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We participate in, or are subject to, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, as administered by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and other federal and state government pricing programs in the U.S., and we may participate, or be asked to participate, in additional government pricing programs or supplemental rebates in the future. These programs generally require us to pay rebates or otherwise provide discounts to government payors in connection with drugs that are dispensed to beneficiaries/recipients of these programs. In some cases, such as with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the rebates are based on pricing that we report to the government agencies that administer the programs. Pricing requirements and rebate/discount calculations are complex, vary among products and programs, and are often subject to interpretation by governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. The requirements of these programs, including, by way of example, their respective terms and scope, change frequently. For example, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminated the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer’s price (“AMP”), for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024. Responding to current and future changes may increase our costs, and the complexity of compliance will be time consuming. Invoicing for rebates is provided in arrears, and there is frequently a time lag of up to several months between the sales to which rebate notices relate and our receipt of those notices, which further complicates our ability to accurately estimate and accrue for rebates related to the Medicaid program as implemented by individual states. Thus, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all factors that may cause our discount and rebate payment obligations to vary from period to period, and our actual results may differ significantly from our estimated allowances for discounts and rebates. Changes in estimates and assumptions may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the HHS Office of Inspector General and other Congressional, enforcement and administrative bodies have recently increased their focus on pricing requirements for products, including, but not limited to the methodologies used by manufacturers to calculate AMP, and best price, for compliance with reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Additionally, several states have a practice of asking, or are increasing activity in requesting supplemental rebates, for covered products. We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data and for any overcharging of government payors. For example, failure to submit monthly/quarterly AMP and best price data on a timely basis could result in significant civil monetary penalties for each day the submission is …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Any regulatory approvals that we receive may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including post-market studies or clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor safety and effectiveness. The FDA may also require a REMS in order to approve a product candidate, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Similarly, the European Commission may require a RMP in order to collect additional information on a medicine’s safety profile which may include plans for pharmacovigilance activities and measures to minimize risks. In addition, if the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve a product candidate, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, post-marketing obligations, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for the approved product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. For example, we are subject to ongoing FDA and European Commission obligations and continued regulatory review with respect to, among other things, the manufacturing, processing, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for Livmarli, which requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, as well as continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) requirements and with the FDA’s and equivalent foreign good clinical practice (“GCP”). We are also subject to post-marketing obligations for Cholbam including the conduct and submission of registry studies.

Current wording

Any regulatory approvals that we receive may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including post-market studies or clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor safety and effectiveness. The FDA may also require a REMS in order to approve a product candidate, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Similarly, the European Commission may require a RMP in order to collect additional information on a medicine’s safety profile which may include plans for pharmacovigilance activities and measures to minimize risks. In addition, if the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve a product candidate, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, post-marketing obligations, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for the approved product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. For example, we are subject to ongoing FDA and European Commission obligations and continued regulatory review with respect to, among other things, the manufacturing, processing, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for Livmarli, which requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, as well as continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) requirements and with the FDA’s and equivalent foreign good clinical practice (“GCP”).

Previous wording

We are subject to various FDA and EU post-marketing requirements across our approved medicines, including the conduct and submission of non-clinical, clinical and registry studies and the FDA’s and EU’s prohibition against marketing medicines in uses that are not approved. These and similar requirements could be imposed by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any approved product.

Current wording

We are subject to various FDA and EU post-marketing requirements across our approved medicines, including the conduct and submission of registry studies and the FDA’s and EU’s prohibition against marketing medicines in uses that are not approved. These and similar requirements could be imposed by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any approved product.

Previous wording

The FDA’s, European Commission’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval for our product candidates or restrict marketing of any then-approved product. 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 would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in April 2023 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. In April 2024, the Parliament adopted its related position and in June 2025, the European Council agreed on its position. The Council, the Parliament and the European Commission have begun trilogue negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement on the package. Regulatory exclusivities are a key topic of the negotiations. A decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU could make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.

Current wording

The FDA’s, European Commission’s and comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval for our product candidates or restrict marketing of any then-approved product. 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 would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

We may pursue approval in the U.S., Canada or certain countries in Europe using accelerated, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval pathways, which typically require commitments to complete additional clinical trials. The additional clinical trials may not confirm the treatment effect, which may result in the loss of marketing authorization under accelerated approval, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval.

Current wording

We may pursue approval in the U.S., Canada or certain countries in Europe using accelerated, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval pathways, which typically require commitments to complete additional clinical trials. The additional clinical trials may not confirm the treatment effect, which may result in the loss of marketing authorization under accelerated approval, exceptional circumstances or conditional approval. For example, the 24-week endpoint for the AZURE-1 and AZURE-4 trials is meant to enable accelerated approval of brelovitug for the treatment of chronic HDV infection. We expect that if approved, confirmatory studies will be required for full approval. Such confirmatory studies may not show the same clinical benefit as the studies that lead to accelerated approval.

Previous wording

Our clinical trials may not be successful and may not be completed on time or at all, and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials. For example, in certain of our ongoing clinical trials, the primary efficacy endpoint is a patient-reported outcome or a caregiver-reported outcome measuring the decrease in severity of pruritus. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept such patient-reported outcomes or caregiver-reported outcomes as validated. If modifications are needed for our study design to support the submission of an application for marketing approval, incorporating such modifications may be costly and could lead to delays in obtaining approval from the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which may significantly, adversely and materially affect our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Further, even if we make changes to the study design to address these considerations, the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve our product candidates.

Current wording

Our clinical trials may not be successful and may not be completed on time or at all, and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials. For example, in certain of our ongoing clinical trials, the primary efficacy endpoint is a patient-reported outcome or a caregiver-reported outcome measuring the decrease in severity of pruritus. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept such patient-reported outcomes or caregiver-reported outcomes as validated. We only recently acquired brelovitug, and all clinical development prior to the closing of the Bluejay Acquisition was conducted by other sponsors. If modifications are needed for our study design to support the submission of an application for marketing approval, incorporating such modifications may be costly and could lead to delays in obtaining approval from the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which may significantly, adversely and materially affect our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Further, even if we make changes to the study design to address these considerations, the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve our product candidates.

Previous wording

For example, each indication for which we are evaluating Livmarli and volixibat is a rare cholestatic liver disease with limited patient populations from which to draw participants in clinical trials. We will be required to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients with the disease under investigation for each of our ongoing and planned clinical trials of Livmarli and volixibat. Potential patients may not be adequately diagnosed or identified with the diseases which we are targeting or may not meet the entry criteria for our trials. In addition, patients may ultimately decide not to enroll in a particular clinical trial for reasons outside of our control. We may seek to conduct clinical trials in countries in which we have not previously conducted trials for our product candidates and in which we have not yet worked with the competent regulatory authorities. As a result, we could face patient recruitment issues in certain countries where such foreign regulatory authorities are not familiar with our product candidates. Additionally, other pharmaceutical companies targeting the same cholestatic liver diseases are recruiting clinical trial patients from these patient populations, and have expanded access programs available, which have delayed enrollment in our clinical trials. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our current or future clinical trials would result in significant delays. As a result, we may need to delay the completion of such trials beyond our expected timelines or abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

Current wording

For example, each indication for which we are evaluating Livmarli, volixibat, and brelovitug is a rare liver disease with limited patient populations from which to draw participants in clinical trials. We will be required to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients with the disease under investigation for each of our ongoing and planned clinical trials of Livmarli, volixibat, and brelovitug. Potential patients may not be adequately diagnosed or identified with the diseases which we are targeting or may not meet the entry criteria for our trials. In addition, patients may ultimately decide not to enroll in a particular clinical trial for reasons outside of our control. We may seek to conduct clinical trials in countries in which we have not previously conducted trials for our product candidates and in which we have not yet worked with the competent regulatory authorities. As a result, we could face patient recruitment issues in certain countries where such foreign regulatory authorities are not familiar with our product candidates. Additionally, other pharmaceutical companies targeting the same liver diseases are recruiting clinical trial patients from these patient populations, and have expanded access programs available, which have delayed enrollment in our clinical trials. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our current or future clinical trials would result in significant delays. As a result, we may need to delay the completion of such trials beyond our expected timelines or abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

Previous wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of a product candidate, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that a product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Our clinical trials have in the past and could in the future fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target indication. For example, in December 2023, we announced that our Phase 2b EMBARK clinical trial evaluating Livmarli in patients with biliary atresia (“BA”) did not meet its primary or key secondary endpoints. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. In the case of our product candidates, we are seeking to develop treatments for rare diseases for which there is limited clinical experience, and our planned clinical trials use novel end points and measurement methodologies, which add complexity to the conduct of and analysis of data from our clinical trials and may delay or prevent regulatory approval.

Current wording

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of a product candidate, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that a product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Our clinical trials have in the past and could in the future fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target indication. For example, in December 2023, we announced that our Phase 2b EMBARK clinical trial evaluating Livmarli in patients with biliary atresia (“BA”) did not meet its primary or key secondary endpoints. For example, although brelovitug is being evaluated in the Phase 3 AZURE program for HDV, there can be no assurance that results will be positive or that we will be able to submit a BLA on the basis of these results. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. In the case of our product candidates, we are seeking to develop treatments for rare diseases for which there is limited clinical experience, and our planned clinical trials use novel end points and measurement methodologies, which add complexity to the conduct of and analysis of data from our clinical trials and may delay or prevent regulatory approval.

Previous wording

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the U.S. or internationally, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from non-clinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the non-clinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program. If we were required to conduct such additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not agree with our interpretation of the results and we may not receive approval for our product candidates or additional indications, or marketing of our approved medicines may be subject to additional requirements.

Current wording

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the U.S. or internationally, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from non-clinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the non-clinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, we recently announced positive results from our Phase 2b VISTAS clinical trial of volixibat in PSC. We plan to submit these data to the FDA and other regulatory authorities for approval of volixibat for the treatment of pruritus due to PSC, but regulatory authorities may not agree with our interpretation of the safety or efficacy data from the study and may not grant approval. In addition, while the NDA for zilurgisertib is supported by secondary endpoints, the pivotal study did not reach statistical significance on the primary endpoint. The FDA may determine that the clinical data for zilurgisertib is not sufficient to approve the NDA for the program. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program. If we were required to conduct such additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not agree with our interpretation of the results and we may not receive approval for our product candidates or additional indications, or marketing of our approved medicines may be subject to additional requirements.

Previous wording

We plan to acquire rights to develop and commercialize product candidates in addition to our current approved medicines and our current product candidates. If we decide to pursue the development and commercialization of any additional product candidates, we may be required to invest significant resources to acquire or in-license the rights to such product candidates or to conduct drug discovery activities. We do not currently have the necessary drug discovery personnel or expertise adequate to discover and develop an additional product candidate on our own. Any other product candidates will require additional, time-consuming development efforts, and significant financial resources, prior to commercial sale, including preclinical studies, extensive clinical trials and approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and/or effective for approval by regulatory authorities. Because we have limited financial and personnel resources, we focus on specific product candidates for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. We may focus our efforts and resources on product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

Current wording

We plan to acquire rights to develop and commercialize product candidates in addition to our current approved medicines and our current product candidates. If we decide to pursue the development and commercialization of any additional product candidates, we may be required to invest significant resources to acquire or in-license the rights to such product candidates or to conduct drug discovery activities. We currently have limited drug discovery personnel or expertise, which may be inadequate to discover and develop an additional product candidate on our own. Any other product candidates will require additional, time-consuming development efforts, and significant financial resources, prior to commercial sale, including preclinical studies, extensive clinical trials and approval by the FDA, European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and/or effective for approval by regulatory authorities. Because we have limited financial and personnel resources, we focus on specific product candidates for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. We may focus our efforts and resources on product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

Previous wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effectiveness in the targeted indication or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. While we have three medicines approved for commercial sale, we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred substantial net losses since our inception in May 2018. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, we reported a net loss of $17.6 million and $64.2 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $661.8 million.

Current wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effectiveness in the targeted indication or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. While we have three medicines approved for commercial sale, we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred substantial net losses since our inception in May 2018. For the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, we reported a net loss of $790.2 million and $14.7 million, respectively. As of March 31, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.5 billion.

Previous wording

If the size of the market opportunities in each of our target indications or for any assets or product candidates that we may acquire, such as the Bile Acid Medicines, is smaller than we anticipate, we may not be able to achieve profitability and growth. We focus the clinical development and commercialization of our approved medicines on rare diseases with relatively small patient populations. Given the small number of patients who have the diseases that we are targeting, it is critical to our ability to grow and become profitable that we continue to successfully identify patients with these rare diseases. In addition, our estimates of the patient populations for our target indications have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, and market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Lastly, the potentially addressable patient population for any of our potential indications may even be further reduced if gene therapy products become more widely accepted and approved.

Current wording

If the size of the market opportunities in each of our target indications or for any assets or product candidates that we may acquire, such as brelovitug and the Bile Acid Medicines, is smaller than we anticipate, we may not be able to achieve profitability and growth. We focus the clinical development and commercialization of our approved medicines on rare diseases with relatively small patient populations. Given the small number of patients who have the diseases that we are targeting, it is critical to our ability to grow and become profitable that we continue to successfully identify patients with these rare diseases. In addition, our estimates of the patient populations for our target indications have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, and market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Lastly, the potentially addressable patient population for any of our potential indications may even be further reduced if gene therapy products become more widely accepted and approved.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA, European Commission, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary regulatory authorities, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including beginning on October 1, 2025 and continuing to the present, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities to the extent they are not funded by existing available user fees. Repeated or prolonged government shutdowns or global health concerns could prevent the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities and could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, European Commission, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the current U.S. administration has enacted substantial reductions in force at various U.S. government agencies that, if applied to the FDA in a material way, could significantly reduce the FDA’s capacity to perform its functions in a manner consistent with its past practices and could negatively impact our business.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA, European Commission, EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary regulatory authorities, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities to the extent they are not funded by existing available user fees. Repeated or prolonged government shutdowns or global health concerns could prevent the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities and could significantly impact the ability of the FDA, European Commission, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the current U.S. administration has enacted substantial reductions in force at various U.S. government agencies that, if applied to the FDA in a material way, could significantly reduce the FDA’s capacity to perform its functions in a manner consistent with its past practices and could negatively impact our business.

Previous wording

There have also been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”) was enacted in the U.S. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to our potential product candidates, the Affordable Care Act: established an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs and biologic agents; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; creates a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program; established a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Current wording

There have also been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”) was enacted in the U.S., which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers.

Previous wording

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On July 4, 2025, the OBBBA was signed into law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. The OBBBA also narrows access to Affordable Care Act marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. Further, through the process created by the Budget Control Act of 2011,there are automatic reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, previously set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, effective January 1, 2024.

Current wording

There have been amendments and executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”) was signed into law, which narrowed access to Affordable Care Act marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired Affordable Care Act subsidies. Any of these measures could reduce the number of insured individuals in the U.S. and thereby reduce access to reimbursement for our commercial medicines.

Previous wording

We expect that the Affordable Care Act, the IRA and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from third-party payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our approved medicines and our product candidates, if approved. Further, the overall funding of certain government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare is uncertain and there is no guarantee that funds approved by the U.S. Congress will be made available by the current administration. The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions include, for example, (1) directives to reduce agency workforce; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establish an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans; and (7) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission's recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In September 2025, the current administration announced the first agreement with a major pharmaceutical company that requires the drug manufacturer to offer, through a direct to consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of f…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct to consumer platform (sometimes referred to as “TrumpRx”), U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions, for example, include (1) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the

Previous wording

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions who are active in rare disease. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, drug products that are more effective or less costly than our product candidates, which may negatively affect our commercial opportunities. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of dosing, price and reimbursement. There may also be competitors for our product candidates that we are unaware of at this point. Additionally, while our product candidates and approved medicines are generally protected for a defined period per jurisdiction by various patents, the loss of patent or regulatory exclusivity for our pharmaceutical products may open such products to competition from generic substitutes that are typically priced significantly lower than the original products. The introduction of generic versions of a pharmaceutical product frequently leads to a swift and substantial decline in the sales of the original product. Our continued innovation efforts cannot fully mitigate the impact of competition from generics.

Current wording

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, generic pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions who are active in rare disease. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, drug products that are more effective or less costly than our product candidates, which may negatively affect our commercial opportunities. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of dosing, price and reimbursement. There may also be competitors for our product candidates that we are unaware of at this point. Additionally, while our product candidates and approved medicines are generally protected for a defined period per jurisdiction by various patents, the loss of patent or regulatory exclusivity for our pharmaceutical products may open such products to competition from generic substitutes that are typically priced significantly lower than the original products. The introduction of generic versions of a pharmaceutical product frequently leads to a swift and substantial decline in the sales of the original product. Our continued innovation efforts cannot fully mitigate the impact of competition from generics.

Previous wording

We are aware of two other companies pursuing clinical development of therapies that reduce sBA levels via the IBAT pathway. GlaxoSmithKline plc (“GSK”) and Ipsen have IBATis in clinical development for cholestatic liver diseases.

Current wording

We are aware of two other companies pursuing clinical development and commercialization of therapies that reduce sBA levels via the IBAT pathway. Ipsen has an IBATis in clinical development for cholestatic liver disease and Alfasigma has acquired the worldwide exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize linerixibat, an IBATi previously developed by GSK.

Previous wording

We are aware Ipsen has received approval for odevixibat (Bylvay) for the treatment of pruritus in patients with PFIC 3 months of age and older, and cholestatic pruritus in patients with ALGS 12 months of age and older, in the U.S., and for the treatment of PFIC in patients 6 months of age and older in the EU and for odevixibat (Kayfanda) for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in ALGS in patients 6 months of age and older. In the EU, Bylvay and Kayfanda are authorized under exceptional circumstances. Ipsen has opened enrollment in their ALGS open-label extension study to infants 11 months or younger and is also conducting a study of odevixibat in BA and plans to pursue other cholestatic liver diseases. GSK announced in November 2024 that the Phase 3 GLISTEN trial with linerixibat in PBC met its primary pruritus endpoint and that GSK has submitted a marketing applications to the U.S. and EU in the first half of 2025 with potential approvals expected in the first half of 2026.

Current wording

We are aware Ipsen has received approval for odevixibat (Bylvay) for the treatment of pruritus in patients with PFIC and cholestatic pruritus in patients with ALGS in the U.S., and for the treatment of PFIC in the EU and for odevixibat (Kayfanda) for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in ALGS. In the EU, Bylvay and Kayfanda are authorized under exceptional circumstances. Ipsen has opened enrollment in their ALGS open-label extension study to infants 11 months or younger and is also conducting a study of odevixibat in biliary atresia and plans to pursue other cholestatic liver diseases. We are aware Alfasigma has received FDA approval for linerixibat (Lynavoy) for the treatment of pruritus in PBC and that marketing applications have been submitted to the EU and other health authorities with potential approvals expected in 2026.

Previous wording

Other off-label medications are also used in ALGS, PFIC, PSC and PBC for cholestatic pruritus such as Ursodeoxycholic acid (“UDCA”), cholestyramine and other bile salt resins, rifampin, naltrexone and other agents, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Despite the lack of FDA approval, these older, generic agents are perceived as part of the standard of care for treating ALGS, PFIC, PSC and PBC patients suffering from cholestatic pruritus. Further, we may compete with companies that are developing gene therapy for the treatment of PFIC. Additionally, surgical interventions, such as partial external biliary diversion and nasobiliary drainage, and extracorporeal liver support, such as Molecular Adsorbent Recirculation System, are also employed in an attempt to lower bile acid levels, manage pruritus and improve measures of liver function.

Current wording

Other off-label medications are also used in ALGS, PFIC, PSC and PBC for cholestatic pruritus such as Ursodeoxycholic acid (“UDCA”), cholestyramine and other bile salt resins, rifampin, naltrexone and other agents, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Further, we may compete with companies that are developing gene therapy for the treatment of PFIC. Additionally, surgical interventions, such as partial external biliary diversion and nasobiliary drainage, and extracorporeal liver support, such as Molecular Adsorbent Recirculation System, are also employed in an attempt to lower bile acid levels, manage pruritus and improve measures of liver function.

Previous wording

In adult settings of cholestasis, similar to pediatric settings, cholestyramine, UDCA, rifampin and naltrexone are commonly used agents. We are aware that Alfasigma S.p.’s (formerly Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) Ocaliva, Gilead Science’s Livdelzi, and Ipsen’s Iqirvo are approved as a second-line treatment for PBC in patients with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PBC including Alfasigma’s Ocaliva and bezafibrate, Zydus Therapeutics Inc.’s saroglitazar magnesium, Calliditas Therapeutics AB’s setanaxib, COUR Pharmaceuticals’ CNP-104, Ascletis Pharma’s ASC42, Umecrine Cognition’s golexanolone, Kowa Company Ltd’s K-808, HighTide Therapeutics Inc.’s HTD-1801, Hepagene Therapeutics Inc’s HPG-1860, Tharimmune Inc’s TH-104, Cascade Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s CS-0159, and GSK’s linerixibat, another IBATi.

Current wording

In adult settings of cholestasis, similar to pediatric settings, cholestyramine, UDCA, rifampin and naltrexone are commonly used agents. We are aware that Alfasigma S.p.’s (formerly Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) Ocaliva, Gilead Science’s Livdelzi, and Ipsen’s Iqirvo are approved as a second-line treatment for PBC in patients with inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PBC including Alfasigma’s Ocaliva and bezafibrate, Zydus Therapeutics Inc.’s saroglitazar magnesium, Calliditas Therapeutics AB’s setanaxib, COUR Pharmaceuticals’ CNP-104, Umecrine Cognition’s golexanolone, Kowa Company Ltd’s K-808, HighTide Therapeutics Inc.’s HTD-1801, Hepagene Therapeutics Inc.’s HPG-1860, Tharimmune Inc.’s TH-104, Cascade Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s CS-0159, and GSK’s linerixibat, another IBATi.

Previous wording

We are not aware of FDA or European Commission approved therapeutics for the treatment of PSC. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PSC, including Dr. Falk Pharma's Norucholic acid, HighTide Therapeutics Inc.’s HTD1801, Alfasigma’s Ocaliva, or obeticholic acid, Ipsen’s elafibranor and ritivixibat, NGM Biopharmaceuticals Inc.’s NGM282, Chemomab Therapeutics Ltd.’s CM-101, Cascade Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s CS-0159, and LISCure Biosciences Inc.’s LB-P8.

Current wording

We are not aware of FDA or European Commission approved therapeutics for the treatment of PSC. We are aware of several agents in clinical development for the treatment of PSC, including Dr. Falk Pharma's Norucholic acid, HighTide Therapeutics Inc.’s HTD-1801, Alfasigma’s Ocaliva, or obeticholic acid, Ipsen’s elafibranor and ritivixibat, NGM Biopharmaceuticals Inc.’s NGM282, Chemomab Therapeutics Ltd.’s CM-101, Cascade Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s CS-0159, LISCure Biosciences Inc.’s LB-P8, Halo Biosciences Inc.’s HB-1614, ProQR Therapeutics N.V.’s AX-0810, Rectify Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s RTY-694 and Pliant Therapeutics’ bexotegrast.

Previous wording

There are currently no FDA-approved treatments in the U.S. that compete with Cholbam. There are other approved cholic acid products available outside of the U.S. and Laboratoires CTRS has received approval from the EMA for a version of cholic acid.

Current wording

There are other approved chenodeoxycholic acid products available outside of the U.S. Both Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH and Leadiant Biosciences, Inc. have FDA Orphan Drug Designations granted for the treatment of CTX (granted in 2004 and 2007, respectively), and we believe that Leadiant Biosciences, based on publicly available information, may be conducting a clinical study in CTX. There are currently no FDA-approved treatments in the U.S. that compete with Cholbam. There are other approved cholic acid products available outside of the U.S. and Laboratoires CTRS has received approval from the EMA for a version of cholic acid.

Previous wording

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an ANDA seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved innovator product or an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) that relies on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness in approving the innovator product. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. Certain of our approved medicines, including Chenodal, Ctexli and Cholbam, are or may be subject to immediate competition from compounded and generic entrants, as the ANDA and NDA for these drug products have no remaining or current patent or non-patent exclusivity.

Current wording

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may file an ANDA seeking approval of a generic copy of an approved innovator product or an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) that relies on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness in approving the innovator product. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA may be for a new or improved version of the original innovator product. Certain of our approved medicines, including Ctexli and Cholbam, are or may be subject to immediate competition from compounded and generic entrants, as the ANDA and NDA for these drug products have no remaining or current patent or non-patent exclusivity although Ctexli does have orphan designation for the CTX indication. Further, as described in more detail in this Part II, Item 1A and Part II, Item 1 appearing elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we have initiated litigation against certain parties alleging infringement of certain “Orange Book” listed patents covering LIVMARLI in accordance with the procedures set out in the Hatch-Waxman Act following the submission by such parties of ANDAs directed to generic versions of LIVMARLI. We cannot make any predictions about the final outcome of these matters or the timing thereof.

Previous wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. In the EU, the European Commission, on the basis of the opinion of the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”), grants orphan drug designation for medicines to be developed for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of diseases that are life-threatening or chronically debilitating, for which either no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment exists, or if such method exists, the medicine is of significant benefit to those affected by such condition. To benefit from such designation, either the prevalence of such condition must not be more than five in 10,000 people across the EU or, if more prevalent, it must be unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development. In September 2013, the FDA granted orphan drug status to Livmarli for the treatment of patients with PFIC and ALGS in the U.S. We also received orphan drug designation for Livmarli for PFIC and ALGS in the EU. In 2025, the FDA and COMP granted orphan drug designation for volixibat for PBC and PSC. The FDA granted orphan drug designation for chenodiol for the treatment of CTX in 2010. Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug may be entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the European Commission from approving another marketing application for the same drug (or, in the case of the European Commission, a similar drug) for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU, which may be extended by six months and two years, respectively, in the case of product candidates that have complied with the respective regulatory authority’s agreed upon pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). There is, however, a legislative proposal pending in the EU that may modify the length of orphan market exclusivity, change the way in which market exclusivity is awarded to drugs with more than one approved orphan indication. The exclusivity period in the EU can be reduced to six years if at the end of the fifth year a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or a patient population of greater than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. In the EU, the European Commission, on the basis of the opinion of the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”), grants orphan drug designation for medicines to be developed for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of diseases that are life-threatening or chronically debilitating, for which either no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment exists, or if such method exists, the medicine is of significant benefit to those affected by such condition. To benefit from such designation, either the prevalence of such condition must not be more than five in 10,000 people across the EU or, if more prevalent, it must be unlikely that the marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development. In September 2013, the FDA granted orphan drug status to Livmarli for the treatment of patients with PFIC and ALGS in the U.S. We also received orphan drug designation for Livmarli for PFIC and ALGS in the EU. In 2025, the FDA and COMP granted orphan drug designation for volixibat for PBC and PSC. The FDA granted orphan drug designation for chenodiol for the treatment of CTX in 2010. COMP granted orphan drug designation for brelovitug for hepatitis D virus infection in 2024. Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug may be entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the European Commission from approving another marketing application for the same drug (or, in the case of the European Commission, a similar drug) for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU, which may be extended by six months and two years, respectively, in the case of product candidates that have complied with the respective regulatory authority’s agreed upon pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”). There is, however, a legislative proposal pending in the EU that may modify the length of orphan market exclusivity, change the way in which market exclusivity is awarded to drugs with more than one approved orphan indication. The exclusivity period in the EU can be reduced to six years if at the end of the fifth year a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable s…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Any of our existing relationships or any future relationships we enter into may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for volixibat because it may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort, and third parties may not view volixibat as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If we license products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. Following a strategic transaction or license, we may not achieve the revenues or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Any of our existing relationships or any future relationships we enter into may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near- and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. If we license products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. Following a strategic transaction or license, we may not achieve the revenues or specific net income that justifies such transaction. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Although a substantial amount of our efforts are focused on the clinical development, potential regulatory approval and commercialization of our approved medicines and product candidates, a key element of our long-term strategy is to in-license, acquire, develop, market and commercialize a portfolio of products to treat patients with rare diseases. Because we do not have the necessary internal research and development capabilities, unless we build such capabilities internally, we will be dependent upon pharmaceutical companies, academic scientists and other researchers to sell or license products or technology to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify and select promising biopharmaceutical product candidates and products, negotiate licensing or acquisition agreements with their current owners and finance these arrangements. The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate or approved product is lengthy and complex. Other companies, including some with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales and other resources, may compete with us for the license or acquisition of product candidates and approved medicines. We have limited resources to identify and execute the acquisition or in-licensing of third-party products, businesses and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential acquisitions or licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts. We may not be able to acquire the rights to additional approved medicines or product candidates on terms that we find acceptable, or at all. Further, any product candidate that we acquire may require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical or clinical testing and approval by the FDA, the European Commission and other similar regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure during biopharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, any approved medicines that we acquire may not have the market potential we believe, be manufactured or sold profitably, or achieve market acceptance.

Current wording

Although a substantial amount of our efforts are focused on the clinical development, potential regulatory approval and commercialization of our approved medicines and product candidates, a key element of our long-term strategy is to in-license, acquire, develop, market and commercialize a portfolio of products to treat patients with rare diseases. Because we do not have the necessary internal research and development capabilities, unless we build such capabilities internally, we will be dependent upon pharmaceutical companies, academic scientists and other researchers to sell or license products or technology to us. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify and select promising biopharmaceutical product candidates and products, negotiate licensing or acquisition agreements with their current owners and finance these arrangements. The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate or approved product is lengthy and complex. Other companies, including some with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales and other resources, may compete with us for the license or acquisition of product candidates and approved medicines. We have limited resources to identify and execute the acquisition or in-licensing of third-party products, businesses and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential acquisitions or licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts. We may not be able to acquire the rights to additional approved medicines or product candidates on terms that we find acceptable, or at all. Further, any product candidate that we acquire may require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical or clinical testing and approval by the FDA, the European Commission and other similar regulatory authorities. For example, we are conducting the Phase 3 AZURE program for brelovitug to treat chronic HDV infection before we can seek approval by the competent regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure during biopharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, any approved medicines that we acquire may not have the market potential we believe, be manufactured or sold profitably, or achieve market acceptance.

Previous wording

We believe that there are significant benefits that may be realized from the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or any other product or product candidate acquisition. For example, the full benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition, including the anticipated financial contribution of newly acquired assets, may not be realized as expected, may be diminished due to competition or may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Bile Acid Portfolio Acquisition or any other product or product candidate acquisition, could adversely affect our results of operations or cash flows, divert needed resources away from our current approved medicines and product candidates, decrease or delay any accretive effect of an acquisition and negatively impact the price of our common stock.

Current wording

We believe that there are significant benefits that may be realized from the Bluejay Acquisition or any other product or product candidate acquisition. For example, the full benefits of the Bluejay Acquisition, including the anticipated financial contribution of newly acquired assets or businesses, may not be realized as expected, may be diminished due to competition or may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame, or at all. Failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of either the Bluejay Acquisition or any other product or product candidate acquisition, could adversely affect our results of operations or cash flows, divert needed resources away from our current approved medicines and product candidates, decrease or delay any accretive effect of an acquisition and negatively impact the price of our common stock.

Previous wording

We may not be able to integrate the acquired assets successfully. We have hired additional employees as part of the transaction and may not successfully integrate or deploy them for commercialization of the acquired Bile Acid Medicines. We have transferred and entered into new contracts for a number of vendors that support the manufacture and distribution of the acquired assets and there are several services still being provided by Travere after the transition services agreement expired. If we fail to successfully integrate the acquired assets, our results of operations could be adversely affected. The integration process will continue to require significant time and resources, require significant attention from management and may disrupt the ordinary functioning of our business, and we may not be able to manage the process successfully, which could harm our business.

Current wording

We may not be able to integrate our acquired products and product candidates successfully. We have transferred and entered into new contracts for a number of vendors that support the manufacture and distribution of the acquired assets. We acquired all of Bluejay in the Bluejay Acquisition, including many of its employees, contracts and the operations of Bluejay. If we do not successfully integrate those employees, continue the operations and maintain the existing contractual relationships, we may fail to successfully develop brelovitug. If we fail to successfully integrate our acquired commercial products and product candidates, our results of operations could be adversely affected. The integration processes will continue to require significant time and resources, require significant attention from management and may disrupt the ordinary functioning of our business, and we may not be able to manage the processes successfully, which could harm our business.

Previous wording

As of September 30, 2025, we had 355 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional development, managerial, operational, financial, sales, marketing and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Current wording

As of March 31, 2026, we had 418 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional development, managerial, operational, financial, sales, marketing and other personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Previous wording

We may also be subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope. For example, we may be subject to the following: state and foreign anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers, or that apply regardless of payor; state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state and foreign laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, or drug pricing; state and local laws requiring the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws, such as the EU’s and the United Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulations (respectively, the “EU GDPR” and “UK GDPR”, together, the “GDPR”) governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Current wording

We may also be subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope. For example, we may be subject to the following: state and foreign anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers, or that apply regardless of payor; state and local laws that require certain regulatory licenses to manufacture or distribute our products commercially and/or the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; state and foreign laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state and foreign laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, or drug pricing; and state and foreign laws, such as the EU’s and the United Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulations (respectively, the “EU GDPR” and “UK GDPR”, together, the “GDPR”) governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Previous wording

Our data processing activities subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts, and other obligations that govern the processing of personal data by us and on our behalf. In the U.S., federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Additionally, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM”) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) imposes specific requirements on communications with customers. In particular, the TCPA imposes various consumer consent requirements and other restrictions relating to marketing to individuals using technology such as telephones, mobile devices, and text messages. TCPA violations can result in significant financial penalties, including penalties or criminal fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or fines of up to $1,500 per violation imposed through private litigation or by state authorities.

Current wording

Our data processing activities subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts, and other obligations that govern the processing of personal data by us and on our behalf. In the U.S., federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable protected health information. Additionally, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM”) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) impose specific requirements on communications with customers. In particular, the TCPA imposes various consumer consent requirements and other restrictions relating to marketing to individuals using technology such as telephones, mobile devices, and text messages. TCPA violations can result in significant financial penalties, including penalties or criminal fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or fines of up to $1,500 per violation imposed through private litigation or by state authorities.

Previous wording

Outside the U.S., an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards apply to data privacy and security. For example, the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR (together “GDPR”), Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, or “LGPD”) (Law No. 13,709/2018), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act (“PIPEDA”) and China’s Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) impose strict requirements for processing personal data, and violators of these laws may face significant penalties.

Current wording

Outside the U.S., an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards apply to data privacy and security. For example, the GDPR, Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, or “LGPD”) (Law No. 13,709/2018), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act (“PIPEDA”) and China’s Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) impose strict requirements for processing personal data, and violators of these laws may face significant penalties.

Previous wording

In the ordinary course of business, we transfer personal data from Europe (including from our European subsidiaries) 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 countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and/or 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 U.S.-based organizations 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 limitations of our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and/or elsewhere, 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 (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer personal data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and/or injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data to recipients outside Europe for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. For example, in May 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission determined that a major social media company’s use of the standard contractual clauses to transfer personal data from Europe to the U. S. was insufficient and levied a 1.2 billion Euro fine against the company and prohibited the company from transferring personal data to the U.S. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data to recipients outside of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the U.S., are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants and activist groups. Regulators in the U.S. such as the Department of Justice are also increasingly scrutinizing certain personal data tran…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In the ordinary course of business, we transfer personal data from Europe (including from our European subsidiaries) 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 countries whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and/or 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 U.S.-based organizations 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 limitations of our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and/or elsewhere, 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 (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer personal data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and/or injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data to recipients outside Europe for allegedly violating the EU GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. For example, in May 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission determined that a major social media company’s use of the standard contractual clauses to transfer personal data from Europe to the U.S. was insufficient and levied a 1.2 billion Euro fine against the company and prohibited the company from transferring personal data to the U.S. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data to recipients outside of the EEA and/or UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the U.S., are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants and activist groups.

Previous wording

In addition, we are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. Additionally, some of our customer contracts require us to host personal data locally. We also publish privacy policies, marketing materials and other statements, such as statements related to compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, concerning artificial intelligence, data privacy and security. Regulators in the United States may scrutinize these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to adverse consequences.

Current wording

We are also bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. Additionally, some of our customer contracts require us to host personal data locally. We publish privacy policies, marketing materials and other statements, such as statements related to compliance with certain certifications or self-regulatory principles, concerning artificial intelligence, data privacy and security. Regulators in the U.S. may scrutinize these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to adverse consequences.

Previous wording

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumers’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf.

Current wording

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and individuals’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf.

Previous wording

Our, or the third parties with whom we work, actual or perceived failure to adequately comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to privacy and data protection, or to protect personal data and other data we process or maintain, could result in adverse consequences, including regulatory fines and bans on processing personal data, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar), litigation (including class action claims), mass arbitration demands, and other liabilities, claims for damages by affected individuals, orders to destroy or not use personal data, imprisonment of company officials, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight, interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials), and damage to our reputation. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects, including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our approved medicines; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations.

Current wording

If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to adequately comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to privacy and data protection, or to protect personal data and other data we process or maintain, we could face adverse consequences, including regulatory fines and bans on processing personal data, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar), litigation (including class action claims), mass arbitration demands, and other liabilities, orders to destroy or not use personal data, imprisonment of company officials, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight, interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials), and damage to our reputation. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects, including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our approved medicines; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or substantial changes to our business model or operations. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations.