Rein Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

10-K UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2024 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO Commission File Number 001-38130 Rein Therapeutics, Inc. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter) Delaware 13-4196017 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 12407 N. Mopac Expy. Suite 250 #390 Austin , TX 78758 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code : ( 737 ) 802-1989 Aileron Therapeutics, Inc. (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed since Last Report) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act : Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.001 par value RNTX The Nasdaq Capital Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ N o ☒ Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ☐ N o ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Y es ☒ NO ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Y es ☒ NO ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒ Emerging growth company ☐ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C.7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO ☒ If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements.  ☐ Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b). ☐ As of June 28, 2024, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the last reported sale price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market was $ 54,077,680 . As of March 27, 2025 t he Registrant has 21,992,387 shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding. Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which the Registrant intends to file pursuant to Regulation 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 , are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Table of Contents Page PART I Item 1. Business 5 Item 1A. Risk Factors 37 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 101 Item 1C. Cybersecurity 101 Item 2. Properties 102 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 102 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 102 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 103 Item 6. [Reserved] 103 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 104 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 116 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 116 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 116 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 116 Item 9B. Other Information 119 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections. 119 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 120 Item 11. Executive Compensation 120 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 120 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 120 Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 120 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 121 Item 16. Form 10-K Summary 121 Rein and the other trademarks or service marks of Rein appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of Rein. All other trademarks, service marks or other trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. i CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA This Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rein Therapeutics, Inc. (“Rein,” “we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”) contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management and expected market growth are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “would,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements about: • our plans to develop and commercialize LTI-03, including the potential benefits thereof; • our ability to secure sufficient additional capital in the near term or implement other strategies needed to alleviate our current substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern; • our expectations regarding our ability to fund our operating expenses, our planned activities, and capital expenditure requirements with our cash, cash equivalents and investments • our decision to temporarily delay further clinical development of LTI-01 until additional funds are raised; • our plans, subject to obtaining additional funding, to initiate Phase 2 clinical trial of LTI-03; • our unproven approach to drug research and development in the area of fibrotic diseases, with a focus on Caveolin-1, or Cav1, -related peptides, and our ability to develop marketable products; • our future clinical trials for LTI-03 and LTI-01, whether conducted by us or by any future collaborators, including our ability to enroll patients in our clinical trials, the timing of initiation of these trials and of the anticipated results; • the success of our remediation efforts related to the material weaknesses identified in our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024; • the timing of and our ability to obtain and maintain marketing approvals for LTI-03 and LTI-01; • the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of any products for which we receive marketing approval; • our commercialization, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and strategy; • our intellectual property position and strategy, and our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce intellectual property rights for our platform and development candidates; • our ability to identify additional product candidates with significant commercial potential; • our plans to enter into collaborations for the development and commercialization of LTI-03, LTI-01 and any additional product candidates; • our reliance on third-party manufacturing and supply vendors; • potential benefits of any future collaboration; • developments relating to our competitors and our industry; and • the impact of government laws and regulations. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included, or incorporated by reference, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the “Risk Factors” section, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially 1 from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, collaborations, joint ventures or investments that we may make or enter into. You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference herein and have filed or incorporated by reference hereto completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes or incorporates by reference statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Effective on January 10, 2025, we amended our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, to effect a change in our name from “Aileron Therapeutics, Inc.” to “Rein Therapeutics, Inc.” Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “us,” “our” and the “Company” refer to Rein Therapeutics, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. 2 Summary Risk Factors Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should be aware in evaluating our company and our business. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. These risks include the following: Risks Related to Our Financial Condition • We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into August 2025, as a result we will need to obtain sufficient additional funding prior to initiating our planned Phase 2 clinical trial of LTI-03. • We will require substantial additional capital to finance our operations beyond August 2025 and to complete the development and commercialization of LTI-03 and LTI-01. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our clinical and research and development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations. • Our cash and cash equivalents are not sufficient to fund operations for at least the next twelve months from the date of issuance of the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report, which raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. • We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and may identify additional material weaknesses in the future or fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, which may result in material misstatements of our financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations. • We have incurred significant net losses since inception and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future. Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Product Candidates • Our business is highly dependent on the success of our product candidates, LTI-03 and LTI-01 and any other product candidates that we advance into clinical development. • Our approach to drug research and development in the area of fibrotic diseases, with a focus on Cav1-related peptides, is unproven and may not result in marketable products. • The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial, do not necessarily predict final results and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. • We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidates. • Our future clinical trials may reveal significant adverse events or unexpected drug-drug interactions not seen in our preclinical studies or earlier clinical studies and may result in a safety profile that could delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates. • Clinical development involves a lengthy, complex and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. • We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate and we may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approval for any product candidate. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our products, we may not be able to generate product revenue. Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties • We rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our clinical trials and preclinical studies. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with 3 regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any potential product candidates. • Because we rely on third-party manufacturing and supply vendors, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality. • We have entered into a collaboration agreement with Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Taiho, for the development of LTI-01 in Japan and may in the future seek to enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of other product candidates. If we fail to enter into such collaborations, or our collaborations are not successful, we may be unable to continue development of such product candidates, we would not receive any contemplated milestone payments or royalties, and we could fail to capitalize on the market potential of such product candidates. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property • Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to ensure their protection. • We are currently party to license or other collaboration agreements that impose certain obligations on us, and we may enter into additional license or collaboration agreements in the future. If we fail to comply with our obligations under such present or future agreements with third parties, we could lose license rights that may be important to our business. Risks Related to Our Common Stock • Assuming the conversion of all outstanding Series X Non-Voting Convertible Preferred Stock, or the Series X Preferred Stock, and the exercise of outstanding warrants to purchase shares of our common stock, or the Warrants, there is a concentration of ownership of our outstanding common stock by entities and individuals affiliated with Bios Partners. If this group chooses to act together, it could exert substantial influence over our business, and the interests of this group may conflict with those of other stockholders. 4 PAR T I Item 1. Business Overview and Recent Developments We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapies for the treatment of orphan pulmonary and fibrosis indications with no approved or limited effective treatments. We currently have two product candidates in clinical development, LTI-03 and LTI-01, and multiple candidates in preclinical development focused on fibrosis indications. Our pipeline includes: • LTI-03, a peptide for which we conducted a Phase 1b dose-ranging, placebo-controlled safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamic biomarker activity trial in development for the treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, or IPF, that has demonstrated the ability in both preclinical studies and clinical trials to protect healthy lung epithelial cells and reduce pro-fibrotic signaling; • LTI-01, a proenzyme that completed a Phase 2a dose-ranging, placebo-controlled trial and a Phase 1b safety, tolerability and proof of mechanism trial in loculated pleural effusion, or LPE, patients, an indication that has no approved drug treatment; and • preclinical programs targeting cystic fibrosis and a peptide program focused on the Cav1 protein for systemic fibrosis indications. In June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. Principal Product Candidates LTI-03 LTI-03 is a novel peptide drug, the sequence of which is derived from the endogenous protein Cav1, that protects lung epithelial cells and inhibits multiple pro-fibrotic pathways in IPF patients. IPF is a progressive, fatal, age-associated lung disease with a median survival from diagnosis of three to five years. There are approximately 100,000 people living with IPF in the U.S. LTI-03 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S. for the treatment of IPF. The pathogenesis of IPF is characterized by the loss of healthy lung cells known as alveolar epithelial type 2 cells, or AEC2s, proliferation and accumulation of activated myofibroblasts, deposition of extracellular matrix, or ECM, and fibrosis, resulting in labored breathing and loss of lung function. Damaged AEC2s are unable to replace injured alveolar epithelial type 1 cells, or AEC1s, which make up the majority of the alveolar surface and are important in mucus clearance and healthy lung function. Other than lung transplantation, no treatment has shown survival benefit. Two approved drugs, nintedanib (OFEV ® ) and pirfenidone, have been shown to reduce the rate of lung function decline, but unfortunately provide only modest clinical benefit in IPF patients. Neither drug is curative, and significant side effects or intolerance can occur with the use of pirfenidone and nintedanib. As these approved drugs are focused on fibroblast proliferation, they have not demonstrated an effect on protecting or restoring healthy lung epithelial cells. We believe LTI-03 has a mechanism that not only reduces fibroblast proliferation but also, importantly, protects and potentially restores healthy lung epithelial cells. Cav1 normally serves a critical function in the prevention of fibrosis by maintaining a balance between pathways that both initiate and arrest lung repair and cell movement. Studies conducted by third parties have shown decreased levels of Cav1 in patients with IPF and the development of fibrosis in Cav1 knock-out models of fibrosis. Furthermore, we have conducted in vitro and animal model tests with LTI-03 in which we have observed a reduction in numerous pro-fibrotic signaling proteins. In analyzing fibrotic activity in a sample precision cut lung slice, or PCLS, tissue from an end stage IPF lung, LTI-03 demonstrated a broad anti-fibrotic activity similar to that of nintedanib in a single patient sample and composite of six patient samples. 5 In additional PCLS testing of end stage IPF lungs with LTI-03, we observed increased viable AEC2s that are important for epithelial regeneration and proper lung function. We believe that this protection of AEC2s has the potential to improve IPF patients’ underlying disease. The soluble Receptor of Advanced Glycation End-products, or sRAGE, is a prognostic marker of IPF disease progression and is produced by AEC1s. Low levels of sRAGE at diagnosis predict poor survival in IPF and as IPF patients’ disease worsens, sRAGE declines. In further testing of PCLS tissue, LTI-03 administration demonstrated an increase in sRAGE versus untreated control samples. We believe the increase in sRAGE provides further evidence of increased AEC2 survival, possibly leading to greater AEC1 production and thus overall epithelial cell survival, and therefore the elevation of sRAGE levels after administration of LTI-03 in the PCLS model may indicate a beneficial impact of LTI-03 in treating IPF patients. Phase 1a Clinical Trial We completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1a clinical trial of LTI-03 in healthy volunteers in the United Kingdom, or the UK. The primary objective of this trial was to determine the safety and tolerability of single and multiple ascending doses, SAD and MAD, respectively, of inhaled LTI-03. The secondary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of SAD and MAD daily doses for 14 days of inhaled LTI-03. In four SAD cohorts, 32 subjects were administered LTI-03 by inhalation at single doses of 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg. At the 80 mg dose, subjects in one cohort were administered four 20 mg capsules by inhalation and in a second cohort, subjects were administered eight 10 mg capsules by inhalation. Eight subjects in the combined SAD cohorts were administered a placebo. In the SAD cohorts, 21 of 24 subjects administered LTI-03 experienced treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAE, the most frequent of which were mild dry coughs related to LTI-03. In two MAD cohorts, 40 subjects were administered LTI-03 by inhalation once daily for up to 14 days at 20 mg and 40 mg. Mild coughs, assessed as related to LTI-03, were the most frequent TEAEs occurring in 12 of 12 subjects over the course of the 14-day dosing period. Mild and related coughs occurred in three of the four subjects administered placebo. Other TEAEs occurring in more than one of the 12 subjects administered LTI-03 included sinus tachycardia, which is a fast increase in heart rate, in two subjects assessed as mild and not related in one and moderate and related in the other; chest discomfort in two subjects assessed as related and moderate in one and related and severe in the other; and labored breathing in two subjects assessed as related and moderate in one and related and severe in the other. During dosing in the second MAD cohort of 40 mg of LTI-03, we placed the study on hold after one subject developed severe TEAEs and two other subjects developed moderate TEAEs secondary to pulmonary airflow limitations that appeared to be secondary to reversible airway obstruction. These events were considered related to LTI-03. All TEAEs were resolved within 24 hours. Adverse findings in the MAD 40 mg cohort, and a re-evaluation of the dose rationale based on further analysis of in vitro and in vivo data, suggest that lower doses should be efficacious with an improved safety profile. The 20 mg and 40 mg doses evaluated are predicted to be 21- to 39-fold in excess of a minimally efficacious dose. Based upon these MAD observations, three additional MAD cohorts of 2.5 mg administered once daily, 5 mg (two 2.5 mg capsules), and 10 mg (two 2.5 mg capsules dosed twice daily) were administered to 17 subjects for 14 days. In these lower dose cohorts, the most common TEAEs related to LTI-03 were mild coughs in 41% of subjects. The only other TEAEs occurring in more than one subject was mild throat irritation in two subjects that were assessed as related to LTI-03. The were no moderate, severe, or serious TEAEs assessed as related to LTI-03. Upon review of pooled plasma samples from patients in all Phase 1a cohorts up to 20 mg, there was an increase in sRAGE from day 13 treatment compared to pre-treatment for patients who received LTI-03 compared to patients who received placebo. Phase 1b Clinical Trial We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1b clinical trial of LTI-03 in IPF patients, which was conducted at 11 centers in the U.S., the UK, Belgium, Germany and Australia. We enrolled a total of 24 patients in the trial. In the trial, these patients had a bronchoscopy at a baseline screening followed by either LTI-03 or 6 placebo twice a day for 14 days. On day 14, shortly after the final dose, patients received a second bronchoscopy and were monitored thereafter for seven days. In Cohort 1, patients in the active arm inhaled a single 2.5 mg capsule of LTI-03 twice daily. In Cohort 2, patients received two 2.5 mg capsules of LTI-03 for inhalation twice daily. Of the 12 patients enrolled in Cohort 1 of the trial, three were randomized to the placebo arm and nine to the active arm. Of the 12 patients enrolled in Cohort 1 of the trial, three were randomized to the placebo arm and nine to the active arm. In addition to the safety and tolerability of LTI-03, in the trial, various biomarkers relating to epithelial damage, fibrosis and inflammation in blood cells were assessed. The eight biomarkers that we evaluated in Cohort 1 included: thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), galectin-7 (GAL-7), interleukin-11 (IL-11), collagen 1 alpha chain (Col-1α1), phosphorylated SMAD2/3 (pSMAD2/3/tSMAD2/3), phosphorylated AKT kinase (pAKT), soluble (sol) receptor for advanced glycation end-products (solRAGE), and CXC chemokine 7 (CXCL7). The eight biomarkers that we evaluated in Cohort 2 included: TSLP, GAL-7, IL-11, Col-1α1, pSMAD2/3/tSMAD2/3, pAKT, CXCL7, and surfactant protein D (SPD). solRAGE, which was evaluated in Cohort 1, was not able to be evaluated in Cohort 2 due to multiple protocol violations. In May 2024, we announced positive data from the low-dose Cohort 1 of the Phase 1b clinical trial. In Cohort 1, a positive trend was observed in seven out of the eight biomarkers with data from three biomarkers being statistically significant (based on a one-tailed t-test). The findings from Cohort 1 included: • LTI-03 reduced expression of multiple profibrotic proteins in both pathologic basal-like cells and fibroblasts, with statistically significant decreases observed in three biomarkers - GAL-7 (p=0.0014, SEM 0.901), TSLP (p=0.0223, SEM 5.163) and Col-1α1 (p=0.0489, SEM 0.7102) - supporting the potential of LTI-03 to reduce fibrosis, inflammation and associated changes in the lung. • LTI-03 stimulated production of solRAGE (p=0.1407, SEM 0.3269), a factor indicative of type I epithelial cell health that is a critically important aspect of IPF and has gone largely unaddressed. • LTI-03 did not induce inflammation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells as measured by pAKT (p=0.358, SEM 11.32). • LTI-03 was generally well-tolerated with no serious adverse events reported. In November 2024, we announced positive topline data from the high-dose Cohort 2 of the Phase 1b clinical trial. In Cohort 2, a positive trend was observed in seven out of the eight biomarkers, with data from three biomarkers that were statistically significant in Cohort 2, and from four biomarkers that were statistically significant in the combined data set of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2, and data from five biomarkers that showed dose dependence relative to the data from those biomarkers in Cohort 1. The findings from Cohort 2 included: • LTI-03 reduced expression of multiple profibrotic proteins active in both pathologic basal-like cells and fibroblasts, with four biomarkers (IL-11, CXCL7, TSLP and GAL-7) showing statistically significant decreases in the combined data set supporting the potential of LTI-03 to reduce fibrosis, inflammation and associated functional changes in the lung. • LTI-03 dose dependent trends were observed in five biomarkers, including COL1A1, CXCL7, TSLP, GAL-7, and SPD, which provide evidence of active LTI-03 pharmacodynamics in the trial. • SPD, an indicator of epithelial cell health that is linked to decline in lung function, decreased by 5% in Cohort 2 at 14 days of treatment. The current standard of care for IPF, nintetanib, reduced SPD by 4% at 12-weeks in a third party trial of nentanib referred to as the INMARK trial. The biomarker regarding change in SPD in our Phase 1b trial and the data from the INMARK trial of nintedanib compares two clinical trials with different trial designs, patient enrollment criteria and treatment regimens. In addition, the applicable measurements were observed over different time periods. As a result, the data from these trials may not be directly comparable. • LTI-03 did not induce inflammation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in either Cohort, measured by pAKT, a safety marker for inflammation in this trial. 7 • LTI-03 was generally well-tolerated, and there were no drug-related adverse events that resulted in a discontinuation of the trial. Planned Phase 2 Trial Subject to obtaining additional funding, we plan to initiate a placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial of LTI-03 in the first half of 2025. We plan to evaluate 2.5 mg or 5 mg of LTI-03 administered twice a day in up to 120 patients with IPF with 40 patients in each treatment arm and 40 patients in the placebo arm. We expect that patients will be treated for 24 weeks with four weeks of follow-up. The primary endpoints of the trial will be to evaluate the safety and tolerability of LTI-03 and the efficacy of LTI-03 measured by change from baseline in forced vital capacity, or FVC, in milliliters, change from baseline in percent predicted FVC and change from baseline in lung fibrosis measured by high-resolution computed tomography. LTI-01 LTI-01 is a single chain urokinase plasminogen activator, or scuPA, for the treatment of LPE. Pleural effusion is defined by the build-up of fluid in the pleural cavity, predominantly resulting from pneumonia, and is considered loculated when fibrinous scar tissue forms, trapping the fluid and preventing drainage. LPE is an orphan disorder for which there are no currently approved therapeutics. LPEs are a frequent complication of pneumonia and develop from pockets of infected fluid, known as a complicated parapneumonic effusion, or CPE, or if pus is present, known as an empyema. LPEs can result in pain, shortness of breath and can rapidly lead to sepsis and death. CPE and empyema can be serious clinical problems which are associated with mortality of approximately 20%. Effective drainage of infected pleural effusions is essential for treatment. We believe over 60,000 cases of LPE associated with CPE and empyema are estimated to occur annually in the U.S. alone, and based upon our market research, over half of these patients are receiving off-label, intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy, or IPFT, which is the use of clot busting drugs injected locally into the pleural cavity to treat the LPEs. LTI-01 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S. and European Union, or the EU, for treatment of empyema and Fast Track Designation in the U.S. for the investigation of LTI-01 for the treatment of infected, non-draining pleural effusion. In November 2020, we signed a regional licensing deal with Taiho for the rights to develop and commercialize LTI-01 in Japan. We received an up-front payment of $5.0 million and have the right to receive a future milestone payment of $10.0 million, drug supply payments and royalties on drug sales upon approval and commercial launch in Japan. Currently, there are no approved drug treatments for LPE. Given the risks of surgery and extensive days of hospitalization post-surgery, IPFT has been used off-label in patients with LPE to promote pleural drainage. Despite limited research of IPFT, tissue plasminogen activator, or tPA, in combination with recombinant deoxyribonuclease, or DNase, has become the off-label standard of care for treating LPEs in many institutions. Similar to off label IPFT, LTI-01 works locally in the pleural space by breaking down the fibrinous scar tissue and allowing the trapped fluid to drain. We believe there are advantages possessed by LTI-01 over other fibrinolytics which arise from the resistance of LTI-01 to a protein which is the major inhibitor of fibrinolytic activity, Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor-1, or PAI-1. PAI-1 has been shown to suppress fibrinolytics like tPA by binding to them and inhibiting activity. LTI-01, however, has demonstrated relative resistance to PAI-1 inhibition. Animal model studies, conducted by third parties, of PAI-1 inhibition showed LTI-01 to be active 24 hours post administration, while tPA was shown to be inactivated in as little as 40 minutes. We believe that this provides for a longer duration of activity, eliminates the need for repeated daily dosing, and could confer a lower risk of bleeding. Based upon our Phase 2a and Phase 1b data and historical treatment data of LPE patients receiving off-label tPA with DNase in the U.S., we believe LTI-01 may be more beneficial to patients when compared to tPA with DNase in the treatment of LPE on dosing schedule, surgical referrals and safety profile. Furthermore, third party market research with physician interviews performed by MME, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Indegene, Inc., suggests LTI-01 could potentially replace the use of tPA with DNase for LPE patients. Phase 2a Clinical Trial We completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2a clinical trial that was conducted at 36 centers in the U.S. to evaluate LTI-01 in patients with infected, non-draining pleural effusions. The primary endpoint in the trial was treatment failure, defined as death or referral to surgery by checklist within seven days from 8 commencement of dosing. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, incidence of bleeding and pain and volume of pleural fluid drainage. The trial evaluated 3 doses of LTI-01, 400,000, 800,000 or 1.2 million units compared to placebo in a three to one active to placebo randomization. Due to trial delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic and limited shelf life of drug product, only 40 patients completed enrollment in the trial. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of treatment failure between treatment arms and the placebo arm. We believe this lack of significance was due to referral to surgery checklist limitations which allowed patients, including those on placebo, to be deemed a successful treatment while also receiving rescue treatment, defined as either surgery, off label IPFT or other intervention. Based upon a patient’s need for a rescue treatment, either surgery, off label IPFT or other intervention, 60.0% and 55.5% of patients in the 400,000 and 800,000 dosing arms, respectively, did not require rescue treatment to resolve their LPE. However, 27.3% of patients in the placebo dosing group did not require a rescue treatment to resolve their LPE. Moreover, the 400,000 and 800,000 dosing arms showed a meaningful reduction in volume of pleural fluid drainage, a secondary endpoint. LTI-01 was well tolerated with no safety signals of concern. Based on the results of this trial, we plan to investigate LTI-01 in an additional Phase 2 dose-ranging, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a lower dose to establish efficacy and safety. In June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until sufficient additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. Phase 1b Clinical Trial We completed a first-in-human, open-label, dose escalation Phase 1b safety, tolerability and proof of mechanism trial of LTI-01 in 14 LPE patients presenting with pneumonia and CPE or empyema. The Phase 1b clinical trial was conducted at seven clinical centers in Australia and New Zealand. LTI-01 was administered intrapleurally once per day for up to three consecutive days at doses ranging from 50,000 units to 800,000 units. At the doses tested, LTI-01 was well tolerated and there were no safety signals of concern. Moreover, no local or systemic bleeding was observed. All adverse events observed were considered unrelated to the study drug. LTI-01 showed preliminary signs of efficacy, with reductions in pleural opacity and declines in pleural infection indicators. Preliminary efficacy findings included signs of successful treatment of the underlying infectious process with decreased C-reactive protein, or CRP, levels and total leukocyte and neutrophil counts, drainage of the infected pleural fluid and decreases in pleural opacity. These results suggest that LTI-01 clears scar tissue with once-a-day dosing for three days and promotes fluid drainage around the lungs without bleeding and other side effects. Preclinical Programs We have multiple programs in preclinical development. We are developing LTI-05, an epithelial sodium channel, or ENaC, inhibitor, in lead optimization for the treatment of cystic fibrosis, or CF, that has demonstrated sodium channel inhibition and localized activity in preclinical studies. In addition, we are developing a systemic formulation of a proprietary Cav1-related peptide to be utilized for patients where a systemic delivery would be ideal. Cav1, from which LTI-03 is derived, has been widely studied for its role in the regulation of cell signaling and endocytosis and, we believe, restores balance by regulating aberrant cell signaling. Cav1 has been demonstrated to be deficient in multiple fibrotic organs in preclinical models. Independent preclinical research and our preclinical research have demonstrated the potential of a Cav1-related peptide to treat fibrosis in a number of organs, including kidney, heart and skin. This preclinical program is currently in the formulation development stage. Manufacturing We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of our product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party contract manufacturers for the manufacture of all our product candidates for preclinical research and clinical trials. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these third-party contract manufacturers. 9 If any of our product candidates are approved by any regulatory agency, we intend to enter into agreements with a third-party contract manufacturer and one or more back-up manufacturers for the commercial production of our product candidates. Development and commercial quantities of any drugs that we develop will need to be manufactured in facilities, and by processes, that comply with the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and the regulatory agencies of other jurisdictions in which we are seeking approval. The risks associated with our reliance on third-party contract manufacturers are described in Item 1A. Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Sales and Marketing We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution capabilities. In order to commercialize any products that are approved for commercial sale, we must either develop a sales and marketing infrastructure or collaborate with third parties that have sales and marketing experience. We may seek third-party support from established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for those products that would benefit from the promotional support of a large sales and marketing force. In these cases, we might seek to promote our products in collaboration with marketing partners or rely on relationships with one or more companies with large established sales forces and distribution systems. We may elect to establish our own sales force to market and sell a product for which we obtain regulatory approval if we expect that the geographic market for a product we develop on our own is limited or that the prescriptions for the product will be written principally by a relatively small number of physicians. If we decide to market and sell any products ourselves, we do not expect to establish direct sales capability until shortly before the products are approved for commercial sale. Competition The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, strong competition and an emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific personnel provide us with competitive advantages, we face substantial competition from many different sources, including larger pharmaceutical companies with greater resources. Smaller specialty biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, governmental agencies, as well as public and private institutions are also potential sources of competitive products and technologies, including through collaborative arrangements with large and established biopharmaceutical companies. We also face competition in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and enrolling patients for clinical trials, and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of any of our product candidates will include efficacy, safety profile, convenience, method of administration, cost, level of promotional activity and intellectual property protection. There are a number of large biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the commercialization or development of products for the treatment of fibrosis. Companies that we are aware of that are targeting the treatment of various fibrosis indications include larger companies with significant financial resources such as AbbVie Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Roche Holding AG, and Novartis AG. However, we know of no other companies currently in clinical development with a drug therapeutic utilizing Cav1 and Cav1-related peptides. Although our novel approach is unique from most other existing or investigational therapies across the disease areas where we are focusing our development, we will need to compete with currently approved therapies, and potentially those currently in development if they are approved. We are aware of several marketed and investigational products in our leading disease areas, including but not limited to: • IPF: There are currently two approved branded products for the treatment of IPF; Esbriet (pirfenidone), marketed by Roche Holding AG, and Ofev (nintedanib), marketed by Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. Companies currently developing product candidates in IPF include AbbVie Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Avalyn Pharma, Inc., Roche Holding AG, Vicore Pharma Holding AB, Endeavor BioMedicines and PureTech Health plc. 10 • LPE: There are currently no approved drug therapies for the treatment of LPE. Roche Holding AG manufactures tPA and DNase, which are used off-label to treat LPE. We are not aware of any other pharmaceutical or biotechnology company developing drug therapies for the treatment of LPE. The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our product candidates, if approved for marketing. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we do, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Out-License Agreement Agreement with Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. On November 12, 2020, we entered into a license agreement with Taiho, or the Taiho Agreement, to collaborate on the development and potential commercialization of LTI-01. Under the terms of the Taiho Agreement, we granted Taiho an exclusive, royalty-bearing license to develop, seek regulatory approval for and commercialize LTI-01 in Japan. We are obligated to conduct all development activities for LTI-01 through regulatory approval in the U.S. or other markets worldwide, except Japan, and retain the right to commercialize LTI-01 in all markets worldwide except Japan. Under the terms of the Taiho Agreement, we, in part through our participation in a joint development committee with Taiho, will participate in overseeing the development and commercialization of LTI-01 in Japan. In consideration for the exclusive, royalty-bearing license and other rights contained in the Taiho Agreement, Taiho made a non-refundable, non-creditable payment to us of $5.0 million. We are also eligible to receive an additional milestone payment of $10.0 million. We are entitled to receive a minimum percentage on product sales for commercial supply and royalties. In addition, we are entitled to receive royalties on net sales of LTI-01 in Japan. Royalties will be payable during the period commencing on the first commercial sale of LTI-01 in Japan and ending upon termination or expiration of the Taiho Agreement. Unless earlier terminated, the Taiho Agreement will expire on the later of (i) 10 years after the date of first commercial sale of LTI-01 in Japan, (ii) the expiration of the last valid intellectual property claim of any of our patents, if any, that covers LTI-01 in Japan and (iii) the expiration of the regulatory data exclusivity in Japan. Taiho has the ability to extend the term of the Taiho Agreement upon notice at least 12 months prior to the expiration of the initial term. Upon this extension notice, we and Taiho will negotiate a revised minimum supply transfer price, royalty and length of the extension term. Taiho has the ability to terminate the Taiho Agreement early for safety reasons or if marketing approval in Japan has not occurred within three years of initial filing for approval in Japan. Exclusive Option Agreement with Advancium On October 31, 2024, we entered into an exclusive option agreement with Advancium Health Network, or Advancium, for the sale of ALRN-6924, a clinical-stage oncology agent that we were developing prior to our acquisition of Lung Therapeutics, Inc., or Lung, in October 2023, or the Lung Acquisition. During the option period, Advancium intends to evaluate ALRN-6924 as a potential therapy for retinoblastoma. Under the terms of the option agreement Advancium paid us a non-refundable fee of $0.1 million for the exclusive option to acquire ALRN-6924 and related assets. If Advancium exercises its option, we will receive an exercise payment with potential for additional development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments and sales royalties. In-License Agreements Agreement with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler In June 2013, we entered into a patent and technology license agreement with the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, or UT System, on behalf of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Tyler, or UTHSCT. The patent and technology license agreement with UT System, or the UTHSCT Agreement, provides us 11 access to patents and technology related to the development of LTI-01 and LTI-03. As part of the UTHSCT Agreement, we have (i) a royalty-bearing, exclusive license under the patent rights to manufacture, distribute, and sell certain intellectual property; (ii) a non-exclusive license under the technology rights to manufacture, distribute and sell the licensed product; and (iii) a sublicensing right that allows us to grant sublicenses to affiliates and third parties to use the licensed product in the field of use and approved territories outlined in the UTHSCT Agreement. In December 2013, the UTHSCT Agreement was amended and restated to include certain patents in all fields worldwide. In May 2017, the UTHSCT Agreement was amended and restated to modify the specific milestone criteria. In consideration of the UTHSCT Agreement, we agreed to pay past and ongoing patent expenses, and we are obligated to pay UTHSCT sublicensing fees, assignment fees, and single digit royalties on worldwide net product sales, with fixed minimum royalty payments that started in 2015. Pursuant to the UTHSCT Agreement, we are required to use diligent efforts to commercialize the licensed technology as soon as commercially practicable, including maintaining active research and development, regulatory, marketing and sales program, all as commercially reasonable. We may terminate the UTHSCT Agreement for convenience with 90 days’ notice. UTHSCT may also terminate the UTHSCT Agreement, but only if we breach the terms of the agreement. We incurred $100,000 in a minimum royalty fee during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. Agreement with the University of Texas at Austin In May 2015, we entered into a patent license agreement with the University of Texas at Austin, or UT Austin, on behalf of UT System. This license agreement with UT Austin, or the UT Austin 6607 Agreement, relates to the patent rights to polypeptide therapeutics and uses thereof. Pursuant to the UT Austin 6607 Agreement we have (i) a royalty-bearing, exclusive license under the patent rights to manufacture, distribute, and sell the licensed product; and (ii) a sublicensing right that allows us to grant sublicenses to affiliates and third parties to use the licensed product in the field of use and approved territories outlined in the agreement. The UT Austin 6607 Agreement was amended and restated in January 2017, November 2018, and June 2019. The amendments related to extension of milestone payment dates and specific terminology around the milestone achievement criteria. In consideration of the UT Austin 6607 Agreement, we agreed to pay past and ongoing patent expenses, milestone fees upon certain development and regulatory milestone events, annual license fees, tiered sublicense fees, assignment fees, low single digit royalties on net sales and the FDA Priority Review Voucher fee if we sell or transfers this voucher. Pursuant to the UT Austin 6607 Agreement, we are required to use diligent efforts to commercialize the licensed products, including maintaining active research and development, regulatory, marketing and sales program. Moreover, we are required to meet certain development and regulatory milestones by specific dates. We may terminate the UT Austin 6607 Agreement for convenience with 90 days’ notice. UT Austin may also terminate the UT Austin 6607 Agreement, but only if we breach the terms of the agreement. We did not incur any expenses under the UT Austin 6607 Agreement during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023. Agreement with Medical University of South Carolina In March 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Medical University of South Carolina Foundation for Research Development, or MUSC. Pursuant to this license agreement with MUSC, or the MUSC Agreement, we have patent rights related to protecting against lung fibrosis by up regulating Cav1. The MUSC Agreement granted (i) a royalty-bearing, exclusive license under the patent rights to make, use and sell the license product; and (ii) a sublicensing right that allows us to grant sublicenses to affiliates and third parties to use the licensed product in the field of use and approved territories outlined in the agreement. In September 2018, the agreement was amended and restated to include definitions of related methods, related products and related rights. 12 In consideration of the MUSC Agreement, we agreed to pay a non-refundable license fee, patent expenses, milestone fees upon certain development, regulatory and commercial milestone events, sublicense fees, assignment fees and low single digit royalties on net sales, with a fixed minimum royalty payment starting in 2019 and a transaction fee upon our liquidation. Pursuant to the MUSC Agreement, we are required to use diligent efforts to develop, manufacture and sell the licensed products. We may terminate the MUSC Agreement for convenience by providing a written notice to MUSC effective 90 days following the receipt of notice, and either party may terminate the agreement for a breach of contract. We incurred $25,000 in a minimum royalty fee during the year ended December 31, 2024. We did not incur any expenses under the MUSC Agreement during the year ended December 31, 2023. Agreement with Vivarta Therapeutics LLC In March 2018, we entered into a license agreement with Vivarta Therapeutics, LLC, or Vivarta. This license agreement with Vivarta, or the Vivarta Agreement, relates to intellectual property relating to epithelial sodium channel inhibitors and methods to treat pulmonary disease. Pursuant to the Vivarta Agreement we have (i) a royalty-bearing, exclusive license under the intellectual property rights to make, use and sell the licensed product, and (ii) a sublicensing right that allows us to grant sublicenses to affiliates and third parties to use the licensed product in the field of use and approved territories outlined in the agreement. In consideration of the Vivarta Agreement, we also agreed to pay patent expenses, milestone fees upon certain development and regulatory milestone events, sublicense fees, assignment fees and low single digit royalties on net sales. Pursuant to the Vivarta Agreement, we are required to use diligent efforts to develop, manufacture and sell the licensed products. We may terminate the Vivarta Agreement for convenience by providing a written notice to Vivarta effective 90 days following the receipt of notice, and either party may terminate the agreement for a breach of contract. We did not incur any expenses under the Vivarta Agreement during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023. Intellectual Property Overview We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary pipeline of product candidates and on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and strengthen our pipeline that may be important for the development and growth of our business. We additionally may rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions, where available. Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to: obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable licenses, patents, or trade secrets that cover these activities. In some cases, enforcement of these rights may depend on third party licensors. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that 13 may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same. As of March 7, 2025, we own or have licensed forty-nine issued patents and fifty-one pending patent applications worldwide, and one pending international Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, patent application, which are material to the programs described below relating to the Lung business. Forty-five issued patents worldwide and six pending patent applications are owned by the UT System, which have granted us exclusive license rights to the technology. We own one issued patent and eleven pending patent applications worldwide together with the UT System, which have granted us exclusive license rights to the technology. Our policy is to file patent applications to protect technology, inventions and improvements to inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We seek U.S. and foreign patent protection for a variety of technologies, including caveolin-1 peptides, such as LTI-03, compositions, and formulations related to caveolin-1 peptides, methods for therapeutic use of caveolin-1 peptides and conjugates of interest and diagnostic methods with caveolin-1 peptides for treating diseases of interest. We also intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that may be used to discover and validate targets and identify and develop novel products. We seek protection, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements. We are a party to various other license agreements that give us rights to use specific technologies in our research and development. LTI-03 Program As of March 7, 2025, we owned one pending PCT application, nine pending U.S. patent applications, and twenty-six pending applications outside of the U.S. related to the LTI-03 program. We also have licensed: six U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,840, 9,630,990, 10,377,796, 11,161,875, 11,780,879, and 12,173,089, thirty-nine patents granted outside of the U.S., one pending U.S. application, and five pending applications outside of the U.S. related to the LTI-03 program. The issued LTI-03 related patents are expected to expire in 2030 or 2034, without any available patent term extensions. Patents that may issue from the pending applications are expected to expire between the years 2034 and 2044, without any available patent term extensions. The in-licensed LTI-03 issued patents from the UT System are directed to methods of treating acute lung injury or pulmonary fibrosis with LTI-03 and methods of treating a condition characterized by fibrosis with LTI-03. The pending applications in the LTI-03 program are directed to methods for treating diseases or disorders, including fibrosis, methods for increasing viability of lung epithelial cells, and formulations, including dry powder and extended-release formulations, as well as therapeutic uses of LTI-03 for other indications interest and diagnostic methods. As of March 7, 2025, we also own two U.S. patents, one patent granted outside of the U.S., one pending U.S. application, and nine pending applications outside of the U.S. related to other caveolin-1 peptides related to LTI-03. These patents and patents that may issue from these pending applications are expected to expire in 2039. LTI-01 Program We expect LTI-01 to be the first to file Biologics License Application, or BLA, in the U.S., which provides for the potential of 12 years exclusivity. The drug is made using a complex process which would likely be difficult to duplicate. In addition, we have received Orphan Drug Designation for pleural empyema in both the U.S. and the EU, which designation should provide exclusivity of seven and ten years, respectively. We believe that, if the product is approved, these designations may afford us exclusivity and the complex production of LTI-01 will provide for additional barriers to entry for potential competition. U.S. Government Regulation of Drug and Biological Products Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the EU, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, sales, pricing, reimbursement, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of drugs and biologics. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The regulatory requirements applicable to product 14 development, approval and marketing are subject to change, and regulations and administrative guidance often are revised or reinterpreted by government agencies in ways that may have a significant impact on our business. In the U.S., the FDA approves and regulates drug products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic, or FDCA, and related regulations. Biological products, or biologics, are licensed for marketing under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and subject to regulation under the FDCA and related regulations. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products is referred to as a sponsor. A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug or biological product in the U.S. must satisfactorily complete the following steps, where applicable: • completion of preclinical laboratory tests and animal studies according to good laboratory practices, or GLP, or other applicable regulations; • manufacture and testing of the therapeutic or biologic moiety and its respective product formulation according to good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, or other applicable regulations; • design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must be updated annually and amended when certain changes are made; • approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, or ethics committee representing each clinical trial site before each clinical trial may be initiated; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations, good clinical practices, or GCPs, and other clinical-trial related regulations to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product and the safety, purity and potency for the investigational biologic product for each proposed indication; • preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA requesting marketing approval for one or more proposed indications; • payment of application and program fees pursuant to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA; • review of the NDA or BLA by an FDA advisory committee, where applicable; • satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the drug or biologic and its respective finished product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; • satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs and the integrity of the clinical data submitted in support of the NDA or BLA; and • FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA authorizing marketing of the drug or biological product for particular indications in the United States; and • compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and any other potential post-approval studies required by the FDA. Preclinical Studies and IND Before testing any drug or biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. The preclinical developmental stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry/biology, formulation and stability, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety and toxicology studies. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The results of the preclinical tests, together with 15 manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application and are typically referred to as IND-enabling studies. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans. The IND sponsor must submit the IND and then wait 30 days before initiating clinical trials, so that FDA can use that time to review the submission, and raise concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials. Even if the FDA does not raise concerns within 30 days, it could place the clinical trial on a clinical hold due to, for example, potential safety concerns or CMC issues. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Imposition of a clinical hold could cause significant delays or difficulties in initiating and/or completing planned clinical trials in a timely manner. Certain long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may initiate or continue after an IND for an investigational product candidate is submitted to the FDA and human clinical trials have been initiated. Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA or BLA Clinical trials involve the administration of an investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, dosing procedures and the parameters to be used in monitoring the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol, as well as any subsequent amendments, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IRB representing each institution that is participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must thereafter conduct a continuing review of the trial. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors and the safety of human subjects. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol and informed consent information to be provided to clinical trial subjects or their legal representatives and must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the clinical protocol, GCP, or other IRB requirements or, if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Clinical trials must also comply with extensive GCP standards intended to ensure protection of human subjects and the quality and integrity of the study data, including requirements for obtaining subjects’ informed consent. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data monitoring committee, or DMC. This group may recommend continuation of the trial as planned, changes in trial conduct or cessation of the trial at designated checkpoints based on access to certain data from the study. The FDA may, at any time while clinical trials are ongoing, impose a partial or complete clinical hold based on concerns for patient safety and/or noncompliance with regulatory requirements. This order, if issued by the FDA, would cause suspension of an ongoing trial until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. Human clinical trials to evaluate therapeutic indications to support NDAs and BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: • Phase 1: The product candidate is initially introduced into human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion, and if possible, to gain early evidence for effectiveness. Phase 1 trials may be conducted in healthy volunteers or, in the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, including many rare diseases, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients with the target disease or condition. • Phase 2: Clinical trials are conducted in a limited patient population with a specified disease or condition to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase 3 clinical trials. • Phase 3: Clinical trials are undertaken with an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, and to provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population, often 16 at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These studies are intended to establish the overall risk- benefit ratio of the product candidate and provide, if appropriate, an adequate basis for product labeling. These trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, or to document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs or biologics approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations and generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for the product. In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress began requiring sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan, or DAP, for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for Diversity Action Plans, or DAPs. Information about certain clinical trials, including details of the protocol and eventually study results, also must be submitted within specific time frames to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on the clinicaltrials.gov data registry. Similar requirements for posting clinical trial information in clinical trial registries exist in the EU and in other countries outside the U.S. As of December 19, 2024, the FDA has issued six notices of non-compliance, thereby signaling the government’s willingness to begin enforcing these requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors. While these notices of non-compliance did not result in civil monetary penalties, the failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Violations may also result in injunctions and/or criminal prosecution or disqualification from federal grants. During the development of a new drug or biological product, sponsors have the opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points, including prior to submission of an IND, at the end of phase 2 and before submission of an NDA or BLA. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date and for FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. The FDA has indicated that its responses, as conveyed in meeting minutes and advice letters, only constitute mere recommendations and/or advice made to a sponsor and, as such, sponsors are not bound by such recommendations and/or advice. From a practical perspective, a sponsor’s failure to follow the FDA’s recommendations for design of a clinical program may put the program at significant risk of failure. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional nonclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the drug or biological product and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP regulatory requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final drug or biological product. For biological products in particular, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined in order to help ensure safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life. Marketing Application Submission and FDA Review Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the clinical trials and preclinical studies (along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, or CMC) and the proposed labeling are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA, requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the FDA must find the data 17 submitted to be sufficient to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product, and safety, potency and purity for the investigational biologic product, for its proposed indication. The fee required for the submission of an NDA or BLA under the PDUFA, is substantial (for example, for fiscal year 2025 this application fee is approximately $4.3 million), and the sponsor of an approved NDA or BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, which is currently set at $403,889 per eligible prescription program. These fees are adjusted annually, but exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances. No user fee is required for orphan drug product applications, except when an application also includes an indication for a non-rare disease or condition. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all applications within 60 days of receipt and must inform the sponsor by that time whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In the event that the FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date (following the 60-day validation period) in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant and six months from the filing date for an application with “Priority Review”. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission. The FDA seeks to meet these timelines for review of an application but its ability to do so may be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, the ability to hire and retain key personnel and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. For example, during the past decade, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, including the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities, including the review of both NDAs and BLAs. Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the therapeutic/biologic to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with GMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMP regulatory requirements and are adequate to ensure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to ensure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to FDA. Under certain circumstances, the principal investigators at a clinical trial site may also serve as scientific advisors or consultants to a sponsor and receive compensation in connection with such services. Depending on the level of that compensation and any other financial interest a principal investigator may have in a sponsor, the sponsor may be required to report these relationships to the FDA. The FDA will evaluate that financial relationship and determine whether it creates a conflict of interest or otherwise affects the interpretation of the trial or the integrity of the data generated at the principal investigator’s clinical trial site. If so, the FDA may exclude data from the clinical trial site in connection with its determination of safety and efficacy of the investigational product. Additionally, the FDA may refer any NDA or BLA, including applications for novel product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. The FDA also may require submission of a REMS, if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the drug or biological product. If the FDA concludes that a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS and FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without a REMS. 18 Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, an NDA or a BLA or certain supplements thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless this requirement is waived, deferred or inapplicable. Sponsors must submit a pediatric study plan to FDA outlining the proposed pediatric study or studies they plan to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The FDA must then review the information submitted, consult with the sponsor, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time. In general, PREA requirements do not apply to drugs or biologics for indications granted Orphan Drug Designation although the FDA has taken steps to limit what is considers abuse of this statutory exemption in the PREA by announcing that is does not intend to grant any additional orphan drug designations for rare pediatric subpopulations of what is otherwise a common disease. The FDA reviews an NDA or a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to ensure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA or a BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. After evaluating the application and all related information (including the advisory committee recommendations, if any) and inspection reports of manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA or BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If a product receives regulatory approval from the FDA, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in FDA-approved labeling. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling (including specific safety-related label warnings). The FDA may also require that post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions, or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements, and FDA review and approval. Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation and accelerated approval. To be eligible for a Fast Track Designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast Track Designation provides opportunities for more frequent 19 interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA also may review sections of the NDA or BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA. Fast Track Designation may be rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging from the clinical trial process. Fast Track Designation does not guarantee product approval. In addition, a new drug or biological product may be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy Designation if it is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy Designation provides all the features of Fast Track Designation in addition to intensive guidance on an efficient development program beginning as early as Phase 1, and the FDA organizational commitment to expedited development, including involvement of senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, where appropriate. Breakthrough Therapy Designation may be rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported. Breakthrough Therapy Designation does not guarantee product approval. The FDA may designate a product for Priority Review if it is a drug or biologic that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug or biologic qualifies for Priority Review. Significant improvement over available therapies may be illustrated, for example, by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A Priority Review Designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months for an original BLA or NDA from the date of filing. Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation and Priority Review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process. Finally, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality (IMM), and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. For drugs granted accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires sponsors to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies with due diligence, failure to confirm a clinical benefit during the post-approval studies, or dissemination of false or misleading promotional materials would allow the FDA to withdraw the product approval on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated approval are subject to prior review by the FDA unless the FDA informs the applicant otherwise. With the passage of FDORA, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to the FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing the FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. In March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for 20 direct comparisons to an available therapy. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidance relating to accelerated approval. These guidance describe the FDA’s views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. Post Approval Requirements Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, governing, among other things, manufacturing and quality-related compliance, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product and product problems to FDA, product sampling and distribution, manufacturing and promotion and advertising. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for unapproved uses or patient populations, known as off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies, including state regulatory bodies, actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or an NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional clinical trials and preclinical studies. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product, which may require substantial commitment of resources post-approval to ensure compliance. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing. The FDA regulations require that drug and biological products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our product candidates must meet cGMP regulatory requirements and satisfy the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities before any product is approved and our commercial products can be manufactured. In addition, for any of our product candidates that include a device delivery system, the device component will be subject to aspects of the Quality System Regulations (QSRs) applicable to medical devices. Once an approval of a drug/biologic product is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained, or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market clinical trials requirement to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, complete withdrawal of the product from the market, or product recalls; • safety alerts, Dear Healthcare Provider letters, press releases, or other communications containing warnings or other safety information about a product; • mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling, and issuance of corrective information; • fines, warning letters, untitled letters, or other enforcement-related letters or clinical holds on post- approval clinical trials; • refusal of the FDA to approve pending NDAs/BLAs or supplements to approved NDAs/BLAs, or suspension or revocation of product approvals; 21 • product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; and • consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment, or exclusion from federal health care programs; or mandated modification of promotional materials and labeling and the issuance of corrective information. The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations that describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug or biologic. It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act (PIE) Act in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products and product candidates in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products and product candidates in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products. In addition, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Additionally, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, imposes requirements related to identifying and tracing certain prescription drugs distributed in the U.S., including most biological products. Manufacturers were required by November 2023 to have such systems and processes. So as not to disrupt supply chains, the FDA has granted certain exemptions from enhanced drug distribution security requirements for eligible trading partners for particular periods of time. U.S. Patent Term Restoration Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval for our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman 22 Amendments permit restoration of the patent term up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date, and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or a BLA, plus the time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. Generic Drugs and Regulatory Exclusivity for Drug Products NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application allows the sponsor to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness for a similar product, or published literature. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the sponsor for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the sponsor and for which the sponsor has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted”. In addition, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress established an abbreviated regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve generic drugs that are shown to contain the same active ingredients as, and to be bioequivalent to, drugs previously approved by the FDA pursuant to NDAs. To obtain approval of a generic drug, a sponsor must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the FDA. ANDAs are “abbreviated” because they generally do not include preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. Instead, in support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference-listed drug, or RLD. Regulatory exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs. The FDCA provides a five-year period of regulatory exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability for the listed drug. The FDCA also provides three years of regulatory exclusivity for a full NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving competitor products for drugs that fall outside the scope of the exclusivity. Three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; it delays approval of a 505(b)(2) NDA or an abbreviated new drug applications. or ANDA, covered by the exclusivity, until the exclusivity expires, but not the submission itself. Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity for Biological Products In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in the U.S. and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA. The BPCIA amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. To date, the FDA has approved a number of biosimilars and several interchangeable biosimilar products. 23 Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for a product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product”. In order for FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. The biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that the product is biosimilar based on data from analytical studies showing that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product, data from animal studies (including toxicity) and data from one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the applicant must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity, and potency. A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biologic product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed. The FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. The BPCIA also includes provisions to protect reference products that have patent protection. The biosimilar product sponsor and reference product sponsor may exchange certain patent and product information for the purpose of determining whether there should be a legal patent challenge. Based on the outcome of negotiations surrounding the exchanged information, the reference product sponsor may bring a patent infringement suit and injunction proceedings against the biosimilar product sponsor. The biosimilar applicant may also be able to bring an action for declaratory judgment concerning the patent. The FDA maintains a publicly-available online database of licensed biological products, which is commonly referred to as the “Purple Book”. The Purple Book lists product names, dates of licensure, and applicable periods of exclusivity. Further, the reference product sponsor must provide patent information and patent expiry dates to the FDA following the exchange of patent information between biosimilar and reference product sponsors. This information is then published in the Purple Book. There have been recent government proposals to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period, but none has been enacted to date. At the same time, since passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, which address pharmacy practices involving biosimilar products. Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S. is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for the treatment of rare diseases or conditions. In the U.S., a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the U.S. Orphan Drug Designation qualifies a company for certain tax credits. Designation does not guarantee approval. In addition, if a product candidate that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for that drug for the disease for which it has such designation, the product may receive seven-year orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years following product approval unless the subsequent product candidate is demonstrated to be clinically superior. Absent a showing of clinical superiority, the FDA cannot approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor, or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities. 24 A sponsor may request Orphan Drug Designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. More than one sponsor may receive Orphan Drug Designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking Orphan Drug Designation must file a complete orphan disease designation application. To qualify for orphan exclusivity, however, the drug must be clinically superior to the previously approved product that is the same drug for the same condition. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. LTI-01 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA and European Medicines Agency, or EMA, for the treatment of pleural empyema. LTI-03 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA for treatment of IPF. Pediatric Exclusivity Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of regulatory exclusivity. For drug products, the six-month period of exclusivity may be attached to the term of any existing patent or regulatory exclusivity. For biologic products, the six-month period may only be attached to any existing regulatory exclusivities but not to any patent terms. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA or BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. Regulation Outside of the U.S. In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the U.S. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the 27-member EU, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. With the exception of the EU or European Economic Area, or EEA, applying the harmonized regulatory rules for medicinal products, the approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. European Union Drug Development, Review and Approval In the EU, our product candidates are subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the U.S., medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the U.S., the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. The Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which came into application on January 31, 2022, governs the system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU portal”; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure continues to be governed by the 25 national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines have been defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. The extent to which clinical trials, which were ongoing on January 31, 2022 are governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation depends on the date when the request for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. Generally, according to the transitional provisions, if the request for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted before the date of application of the Clinical Trials Regulation (i.e. before January 31, 2022) and the clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable (i.e. beyond January 31, 2025), the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial. Until then the predecessor provisions of the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States apply. If any of our product candidates that, if used separately, would be considered a medicinal product is incorporated, as an integral part, in a medical device intended to administer the medicinal product, and the action of the medicinal product is principal and not ancillary to that of the device, then the combination product is regulated by Directive 2001/83/EC or Regulation (EC) 726/2004 as a medicinal product. However, the medical device used for administration must satisfy the requirements for its general safety and performance under EU law governing general medical devices. The EU regulatory regime under Directive 93/42/EEC, or the Medical Devices Directive, was replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices, or the Medical Devices Regulation as of May 26, 2021, subject to the transitional provisions for medical devices to remain on the EU market for a limited period if they were certified or, if certification was not required, the EU declaration of conformity had been drawn up under the Medical Devices Directive. There are significant changes to the EU regulatory system governing medical devices under the Medical Devices Regulation. Under the Medical Devices Regulation, data resulting from the conformity assessment relating to the general safety and performance of the medical device that is part of a combination product regulated by Directive 2001/83/EC or Regulation (EC) 726/2004 shall be included in the application for marketing authorization for the combination product. Such information must be provided by the manufacturer of the medical device in its EU declaration of conformity, or the relevant certificate issued by a notified body allowing the medical device manufacturer to affix a European Conformity, or CE mark to the medical device. If the dossier submitted to support the marketing authorization for a combination product within the scope of Directive 2001/83/EC or Regulation (EC) 726/2004 does not include the results of the conformity assessment and where for the conformity assessment of the device, if used separately, the involvement of a notified body is required in accordance with the Medical Devices Regulation, the medicinal products authority such as the EMA can require the applicant for a marketing authorization to provide an opinion on the conformity of the device part with the relevant general safety and performance requirements issued by a designated notified body. For marketing authorization applications, or MAA, the law provides for the so-called centralized authorization and authorization procedures in individual EU member states, whereas the Mutual Recognition or Decentralized procedure is mandatory for a product to be authorized in more than one EU member state. Centralized Procedure The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the EMA that is valid in all EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which are part of the EEA. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicines (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell- therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/ AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in 26 response to questions asked by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks. National Authorization Procedures There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure: • Decentralized procedure. Using the decentralized procedure, an applicant may apply for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU country of medicinal products that have not yet been authorized in any EU country and that do not fall within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The applicant may choose a member state as the reference member State to lead the scientific evaluation of the application. • Mutual recognition procedure. In the mutual recognition procedure, a medicine is first authorized in one EU Member State (which acts as the reference member state), in accordance with the national procedures of that country. Following this, further marketing authorizations can be progressively sought from other EU countries in a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national marketing authorization produced by the reference member state. Under the above-described procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the competent authorities of the EU Member States have 90 days to review the assessment report rendered by the reference member state. Approval of the assessment report may be only denied for the reason of potential serious risk for public health. In case of diverging views among the member states, a coordination procedure at EU level applies, leading ultimately to a uniform decision binding on the member states. On April 26, 2023, the European Commission presented a draft for a comprehensive reform of the pharmaceutical legislation. The so-called “EU pharmaceutical package” does not intend to change the existing procedures currently in place at EU level: Medicinal products are still to be approved in the decentralized procedure, mutual recognition procedure, or centralized procedure. However, the duration of authorization procedures is generally to be reduced. The decisive factor for the reduction of the duration of the procedure under the decentralized procedure and the mutual recognition procedure is the reduction of the period of cooperation of the EU member states. In regards of the centralized procedure, the shortening of the overall duration results from the accumulation of several small reductions in time. Conditional Marketing Authorization In specific circumstances, EU legislation enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. The legal basis is Article 14-a of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004. The provisions for granting a conditional marketing authorization are further elaborated in Regulation (EC) No. 507/2006. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if the benefit-risk balance of the medicine is positive; it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; the medicine fulfils an unmet medical need; and the benefit of the medicine’s immediate availability to patients is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization. In a public health emergency, the conditional marketing authorization procedure can also be combined with a rolling review of data during the development of a promising medicine, to further expedite the evaluation. 27 European Union Regulatory Data Exclusivity In the EU, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. The planned EU pharmaceutical package mentioned above foresees that pharmaceutical companies are given the opportunity to receive a period of protection of up to twelve (12) years (as opposed to the maximum of 11 years currently possible) by achieving certain public health objectives which are as follows: • two (2) years extension if a pharmaceutical is placed on the market by a company in all Member States within two years, or within three years for companies with limited experience in the EU system; • six (6) months extension if the medicinal product covers an unmet medical need; • six (6) months extension if comparative clinical trials are conducted; and • one (1) year extension if a new indication is authorized for the medicinal product within the protection period, provided that a significant benefit can be achieved in comparison with existing therapies. European Union Orphan Designation and Exclusivity The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the EU are similar in principle to those in the U.S. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life- threatening or chronically debilitating condition, (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The term ‘significant benefit’ is defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000 to mean a clinically relevant advantage or a major contribution to patient care. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year market exclusivity period, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA, cannot accept an application for a marketing authorization for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. A similar medicinal product is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This is determined by the molecular structure, the mechanism of action and the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The ten-year market exclusivity in the EU may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. On the other hand, orphan market exclusivity 28 can be extended to a maximum of twelve years if an approved pediatric investigation plan (PIP) has been completed. Furthermore, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if: • the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; • the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or • the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. The planned EU pharmaceutical package mentioned above provides, among others, for a new regulation to replace Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products. The draft regulation introduces the possibility of establishing new designation criteria by the EMA and the restriction of designation as an orphan drug to generally seven years. The draft regulation also provides for more flexible rules on the duration of market exclusivity, including: ten years of market exclusivity for orphan drugs in the case of "high unmet medical need", five years for orphan drugs, approved by a bibliographic marketing authorization and nine years in all other cases with the possibility of extension in the case of market access in all Member States (another year) or development of new therapeutic indications for an already authorized orphan medicinal product (up to two years). Market exclusivity can thus add up to a maximum of thirteen years, whereas today it is still capped at ten years. It should be noted that the market exclusivity right of the orphan medicinal product does not prevent the submission, validation and assessment of an application for marketing authorization of a similar medicinal product, including generics and biosimilars, if the remaining duration of the market exclusivity right is less than two years. The EU pharmaceutical package is still at an early stage of the legislative process. It may still undergo substantial changes and is expected to turn into binding law in several years' time. Periods of Authorization and Renewals A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least nine months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause). In future, under the planned EU pharmaceutical package mentioned above, pharmaceutical marketing authorizations are to be valid for an unlimited period, although a limitation of the duration to five years shall be possible in certain cases. The so-called sunset provision will be abolished. Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom The UK’s withdrawal from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit, took place on January 31, 2020. The EU and the UK reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force on May 1, 2021. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law, whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol, as amended by the so called Windsor Framework agreed in February 2023. As of January 1, 2025, the changes introduced by the Windsor Framework resulted in the MHRA being responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA will no longer have any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland. The MHRA relies on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. 29 As of January 1, 2024 on, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, applies which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EEA member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). The RR assessment must have undergone a full and standalone review. RR assessments based on reliance or recognition cannot be used to support an IRP application. A CHMP positive opinion or a mutual recognition and decentralized procedure, or MRDC, positive end of procedure outcome is an RR authorization for the purposes of IRP. As with other issues related to withdrawal of the UK from the EU, there are open questions about how personal data will be protected in the UK and whether personal information can transfer from the European Union to the United Kingdom. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the UK Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the UK and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. While the Data Protection Act 2018 in the UK that implements and complements the GDPR achieved Royal Assent in May 2018 and is now effective in the UK, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the UK will remain lawful under the GDPR. The UK government has already determined that it considers all EU and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the UK to the EU and EEA remain unaffected. In addition, a recent decision from the European Commission appears to deem the United Kingdom as being “essentially adequate” for purposes of data transfer from the EU to the UK, although this decision may be re-evaluated in the future. Rest of the World Regulation For other countries outside of the EU, UK and the U.S., such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with cGCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution. Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement Sales of any biopharmaceutical products, if and when approved by the FDA or analogous authorities outside the U.S., will depend in significant part on the availability of third-party coverage and reimbursement for the products. In the U.S., third-party payors include government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, managed care plans and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, including biopharmaceutical products. Significant uncertainty exists regarding coverage and reimbursement for newly approved healthcare products. Coverage does not ensure reimbursement. It is time consuming and expensive to seek coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA regulatory approvals. Third-party payors may take into account clinical practice guidelines in determining coverage and there may be significant delays before our products are addressed by such guidelines and we cannot predict what position such guidelines would take with respect to our products if and when addressed. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication, or utilize other mechanisms to manage utilization (such as requiring prior authorization for coverage for a product for use in a particular patient). Limits on coverage may impact demand for our products. Even if coverage is obtained, third- party reimbursement may not be adequate to allow us to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis. As result, we may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development. 30 In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessment, or HTA) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, subject to the requirements set out in Directive 89/105/EEC relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, EU Member States have the legal competence to set national measures of an economic nature on the marketing of medicinal products in order to control public health expenditure on such products. Accordingly, EU Member States can restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. On December 13, 2021, a new Regulation on HTA was adopted by the EU. It entered into force in January 2022 and will become fully applicable in January 2025. The regulation provides for a coordinated approach to assessing the benefit of new therapies, which assessment will take place in parallel to the EU regulatory approval process. The objectives of the EU HTA regulation are to accelerate patient access to new therapies and reduce duplication of work. The impact of the new legislation on market access, pricing and reimbursement of new medicinal products in the individual EU countries cannot be predicted yet. An EU Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally tend to be significantly lower. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel import or distribution (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states) can further reduce prices. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements. Other U.S. Health Care Laws and Regulations In the U.S., biopharmaceutical manufacturers and their products are subject to extensive regulation at the federal and state level, such as laws intended to prevent fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws, some of which will apply only if and when we have an approved product, include: • federal false claims, false statements and civil monetary penalties laws prohibiting, among other things, any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment of government funds or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid; • federal healthcare program anti-kickback law, which prohibits, among other things, persons from offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchasing or ordering of, a good or service for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid; • The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which, in addition to privacy protections applicable to healthcare providers and other entities, prohibits executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters; • FDCA, which among other things, strictly regulates drug marketing, prohibits manufacturers from marketing such products prior to approval or for off-label use and regulates the distribution of samples; 31 • federal laws that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report certain calculated product prices to the government or provide certain discounts or rebates to government authorities or private entities, often as a condition of reimbursement under government healthcare programs; • federal Open Payments (or federal “sunshine” law), which requires pharmaceutical and medical device companies to monitor and report certain financial interactions with certain healthcare providers to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for re-disclosure to the public, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; • federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; • analogous state laws and regulations, including: state anti-kickback and false claims laws; state laws requiring pharmaceutical companies to comply with specific compliance standards, restrict financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers or require pharmaceutical companies to report information related to payments to health care providers or marketing expenditures; and state laws governing privacy, security and breaches of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; • the Travel Act of 1961, which has been used as a tool in the health care context to target kickback schemes involving private insurance that would not otherwise be prohibited under the anti-kickback statute, makes it unlawful for a facility to use interstate commerce with the intent, among other things, to distribute proceeds of “unlawful activity” and thereafter do some act to further such distribution (“unlawful activity” includes bribery under the state law in which the activity was committed); and • laws and regulations prohibiting bribery and corruption, such as the FCPA, which, among other things, prohibits U.S. companies and their employees and agents from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to foreign government officials, employees of public international organizations or foreign government-owned or affiliated entities, candidates for foreign public office, and foreign political parties or officials thereof. Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring compliance is time consuming and costly. Similar healthcare laws and regulations exist in the EU and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. Health Care Reform in the U.S. The containment of health care costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and biologics and other medical products, government control and other changes to the health care system in the United States. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among 32 other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress including aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by President Biden in December 2022, made several changes to sequestration of the Medicare program. Section 1001 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act delays the 4% Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 sequester for two years, through the end of calendar year 2024. Triggered by enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the 4% cut to the Medicare program would have taken effect in January 2023. The Consolidated Appropriations Act’s health care offset title includes Section 4163, which extends the 2% Budget Control Act of 2011 Medicare sequester for six months into fiscal year 2032 and lowers the payment reduction percentages in fiscal years 2030 and 2031. Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate”. The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. The nature and scope of health care reform in the second Trump administration remains uncertain but early actions suggest that efforts to undermine the ACA will be renewed and litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Pharmaceutical Price Reform The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Seven states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont) have passed laws allowing for the importation of products from Canada. North Dakota  and Virginia  have passed legislation establishing workgroups to examine the impact of a state importation program. As of May 2024, five states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and New Mexico) had submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals to the FDA. On January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian product importation. That state now has authority to import certain products from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each product selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the products and perform quality testing of the products to meet the FDA standards. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) further delayed implementation of this rule to January 1, 2032. 33 On August 16, 2022, the IRA was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap, imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Medicare Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least nine years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. On August 15, 2024, the HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. In addition to the drug price negotiation program, the IRA established inflation rebate programs under Medicare Part B and Part D. These programs require manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they raise their prices for certain Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. On December 9, 2024, with issuance of its 2025 Physician Fee Schedule final regulation, CMS finalized its rules governing the IRA inflation rebate programs. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. On June 6, 2023, Merck & Co. filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, several other parties filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. This is increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval. 34 For a more detailed discussion of health care reform in the U.S., see “Risk Factors - Ongoing healthcare legislative and regulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.” Data Privacy Regulation U.S. Privacy Law There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personal information, including laws requiring the safeguarding of personal information and laws requiring notification to governmental authorities and data subjects as well as remediation in the event of a data breach. In the health care industry generally, under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended in 2009 by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. HIPAA may apply to us in certain circumstances and may also apply to our business partners in ways that may impact our relationships with them. Our clinical trials are regulated by the Common Rule, which also includes specific privacy-related provisions. HITECH made significant modifications to HIPAA including subjecting business associates to direct regulation and enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights of HHS, or OCR, instituting a breach notification requirement for breaches of unsecured PHI, including a breach of PHI held by a business associate, and strengthening the enforcement tools available to OCR. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that may be applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. State attorneys general also have authority to enforce state privacy and security laws. General Data Protection Regulation Many countries outside of the U.S. maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The General Data Protection Regulation, (EU) 2016/679, or GDPR, became effective on May 25, 2018, and deals with the collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals in the EEA. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the U.S., providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent to certain processing activities from the individuals to whom the personal data relates, keeping personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record- keeping. The GDPR provides for substantial penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to €10.0 million or up to two percent of our total worldwide annual revenues, whichever is greater, for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to €20.0 million or up to four percent of our total worldwide annual revenues, whichever is greater, for more serious offenses. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers, and recent court decisions and regulatory guidance have substantially increased the compliance burden and legal uncertainty associated with transferring the personal data of EEA individuals to third countries outside of the EEA whose data protection laws are not believed to be adequate by European standards (although the recent EU-US Data Privacy Framework offers a new route for data transfers from the EU to be made lawfully to the US). 35 Further, the GDPR provides for opening clauses in certain areas, which enable the legislators of member states of the EU to implement additional requirements to the GDPR in national law, whereby national laws may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic, biometric and health data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. The UK’s decision to leave the EU (and it is important to note that the EEA does not include the UK), often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the UK and to what extent UK law will diverge from the GDPR in the future. At this point in time, the UK Government has incorporated the GDPR into UK law, known as the ‘UK GDPR', but has also published proposals recently to reform UK data protection law which are going through the UK Parliament and likely to become law in 2024. In the context of international data transfers, European Commission has issued adequacy decisions which have the effect of authorizing data transfers from the EEA to the UK. The UK Government and the Information Commissioner’s Office have also published proposals recently to indicate how data transfers between the UK and the rest of the world will be regulated now that the UK has left the EU. For instance, the UK Government proposes recognizing more countries as adequate for data transfers as part of reducing barriers to data flows — this would include countries not yet authorized by the European Commission. The UK Government has also approved the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework for data transfers from the UK to the US. Employees and Human Capital Resources As of December 31, 2024, we had 11 full-time employees, including a total of two employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, five are engaged in research and development activities and six are engaged in general and administrative activities. None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We are dedicated to fostering a workplace environment that keeps our employees inspired, including providing a comprehensive benefits program that supports the health care, family, and financial needs of our employees. All of our full-time employees are eligible for cash bonuses and equity awards in addition to other benefits including comprehensive health insurance, life and disability insurance, and 401(k) matching. Corporate Information We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on August 6, 2001 under the name Renegade Therapeutics, Inc. We changed our name to Aileron Therapeutics, Inc. on February 5, 2007. On October 31, 2023, we acquired Lung pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, after which time Lung became a wholly owned subsidiary of ours. On January 10, 2025, we changed our name to Rein Therapeutics, Inc., and changed our trading symbol from “ALRN” to “RNTX”, effective January 13, 2025. Our principal executive office is located at 12407 N. Mopac Expy. Suite 250 #390, Austin, TX 78758, and our telephone number is (737) 802-1989. Information Available on the Internet Our internet website address is http://www.reintx.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendment to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through the “SEC Filings” section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. You can review our electronically filed reports and other information that we file with the SEC on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. 36 Item 1A. Ri sk Factors Careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, in addition to the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other documents that we file with the SEC, in evaluating our company and our business. Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. Risks Related to Our Financial Condition We require substantial additional capital to finance our operations. Our cash and cash equivalents are not sufficient to enable us to complete the development and commercialization of LTI-03 and LTI-01. If we are unable to raise such capital when needed, or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce and/or eliminate one or more of our clinical and research and development programs, future commercialization efforts or other operations. Developing biopharmaceutical products, including conducting clinical trials and preclinical studies, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we conduct our planned clinical trials of LTI-03 and LTI-01 and any future product candidates that we may develop, seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and to launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in order to maintain our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on acceptable terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate one or more of our research and drug development programs or future commercialization efforts. For example, in June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately $12.9 million in cash and cash equivalents. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our planned operating expense and capital expenditure requirements into August 2025. These funds are not sufficient to enable us to complete our planned Phase 2 clinical trial of LTI-03 and we will need to obtain additional funding prior to initiating the trial. Our future viability is dependent on our ability to raise additional capital to finance our operations. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash and cash equivalents to be able to continue to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. In addition, our existing cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to fund all of the efforts that we plan to undertake or to fund the completion of development of our product candidates. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources. Although management plans to pursue additional funding, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining sufficient funding on terms acceptable to us to fund continuing operations, or at all. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to: • the scope, timing, progress, costs, and results of discovery, preclinical development, and clinical trials for our current and future product candidates; • the number of clinical trials required for regulatory approval of our current and future product candidates; • the costs, timing, and outcome of regulatory review of any of our current and future product candidates; • the cost of manufacturing clinical and commercial supplies of our current and future product candidates; • the costs and timing of future commercialization activities, including manufacturing, marketing, sales, and distribution, for any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval; 37 • the costs and timing of preparing, filing, and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights, and defending any intellectual property-related claims, including any claims by third parties that we are infringing upon their intellectual property rights; • our ability to maintain existing, and establish new, strategic collaborations, licensing, or other arrangements and the financial terms of any such agreements, including the timing and amount of any future milestone, royalty, or other payments due under any such agreement; • the revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval; • expenses to attract, hire and retain, skilled personnel; • the costs of operating as a public company; • if our product candidates are approved, our ability to establish a commercially viable pricing structure and obtain approval for coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payors; • the effect of competing technological and market developments; • the extent to which we acquire or invest in businesses, products, and technologies; and • unfavorable global economic conditions, which may exacerbate the magnitude of the factors discussed above. We do not have any committed external source of funds or other support for our development efforts and we cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until we can generate sufficient revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If we raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Further, to the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, your ownership interest will be diluted. In addition, any debt financing may subject us to fixed payment obligations and covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable intellectual property or other rights to our product candidates, technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. We also may be required to seek collaborators for any of our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or relinquish our rights to product candidates or technologies that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline. Our recurring losses from operations raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have never generated revenue or profit from product sales, and it is possible we will never generate revenue or profit from product sales. As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately $12.9 million in cash and cash equivalent. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our planned operating expense and capital expenditure requirements into August 2025. Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash and cash equivalents to be able to continue our operations is based on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. In addition, our existing cash and cash equivalents will not be sufficient to fund all of the efforts that we plan to undertake or to fund the completion of development of our product candidates. Accordingly, our future viability is dependent on our ability to raise additional capital to finance our operations. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional funding, including through a combination of public or private additional equity or debt financings, strategic collaborations, licensing arrangements or other sources on acceptable terms, if at all. To the extent that we raise additional capital through future equity 38 offerings, the ownership interest of common stockholders will be diluted, which dilution may be significant. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain any or sufficient additional funding or that such funding, if available, will be obtainable on terms satisfactory to us. In the event that we are unable to obtain any or sufficient additional funding, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue as a going concern, and we will be forced to delay, reduce or discontinue our product development programs or consider other various strategic alternatives. Moreover, these factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern may materially and adversely affect the price per share of our common stock, and it may be more difficult for us to obtain financing. If existing or potential collaborators decline to do business with us or potential investors decline to participate in any future financings due to such concerns, our ability to increase our cash position may be limited. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to LTI-03, LTI-01 or other product candidates. We expect our expenses to increase as we will incur significant research and development expenses as we conduct planned clinical trials, continue our non-clinical research with our product candidates, initiate additional clinical trials of our product candidates and pursue later stages of clinical development of our product candidates. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenues from the sale of our products, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and/or licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of our then existing stockholders may be diluted, and the terms of these securities could include liquidation or other preferences and anti-dilution protections that could adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. In addition, debt financing, if available, would result in fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, creating liens, redeeming stock or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Securing financing may also require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management team and could divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of our product candidates. We may seek one or more collaborators for future development of our product candidates for one or more indications. However, we may not be able to enter into such collaborations on suitable terms, on a timely basis, or at all. Even if we are able to raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technology, future revenue streams or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, reduce and/or eliminate our product development or future commercialization efforts, or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we might otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. We have a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult to evaluate our prospects and likelihood of success. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio and performing clinical trials and research and development of our product candidates. Our approach to the research and development of product candidates is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value. In addition, one clinical product candidate, LTI-03, is in early clinical development and a second clinical product candidate, LTI-01, is in mid-stage clinical development. Both programs will require substantial additional development and clinical research time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any product candidate through clinical trials to regulatory approval. We are still 39 in mid-stage and early clinical development and may be unable to obtain regulatory approval, manufacture a commercial scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. 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 efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. In addition, as a business with a limited operating history, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors and risks frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields. Consequently, we have no meaningful history of operations upon which to evaluate our business, and predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing drug products. We have incurred significant net losses since inception and we expect to continue to incur significant net losses for the foreseeable future and do not expect to achieve or maintain profitability. Even if we are able to develop and commercialize our product candidates, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. We have incurred significant losses since our inception and have financed our operations principally through equity financings. We continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. For the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we reported an operating loss of $65.1 million and $16.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $351.4 million. We have devoted substantially all of our resources and efforts to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring and discovering development programs, securing intellectual property rights and research and development and we expect that it will be several years, if ever, before we generate revenue from product sales. Even if we receive marketing approval for and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, we expect that we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenses in order to develop and market additional potential product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we: • advance the development of our clinical product candidates, LTI-03 and LTI-01, and our other product candidates, through clinical development, and, if successful, later-stage clinical trials; • advance our preclinical development programs into clinical development; • research and develop new product candidates; • experience delays or interruptions to clinical trials, preclinical studies, our receipt of materials and services from our third-party service providers on whom we rely, or our supply chain; • seek regulatory approvals for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials; • commercialize our product candidates and any future product candidates, if approved; • increase the amount of research and development activities to identify and develop product candidates; • hire additional clinical, chemistry, manufacturing, controls, or CMC, quality control, scientific and management personnel and expand our operational, financial and management systems and personnel, including personnel to support our clinical development and manufacturing efforts and our operations as a public company; • establish a sales, marketing, medical affairs and distribution infrastructure to commercialize any products for which we may obtain marketing approval and intend to commercialize on our own or jointly with third parties; • maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio; and • invest in or in-license other technologies or product candidates. To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical 40 trials and preclinical studies, obtaining marketing approval for product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and may identify additional material weaknesses in the future or fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, which may result in material misstatements of our financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations. Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. An ineffective system of internal control could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock. We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024 and 2023. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Management identified material weaknesses related to the (i) lack of sufficient accounting and supervisory personnel to maintain appropriate segregation of duties relating to user access of the financial accounting system and who have the appropriate level of technical accounting experience and training, (ii) lack of evidence over reviews of account reconciliations and supporting schedules, and (iii) lack of adequate procedures and controls to ensure that accurate financial statements could have been prepared and reviewed on a timely basis for annual reporting purposes. Refer to Part II, Item 9A for additional information regarding the material weaknesses. We have implemented and are continuing to implement procedures to remediate these material weaknesses, however, we cannot assure you that these or other measures will fully remediate the material weaknesses in a timely manner or prevent future material weaknesses from occurring. For additional information regarding our remediation measures for the material weaknesses, please refer to Part II, Item 9A. “Controls and Procedures” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If we identify material weaknesses in the future, and we are unable to remediate any such material weaknesses, our reputation, financial reporting and condition, and operating results could suffer. Moreover, we could become subject to investigations by regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control procedures on a quarterly basis. Our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, for so long as we are neither a “large accelerated filer” nor an “accelerated filer”, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting could detect additional material weaknesses that our management’s assessment might not detect. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to restatements of our financial statements and require us to incur the expense of remediation. 41 During the course of our review and testing, we may identify additional material weaknesses and be unable to remediate them before we must provide the required reports. Furthermore, if we identify any material weaknesses, we may not detect errors on a timely basis and our financial statements may be materially misstated. We hold a portion of our cash and cash equivalents that we use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts that could be adversely affected if the financial institutions holding such funds fail. We hold a portion of cash and cash equivalents that we use to meet our working capital and operating expense needs in deposit accounts. The balance held in these accounts may exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, standard deposit insurance limit of $250,000. If a financial institution in which we hold such funds fails or is subject to significant adverse conditions in the financial or credit markets, we could be subject to a risk of loss of all or a portion of such uninsured funds or be subject to a delay in accessing all or a portion of such uninsured funds. Any such loss or lack of access to these funds could adversely impact our short term liquidity and ability to meet our operating expense obligations. For example, on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, and Signature Bank, were closed by state regulators and the FDIC was appointed receiver for each bank. The FDIC created successor bridge banks and all deposits of SVB and Signature Bank were transferred to the bridge banks under a systemic risk exception approved by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. If financial institutions in which we hold funds for working capital and operating expenses were to fail, we cannot provide any assurances that such governmental agencies would take action to protect our uninsured deposits in a similar manner. We also maintain investment accounts in which we hold our investments and, if access to the funds we use for working capital and operating expenses is impaired, we may not be able to open new operating accounts or to sell investments or transfer funds from our investment accounts to new operating accounts on a timely basis sufficient to meet our operating expense obligations. Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Product Candidates Our business is highly dependent on the success of our product candidates, LTI-03 and LTI-01 and any other product candidates that we advance into clinical development. We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We have two clinical product candidates, LTI-03 and LTI-01, in early- and mid-stage clinical development, respectively. If either of our clinical product candidates encounter safety or efficacy problems, development delays, regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed. We have completed a Phase 1a safety and tolerability clinical trial of LTI-03 in healthy normal volunteers and conducted a Phase 1b dose ranging, placebo-controlled safety and tolerability trial of LTI-03 in IPF patients. We have completed a Phase 1b safety, tolerability and proof of mechanism trial and a Phase 2a dose-ranging, placebo-controlled trial of LTI-01 in loculated pleural effusion, or LPE, patients. We must successfully complete Phase 3 clinical trials prior to obtaining FDA approval of LTI-03 or LTI-01 for commercial use. For each product candidate, we must demonstrate its safety and efficacy in humans, obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, obtain manufacturing supply, capacity and expertise, and substantially invest in marketing efforts before we are able to generate any revenue from such product candidate. Before we can generate any revenue from sales of our clinical product candidates, LTI-03 and LTI-01, or any other product candidates, we must perform additional clinical studies and/or preclinical development, and complete regulatory review and approval in one or more jurisdictions. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates is approved, we must ensure sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and conduct and finance significant marketing efforts in connection with any commercial launch. These efforts will require substantial investment, and we may not have the financial resources to continue development of our product candidates. 42 We may experience setbacks that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our product candidates, including, but not limited to: • negative or inconclusive results from our clinical trials or preclinical studies or the clinical trials or preclinical studies of others for product candidates similar to ours, leading to a decision or requirement to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies or to abandon a program; • drug-related side effects experienced by subjects in our clinical trials or by individuals using drugs or therapeutics similar to our product candidates; • delays in submitting Investigational New Drug applications, or INDs, or comparable foreign regulatory applications or delays or failure in obtaining the necessary approvals from regulators to commence a clinical trial, or a suspension or termination of a clinical trial once commenced; • conditions imposed by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials or our drug development strategy; • delays in enrolling subjects in clinical trials; • high drop-out rates of subjects from clinical trials; • inadequate or delayed supply or quality of product candidates or other materials necessary for the conduct of our clinical trials; • greater than anticipated clinical trial costs; • inability to compete with other therapies; • unfavorable FDA or other regulatory agency inspection and review of a clinical trial site; • failure of our third-party manufacturers, contractors or investigators to comply with regulatory requirements or otherwise meet their contractual obligations in a timely manner, or at all; • delays in obtaining any pre-market inspections required by the FDA or other regulatory agencies; • delays and changes in regulatory requirements, policy and guidelines, including the imposition of additional regulatory oversight around clinical testing generally or with respect to our technology in particular; or • varying interpretations of data by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory agencies. We do not have complete control over many of these factors, including certain aspects of clinical development and the regulatory review process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and our manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales efforts or that of any future collaborator. Our approach to drug research and development in the area of fibrotic diseases, with a focus on Cav1-related peptides, is unproven and may not result in marketable products. Our approach is to develop targeted treatments for fibrosis with an initial focus on Cav1 biology and utilization of its caveolin scaffolding domain, or CSD, peptide region. However, to date, this mechanism has not been definitively proven to successfully treat fibrosis in patients. Utilizing a Cav1-related peptide to treat fibrosis is a novel approach in a rapidly developing field, and there can be no assurance that we will not experience unforeseen problems or delays in developing our product candidates, that such problems or delays will not result in unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems can be solved. Therefore, we may ultimately discover that our approach and any product candidates resulting therefrom do not possess properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. As a result, we may never succeed in developing a marketable product. In addition, while we have utilized cell assays, precision cut lung slice models, and in vivo animal models to assess both anti-fibrotic and epithelium preservation functions of Cav1-related peptides, there can be no assurance that our technology will yield its intended benefits in human patients. 43 The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any future collaborators may decide, or regulatory authorities may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or nonclinical studies. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled, adequate clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek marketing approvals for their commercial sale. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future larger registration clinical trials will be successful. This is because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials. From time to time, we may publish or report topline, interim or preliminary data from our clinical trials. We make assumptions, estimates, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to evaluate all data fully and carefully. As a result, topline, interim or preliminary data from clinical trials that we may conduct may not be indicative of the final results of such trials and are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as subject enrollment continues and more data from the trials become available. Topline, interim or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the interim or preliminary data. As a result, topline, interim or preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. We are conducting and may in the future choose to conduct clinical trials for current or future product candidates outside of the U.S., and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials. We may in the future choose to conduct one or more clinical trials outside the U.S. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the U.S. or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming, and which may result in current or future product candidates that we may develop being delayed for development or regulatory authorization or not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidates. We may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical trials. We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidates, including, but not limited to: • regulators or institutional review boards, or IRBs, or ethics committees may not authorize us or our investigators to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site; • the FDA or other comparable regulatory authorities may disagree with our clinical trial design, including with respect to dosing levels administered in our planned clinical trials, which may delay or prevent us from initiating our clinical trials with our originally intended trial design; • we may experience delays in reaching, or we may fail to reach, agreement on acceptable terms with prospective trial sites and prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites; 44 • the number of subjects required for clinical trials of any product candidates may be larger than we anticipate or patient recruitment and enrollment may be slow or subjects may drop out of these clinical trials or fail to return for post-treatment follow-up at a higher rate than we anticipate; • our third-party contractors may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, or may deviate from the clinical trial protocol or drop out of the trial, which may require that we add new clinical trial sites or investigators; • additional delays and interruptions to our clinical trials could extend the duration of the trials and increase the overall costs to finish the trials as our fixed costs are not substantially reduced during delays; • we may elect to, or regulators, IRBs, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, or DSMBs, or ethics committees may require that we or our investigators, suspend or terminate clinical research or trials for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks; • we may not have the financial resources available to begin and complete the planned trials, or the cost of clinical trials of any product candidates may be greater than we anticipate; • the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate to initiate or complete a given clinical trial; and • the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit additional data such as long-term toxicology studies or impose other requirements before permitting us to initiate a clinical trial. Our product development costs will increase if we experience additional delays in clinical testing or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. For example, we previously announced that we expect to investigate LTI-01 in an additional Phase 2 clinical trial. However, in June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. If we do not achieve our product development goals in the time frames we announce and expect, the approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed or prevented entirely. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly. Our ongoing and future clinical trials may reveal significant adverse events or unexpected drug-drug interactions not seen in our preclinical studies or earlier clinical studies and may result in a safety profile that could delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates. We completed a healthy normal volunteer Phase 1a clinical trial of our clinical product candidate LTI-03. During our LTI-03 Phase 1a clinical trial, subjects experienced mild Treatment Emergent Adverse Events, or TEAEs, such as dry cough, as well as moderate or even severe TEAEs, such as wheezing, chest tightness, or decline in the amount of air a person can force from their lungs in one second. While no subject experienced a Serious Adverse Event, or SAE, it is possible that subjects in future clinical studies could develop TEAEs such as the ones experienced in the Phase 1a clinical trial, and it is possible that such the number and/or severity of such TEAEs could result in a pause or cessation of the clinical trial. We have also completed Phase 1b and Phase 2a clinical trials of our clinical product candidate LTI-01 in LPE patients. In the Phase 2a trial, four subjects experienced TEAEs, including 1 mild, 2 moderate, and 1 severe TEAE. There were no SAEs reported. The product candidate was concluded to be generally well-tolerated across all doses in trial participants. If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our ongoing or future clinical trials, whether or not related to our product candidates, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts altogether 45 or may result in safety profile that could delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates. Clinical development involves a lengthy, complex and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In particular, the general approach for FDA approval of a new drug is dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials of the relevant drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve many patients, have significant costs and can take years to complete. A product candidate can fail at any stage of testing, even after observing promising signals of activity in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. In addition, initial success in clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when such trials are completed. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition of candidate therapies from failure of these candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and previous clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as new drugs and there can be no assurance that any of our future clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of LTI-03 and LTI-01 or any of our other product candidates. Product candidates that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including, but not limited to: • clinical trials or preclinical studies may show the product candidates to be less effective than expected (e.g., a clinical trial could fail to meet its primary endpoint(s)) or to have unacceptable side effects or toxicities; • failure to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful; • failure to receive the necessary regulatory approvals; • failure of contract manufacturers to comply with regulatory requirements; • manufacturing costs, formulation issues, pricing or reimbursement issues, or other factors that make a product candidate uneconomical; and • the proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies that may prevent one of our product candidates from being commercialized. In addition, differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many candidates that have performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Some of our future trials may be open label studies, where both the patient and investigator know whether a patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidates and sometimes do so at different dose levels. Open label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. In addition, open label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Therefore, it is possible that positive results observed in open label trials will not be replicated in later placebo-controlled trials. In addition, the standards that the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities use when regulating us require judgment and can change, which makes it difficult to predict with certainty how they will be applied. Any analysis we perform of data from preclinical and clinical activities is subject to confirmation and interpretation by regulatory authorities, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We may also encounter unexpected 46 delays or increased costs due to new government regulations. Examples of such regulations include future legislation or administrative action, or changes in the FDA policy during the period of product development and the FDA regulatory review. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA or foreign regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. The FDA also requires a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, to deliberate on the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support product candidate approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to obtain approval of any product candidates that we develop. If we seek to conduct clinical trials in foreign countries or pursue marketing approvals in foreign jurisdictions, we must comply with numerous foreign regulatory requirements governing, among other things, the ethical conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing authorization, pricing and third-party reimbursement. The foreign regulatory approval process varies among countries and may include all of the risks associated with FDA approval described above as well as risks attributable to the satisfaction of local regulations in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities outside the U.S. and vice versa. Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a marketing application to the FDA and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities, for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. We may experience negative or inconclusive results, which may result in our deciding, or our being required by regulators, to conduct additional clinical studies or trials or abandon some or all of our product development programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Studies involving human tissue samples may also be subject to institutional and government human subject privacy policies that may vary by territory. We or our partners which use human tissue samples or conduct tissue and/or animal studies on our behalf, may be found to be in violation of one or more of these regulations or policies and may be subject to closure, censure or other penalties. In some cases, these penalties could materially impact the performance, availability, or validity of studies conducted by us or on our behalf. Even in the absence of violations resulting in penalties, regulatory and other authorities may refuse to authorize the conduct or to accept the results of studies for regulatory or ethical reasons. If we encounter difficulties enrolling and retaining patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including, but not limited to: • the patient eligibility and exclusion criteria defined in the protocol; • the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints and the process for identifying patients; • the willingness or availability of patients to participate in our trials; • the proximity of patients to trial sites; • the design of the trial; • our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience; • clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages and risks of the product candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new products that may be approved for the indications we are investigating; • the availability of competing commercially available therapies and other competing product candidates’ clinical trials; 47 • our ability to obtain and maintain patient informed consents; and • the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials or are discontinued from trials at the recommendation of the principal investigator before completion. For example, we are developing LTI-03 for the treatment of IPF, which is an orphan indication. In the U.S., IPF is estimated to affect approximately 100,000 people. As a result, we may encounter difficulties enrolling subjects in our clinical trials of LTI-03 due, in part, to the small size of this patient population. In addition, our clinical trials could compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, it is possible that we would conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that a competitor uses, which would reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Certain of our planned clinical trials may also involve invasive procedures such as bronchoscopy and broncho-alveolar lavage procedure, which may lead some patients to drop out of trials to avoid these follow-up procedures. In addition, patients participating in our clinical trials may drop out before completion of the trial or experience adverse medical events unrelated to our products. If approved, our product candidates that are regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as their biologics license application, or BLA, does not rely on the reference product, sponsor’s data or submit the application as a biosimilar application. We believe that any of the product candidates we develop that are approved in the U.S. as a biological product under a BLA may qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that the FDA may not grant exclusivity, this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise undermined by a competitor, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. The approval of a biosimilar of our product candidates could have a material adverse impact on our business due to increased competition and pricing pressure. Although we have received U.S. Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-03 for IPF and U.S. and European Union, or the EU, Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-01 for pleural empyema, we may be unable to obtain and maintain Orphan Drug Designation for our other product candidates and, even if we obtain such designation, we may not be able to realize the benefits of such designation, including potential marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, if approved. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and other major markets, may designate drugs intended to treat conditions or diseases affecting relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the U.S. 48 Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 specifies the requirements for designation as an orphan drug at the EU level. The medicinal product must be intended (i) for the treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating disease affecting no more than five in 10,000 individuals in the EU, or (ii) for the treatment of a correspondingly serious condition described in the Regulation, and in both cases, without additional incentives, the marketing of the medicinal product must be unlikely to generate sufficient profit to justify the necessary investment. If one of the two alternatives applies, it is assumed that there is no other satisfactory treatment method or, if such a method exists, that the new product has a significant therapeutic benefit compared to it. Although we have received U.S. Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-03 for IPF and U.S. and EU Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-01 for pleural empyema, we have not received U.S. Orphan Drug Designation for LTI-01 for LPE, which is the first indication that we are pursuing for LTI-01. Furthermore, the designation of any of our product candidates as an orphan drug does not mean that any regulatory agency will accelerate regulatory review of, or ultimately approve, that product candidate, nor does it limit the ability of any regulatory agency to grant Orphan Drug Designation to product candidates of other companies that treat the same indications as our product candidates. Generally, if a product candidate with an Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S. receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes FDA from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. Similar exclusivity rights apply under EU law if a product candidate with Orphan Drug Designation is authorized in the EU. Designation does not mean approval. Even if we obtain marketing authorization, the FDA may choose not to grant exclusivity. In the EU, market exclusivity only applies if the criteria for orphan drug designation still exist at the time when the marketing authorization is granted. The applicable period is seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU. Under EU law, the period of exclusivity may be reduced to six years if it is established, at the end of the fifth year, that the criteria for orphan drug designation are no longer met. In the U.S., orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Under EU law, the protection of an orphan medicinal product does not only apply to medicinal products with the same active substance, but extends to all “similar medicinal products”. This is determined by the molecular structure, the mechanism of action and the approved therapeutic indication. Once an orphan medicinal product has been authorized, the European Commission, the EMA and the national regulatory authorities may not, for a period of ten years from the date of authorization, in respect of such similar medicinal products for the same therapeutic indication: accept another application for authorization, grant a corresponding authorization, or grant an application to extend an existing authorization. Thus, not only market exclusivity is conferred, but also additional protection by prohibiting any application and/or granting of authorization for a similar medicinal product during this 10-year period. Yet, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition or the FDA or the European Commission can approve a similar drug for a different indication. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter drug is not the same drug or is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EU, another similar product in the same indication may be approved if the holder of the orphan designation is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the product or if the second applicant can establish clinical superiority of its product. On April 26, 2023, the European Commission presented a draft for a comprehensive reform of the pharmaceutical legislation. The so-called “EU pharmaceutical package” provides, among others, for a new regulation to replace Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products. The draft regulation introduces the possibility of establishing new designation criteria by the EMA and the restriction of designation as an orphan drug to generally seven years. The draft regulation also provides for more flexible rules on the duration of market exclusivity, including: ten years of market exclusivity for orphan drugs in the case of “high unmet medical need”, five years for orphan drugs, approved by a bibliographic marketing authorization and nine years in all other cases with the possibility of extension in the case of market access in all Member States (another year) or development of new therapeutic indications for an already authorized orphan medicinal product (up to two years). Market exclusivity can thus add up to a maximum of thirteen years, whereas today it is still capped at ten years. It should be noted that the market exclusivity right of the 49 orphan medicinal product does not prevent the submission, validation and assessment of an application for marketing authorization of a similar medicinal product, including generics and biosimilars, if the remaining duration of the market exclusivity right is less than two years. The EU pharmaceutical package is still at an early stage of the legislative process. It may still undergo substantial changes and is expected to turn into binding law in several years’ time. In the U.S., the FDA and Congress may further reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. This may be particularly true in light of a decision from the Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit in September 2021 finding that, for the purpose of determining the scope of exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and could not be interpreted by the FDA to mean the “indication or use”. Thus, the court concluded, orphan drug exclusivity applies to the entire designated disease or condition rather than the “indication or use”. Although there have been legislative proposals to overrule this decision, they have not been enacted into law. On January 23, 2023, the FDA announced that, in matters beyond the scope of that court order, the FDA will continue to apply its existing regulations tying orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which the orphan drug was approved. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted. Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay. As product candidates progress through preclinical to later-stage clinical trials to marketing approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize yield, manufacturing batch size, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with good manufacturing practices, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that our manufacturers will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential commercial launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If our manufacturers are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must make decisions on the allocation of resources to certain programs and product candidates; these decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business. We have limited financial and human resources and intend to initially focus on research programs and product candidates for a limited set of indications. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. This approach may cause us to commit significant resources to prepare for and conduct later-stage trials for one or more product candidates that subsequently fail earlier-stage clinical testing. Therefore, our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities or expend resources on product candidates that are not viable. For instance, in June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 for the treatment of IPF and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. 50 There can be no assurance that we will ever be able to identify additional therapeutic opportunities for our product candidates or to develop suitable potential product candidates through internal research programs, which could materially adversely affect our future growth and prospects. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates or other potential programs that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. Mergers and acquisitions in the biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, more convenient, or less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, products currently approved for other indications could be discovered to be effective treatments of IPF and LPE as well, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over LTI-03 and LTI-01 or other product candidates that we may identify. Currently, off-label use of fibrinolytics is utilized in many hospitals for the treatment of LPE. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. If competitors obtain patent protection or market exclusivity for their products before any of our products are approved, they could significantly delay the approval, and even review (in some cases), of our marketing application. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors. The availability of competitive products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize. We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates in the future. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to: • our inability to design or obtain such product candidates with the pharmacological properties that we desire or attractive pharmacokinetics; or • potential product candidates may, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be medicines that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. We have Cav1-related peptides in preclinical development for potentially a broad number of fibrosis indications. Many of these fibrosis indications may require a systemically delivered formulation to effectively treat these indications. We have not finalized a systemic formulation of a proprietary Cav1-related peptide and are currently developing potential systemic formulations. In the event we are unable to successfully complete a suitable formulation for therapeutic delivery, we may not be able to develop product candidates to address additional fibrosis indications. Even if we are able to develop a systemic formulation, it is possible that this systemic delivered product candidate will fail to show sufficient efficacy or safety in later stages of testing to proceed with development. We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than us. The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major biopharmaceutical companies, specialty biopharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization. 51 There are a number of large biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the commercialization or development of products for the treatment of fibrosis. Companies that we are aware of that are targeting the treatment of various fibrosis indications include large companies with significant financial resources such as, but not limited to: AbbVie Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Roche Holding AG, and Novartis AG. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. There are currently no approved therapeutics for the treatment of LPE. Roche Holding AG manufactures tissue plasminogen activator, or tPA, and recombinant deoxyribonuclease, or DNase, which are used off-label to treat LPE patients. We are not aware of any other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies developing drug therapies for the treatment of LPE. If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial financial or other liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of testing LTI-03, LTI-01 and any of our other product candidates in clinical trials, and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any of our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in: • inability to bring a product candidate to the market; • decreased demand for our products; • injury to our reputation; • withdrawal of clinical trial participants and inability to continue clinical trials; • initiation of investigations by regulators; • fines, injunctions or criminal penalties; • costs to defend the related litigation; • diversion of management’s time and our resources; • substantial monetary awards to trial participants; • product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions; • loss of revenue; • exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources; • adverse effects to our results of operations and business; • the inability to commercialize any product candidate, if approved; and • decline in our share price. Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with collaboration partners. We will need to obtain additional insurance for clinical trials as LTI-03 and LTI-01 continue clinical development and as additional product candidates enter the clinic. However, we may be unable to obtain, or may obtain on unfavorable terms, clinical trial insurance in amounts adequate to cover any liabilities from any of our clinical trials. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a 52 settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise. Risks Related to Marketing Approval We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate and we may be unable to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approval for any product candidate. We have never obtained marketing approval for a product candidate. It is possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for substantive review any new drug applications, or NDAs, or biologics license applications, or BLAs, that we submit for our product candidates or may conclude after review of our data that our application is insufficient to obtain marketing approval of our product candidates. If the FDA does not accept or approve our NDAs or BLAs for our product candidates, it may require that we conduct additional clinical, nonclinical or manufacturing validation studies and submit that data before it will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other FDA-required studies, approval of any NDA or BLA, or application that we submit may be delayed by several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA to approve our NDAs or BLAs. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, marketing approvals would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, generating revenues and achieving and sustaining profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for our product candidates, which could significantly harm our business. We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience as a company in commercializing products, and we may have to invest significant resources to develop these capabilities. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our products, we may not be able to generate product revenue. We have no internal sales, marketing or distribution capabilities, nor have we commercialized a product. If any of our product candidates ultimately receives regulatory approval, we expect to establish a marketing and sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product in major markets, which will be expensive and time consuming. We have no prior experience as a company in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may also choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. Notwithstanding our current license and collaboration agreement with Taiho, we may not be able to enter into future collaborations or hire consultants or external service providers to assist us in sales, marketing and distribution functions on acceptable financial terms, or at all, which may result in being unable to successfully commercialize our products. In addition, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, may be lower if we rely on third parties for these functions than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses. Even if a product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success. 53 Even if LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid programs and managed care organizations, and others in the medical community. Our belief that LTI-01 compares well on dosing schedule, surgical referrals and side effect profile compared to off-label IPFT treatment, such as tPA with DNase, to treat LPE patients is based upon limited data from our completed clinical trials. In addition, the availability of coverage by third-party payors may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures designed to reduce the cost of health care. If the product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including, but not limited to: • efficacy and potential advantages compared to alternative treatments; • the ability to offer our products, if approved, for sale at competitive prices; • convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments; • the willingness of the target patient population to try new therapies and of physicians to prescribe these therapies; • the recommendations with respect to our product candidates in guidelines published by various scientific organizations applicable to us and our product candidates; • the strength of marketing and distribution support; • the ability to obtain sufficient third-party coverage, and adequate reimbursement; and • the prevalence and severity of any side effects. If government and other third-party payors do not provide coverage and adequate reimbursement levels for any products we commercialize, market acceptance and commercial success would be reduced. In addition, even if we obtain approval, the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority might add specific warnings to the product label, making promotion more difficult. In the U.S., for example, a product with a “Boxed Warning” which is a call-out warning for the possibility of a serious, life-threatening risk, carries promotional restrictions. In addition, due to the nature of the serious risk potentially associated with the drug, necessitating the Boxed Warning, public acceptance of the product may be challenging. Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us, or any future collaborators, from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidate that we may develop. As a result, we cannot predict when or if, and in which territories or for which indications, we, or any future collaborators, will obtain marketing approval to commercialize LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidate that we may develop. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing, promotion and distribution of drugs are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, whose laws and regulations may differ from country to country. We, and any future collaborators, are not permitted to market our product candidates in the U.S. or in other countries until we or they receive approval of an NDA or BLA from the FDA or marketing approval from comparable foreign regulatory authorities. LTI-03 and LTI-01 are in early and mid-stages of development and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for LTI-03, LTI-01 or any of our future product candidates in the U.S. or in any other jurisdiction. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain marketing approvals, including FDA approval of an NDA or BLA. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the U.S. and abroad, is a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Securing marketing approval 54 requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion and may determine that our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions, such as the aforementioned Boxed Warning in the product label, or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. Further, the FDA may determine that we must provide additional evidence and data before approving a BLA or NDA for our candidate products. For example, the FDA reviews an application to determine whether there is “substantial evidence” to support a finding of effectiveness for the proposed product for its intended use(s), The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to generally require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional confirmatory evidence may satisfy this standard. The FDA issued draft guidance in September 2023 that outlines considerations for relying on confirmatory evidence in lieu of a second clinical trial to demonstrate effectiveness. In the event that we submit a BLA or NDA on the basis of one clinical trial and confirmatory evidence, the FDA could determine that such information is not sufficient to support approval of the application and the agency could require us to conduct an additional trial in support of the BLA or NDA. Further, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA, or NDA or supplement to an NDA, for certain biological products and drug products, respectively, must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. The applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the U.S. or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action. Moreover, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for Diversity Action Plans, or DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance, when finalized, will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance. Further, in January 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the EU and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. This regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the EU. Under the coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information 55 System, a clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public. Our product candidates could fail to receive marketing approval for many reasons, including the following: • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials; • we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate is safe and effective for its proposed indication; • the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval; • we may be unable to demonstrate that a product candidate’s clinical and other benefits outweigh its safety risks; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials; • the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other submission or to obtain marketing approval in the U.S. or elsewhere; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies due to quality manufacturing concerns; • the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve any companion diagnostics that may be required in connection with approval of our therapeutic product candidates; and • the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval. In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted drug application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies, clinical trials or other studies and testing. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical studies and clinical trials could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we, or any collaborators we may have in the future, ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved drug not commercially viable. Finally, we could be adversely affected by several significant administrative law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , for example, the court overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc ., which for 40 years required federal courts to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes that are silent or ambiguous on a particular topic. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. Additionally, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , the court held that actions to challenge a federal regulation under the APA can be initiated within six years of the date of injury to the plaintiff, rather than the date the rule is finalized. The decision appears to give prospective plaintiffs a personal statute of limitations to challenge longstanding agency regulations. Another decision, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy , overturned regulatory agencies’ ability to impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings. These decisions could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS, that we rely on. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations. 56 Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could materially adversely affect our ability or that of any collaborators we may have to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact our stock price. Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad. Any approval we are granted for LTI-03 or LTI-01 in the U.S. would not assure approval of our product candidates in foreign jurisdictions. In order to market and sell our products in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we or our potential third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside of the U.S. generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside of the U.S., it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our potential third-party collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside of the U.S. does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products candidates in any market. In many countries outside the U.S., a product candidate must also be approved for reimbursement before it can be sold in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products, if approved, is also subject to approval. Obtaining non-U.S. regulatory approvals and compliance with non-U.S. regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries. In addition, if we fail to obtain the non-U.S. approvals required to market our product candidates outside the U.S. or if we fail to comply with applicable non-U.S. regulatory requirements, our target markets will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected. Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the UK as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit. The UK is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). At the same time, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area, or EEA, member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection, revising the eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) was published on April 26, 2023. The proposed revisions remain to be agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council and the proposals may therefore be substantially revised before adoption, which is not anticipated before early 2026. The revisions may however have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business in the long term. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could 57 significantly and materially harm our business. We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the U.S., including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the U.S. The design or execution of our ongoing and future clinical trials may not support marketing approval. The design or execution of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support marketing approval, and flaws in the design or execution of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We completed a Phase 2a dose-ranging, placebo-controlled trial of LTI-01 in LPE patients. We may need to investigate higher or lower doses of LTI-01 in future clinical trials to establish efficacy and safety. Additionally, as no drug has been approved for LPE, our Phase 2a primary endpoint of treatment failure, defined as death or referral to surgery by a specific criteria checklist within seven days of commencing treatment may not be considered an appropriate endpoint for approval by the regulatory authorities. The trial results did not show statistical significance on the primary endpoint. Additionally, our highest dose of LTI-01 in this trial showed a lower effect than the other LTI-01 doses tested. Based on the results of this trial, we expect to investigate LTI-01 in a Phase 2b dose-ranging, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a lower dose to establish efficacy and safety. However, in June 2024, we decided to temporarily delay clinical development of LTI-01 in an effort to focus our resources on clinical development of LTI-03 and until additional funds are raised. In the fourth quarter of 2024, we determined that the temporary delay of further clinical development of LTI-01 may not be a short-term measure. Even with additional clinical trial testing with a modified primary endpoint, we may never be successful in demonstrating sufficient results to support marketing approval. Additionally, in some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials with the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including differences in trial protocols, size and type of the patient populations, variable adherence to the dosing regimen or other protocol requirements and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any clinical trials we conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates. Further, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and in determining when or whether marketing approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Our product candidates may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in future Phase 3 clinical trials or registrational trials. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial designs and our interpretation of data from clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a pivotal Phase 3 or registrational clinical trial. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or a more restrictive label than we expect (e.g., Boxed Warning). Similarly, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates, if approved. Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our future clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic or competitor versions of any of our drugs that receive marketing approval, or such authorities do not grant our drugs appropriate periods of data or market exclusivity before approving generic or competitor versions of our drugs, the sales of our drugs could be adversely affected. Once an NDA is approved, the drug covered thereby becomes a “reference-listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations”. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of ANDAs in the U.S. In support of an ANDA, a 58 generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its drug has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic drugs may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic drugs are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug is typically lost to the generic drug. The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic drug until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference-listed drug has expired. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE. Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA and the FDA may not approve the application until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference-listed drug is either invalid, will not be infringed by the generic drug, or unenforceable, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference-listed drug. Manufacturers may seek to launch these generic drugs following the expiration of the marketing exclusivity period, even if we still have patent protection for our drug. Competition that our drugs may face from generic or competitor versions of our drugs could materially and adversely impact our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in those drug candidates. Our future revenues, profitability and cash flows could also be materially and adversely affected and our ability to obtain a return on the investments we have made in those drug candidates may be substantially limited if our drugs, if and when approved, are not afforded the appropriate periods of non-patent exclusivity. Risks Related to Reimbursement, Healthcare Regulations and Ongoing Regulatory Compliance Even if we receive regulatory approval of any product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, if approved. If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the U.S. and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, and good clinical practices, or GCP, requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Manufacturers and their facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any marketing application, and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, and quality control. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, or include specific safety-related label warnings that could affect marketing efforts. The FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, 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. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, we will have to comply with requirements including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration. 59 The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies may initiate consent decrees or withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things: • rescinding approval of the application, restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our products, withdrawal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory product recalls; • fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials; • refusal by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory agency to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of license approvals; • product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of our product candidates; and • injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The regulations relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA, EMA, MHRA and other government agencies. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe our products off-label to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. We intend to implement compliance and training programs designed to ensure that our sales and marketing practices comply with applicable regulations. Notwithstanding these programs, the FDA or other government agencies may allege or find that our practices constitute prohibited promotion of our products for unapproved uses. We also cannot be sure that our employees will comply with company policies and applicable regulations regarding the promotion of products for unapproved uses. Notwithstanding the regulatory restrictions on off-label promotion, the FDA and other regulatory authorities allow companies to engage in truthful, non-misleading, and non-promotional scientific communications concerning their products in certain circumstances. For example, in January 2025, the FDA published final guidance outlining its policies governing the distribution of scientific information to healthcare providers about unapproved uses of approved products. The final guidance calls for such communications to be truthful, non-misleading and scientifically sound and to include all information necessary for healthcare providers to interpret the strengths and weaknesses and validity and utility of the information about the unapproved use of the approved product. If a company engages in such communications consistent with the guidance’s recommendations, the FDA indicated that it will not treat such communications as evidence of unlawful promotion of a new intended use for the approved product. We will need to carefully navigate the FDA’s various regulations, guidance and policies, along with recently enacted legislation, to ensure compliance with restrictions governing promotion of our products. If the FDA or any other governmental agency initiates an enforcement action against us or if we are the subject of a qui tam suit and it is determined that we violated prohibitions relating to the promotion of products for unapproved uses, we could be subject to substantial civil or criminal fines or damage awards and other sanctions such as consent decrees and corporate integrity agreements pursuant to which our activities would be subject to ongoing scrutiny and monitoring to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Any such fines, awards or other sanctions would have an adverse effect on our revenue, business, financial prospects and reputation. Further, our ability to develop and market new products may be impacted by litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of another company’s drug product. In April 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a REMS. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market but did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone, which the FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021, were arbitrary and capricious. In June 2024, the Supreme Court reversed that decision after unanimously finding that the plaintiffs (anti-abortion doctors and organizations) did not have standing to bring this legal action against the FDA. On October 11, 2024, the Attorneys General of three states (Missouri, Idaho and Kansas) filed an amended complaint 60 in the district court in Texas challenging FDA’s actions. On January 16, 2025, the district court agreed to allow these states to file an amended complaint and continue to pursue this challenge. Depending on the outcome of this litigation, our ability to develop new drug product candidates and to maintain approval of existing drug products could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation. Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidate, such product ca ndidate may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement policies or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business. The regulations that govern marketing approval, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in LTI-03 and LTI-01 even if we obtain marketing approval for either product candidate. Our ability to commercialize any products successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement and coverage for these products and related treatments will be available from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations, and if reimbursement and coverage is available, the level of reimbursement and coverage. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the healthcare industry in the U.S. and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, the third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are seeking to reduce the prices charged or the amounts reimbursed for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any drug that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, we cannot be sure as to the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs, may be incorporated into existing payments for other services and may reflect budgetary constraints or imperfections in Medicare data. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for new products that we develop and for which we obtain marketing approval could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and our future collaborators to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain for any products that are approved in the U.S. or foreign jurisdictions. 61 In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any future collaborators, to profitably sell any product candidates for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed. In the U.S., the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or Medicare Modernization Act, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, this legislation provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we, or any future collaborators, may receive for any approved products. While the Medicare Modernization Act applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the Medicare Modernization Act may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. This legislation resulted in aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2031 under the CARES Act. These Medicare sequester reductions were suspended through the end of June 2022, with the full 2% cut resuming thereafter. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%. Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or TCJA, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate”. The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to a case challenging the ACA. On February 10, 2021, the Biden Administration withdrew the federal government’s support for overturning the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected this challenge to the ACA. During the first Trump Administration, the Congress and administration sought to overturn the ACA and related measures. Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump revoked numerous executive orders issued by President Biden, including at least two executive orders (e.g., EO 14009, Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and EO 14070, Continuing to Strengthen Americans’ Access to Affordable, Quality Health Coverage) where were designed to further implement the ACA. We anticipate similar efforts to undermine the ACA, and the accompanying uncertainty, for the foreseeable future with litigation and legislation over the ACA likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as 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 and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and 62 for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates. In the EU, on December 13, 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted. While the Regulation entered into force in January 2022, it will only begin to apply from January 2025 onwards, with preparatory and implementation-related steps to take place in the interim. Once applicable, it will have a phased implementation depending on the concerned products. The Regulation intends to boost cooperation among EU member states in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products as well as certain high-risk medical devices, and provide the basis for cooperation at the EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. It will permit 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 highest 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 technology, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings. Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the U.S. and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of biopharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose biopharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute biopharmaceutical products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to: • the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A person or entity can be found guilty of violating the statute without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, a claim submitted for payment to any federal health care program that includes items or services that were made as a result of a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between biopharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, group purchasing organizations, and formulary managers, among others, on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution; • the federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the FCA, and civil monetary penalty laws which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false, fictitious or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs; knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the federal government; or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim that includes items or 63 services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring qui tam actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery; • the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity can be found guilty of violating HIPAA without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it; • HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, which impose, among other things, requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their respective “business associates”, those independent contractors or agents of covered entities that perform services for covered entities that involve the creation, use, receipt, maintenance or disclosure of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions; • the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, and its implementing regulations, which require some manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations were extended to include transfers of value made in the previous year to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners; • federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers; and • analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by third-party payors, including private insurers, the Travel Act of 1961, or Travel Act, which has been used as a tool in the health care context to target kickback schemes prohibited under state law involving private insurance that would not otherwise be prohibited under federal law and may be broader in scope than their federal equivalents; state and foreign laws that require biopharmaceutical companies to comply with the biopharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; 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 that require the registration of biopharmaceutical sales representatives; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. 64 The distribution of biopharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of biopharmaceutical products. There are also federal and state consumer deception laws, with which we must comply. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, reputational harm, possible exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Further, if any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a biopharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way. The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions are subject to considerable legislative and executive actions and could impact the prices we obtain for our products, if and when licensed. The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the U.S. There have been several U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, in October 2020, Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. That regulation was challenged in a lawsuit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, but the case was dismissed by a federal district court in February 2023 after the court found that PhRMA did not have standing to sue HHS. Seven states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada. North Dakota and Virginia have passed legislation establishing working groups to examine the impact of a state importation program. As of May 2024, five states (Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and New Mexico) had submitted Section 804 Importation Program proposals to the FDA, and on January 5, 2023, the FDA approved Florida’s plan for Canadian drug importation. That state now has authority to import certain drugs from Canada for a period of two years once certain conditions are met. Florida will first need to submit a pre-import request for each drug selected for importation, which must be approved by the FDA. The state will also need to relabel the drugs and perform quality testing of the products to meet FDA standards. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, services fees. It was originally set to go into effect on January 1, 202, but with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032. On August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates 65 under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would have been fully at risk of government action if our products were the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also have further heightened the risk that we would not have been able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products had been on the market for nine years. The first cycle of negotiations for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program commenced in the summer of 2023. On August 15, 2024, the HHS published the results of the first Medicare drug price negotiations for ten selected drugs that treat a range of conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. The prices of these ten drugs will become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, CMS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations. Thereafter, following the change in administrations, CMS issued a public statement on January 29, 2025, declaring that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of the new administration and CMS is committed to considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the negotiation program. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. In addition to the drug price negotiation program, the IRA established inflation rebate programs under Medicare Part B and Part D. These programs require manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare if they raise their prices for certain Part B and Part D drugs faster than the rate of inflation. On December 9, 2024, with issuance of its 2025 Physician Fee Schedule final regulation, CMS finalized its rules governing the IRA inflation rebate programs. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year. We expect that current or future litigation involving provisions of the IRA will have unpredictable and uncertain results on the implementation and impact of the IRA on biotechnology industry generally, as well as our business and current or future products. For example, on June 6, 2023, Merck & Co., or Merck, filed a lawsuit against the HHS and CMS asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s Drug Price Negotiation Program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of other parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the PhRMA, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, also filed lawsuits in various courts with similar constitutional claims against the HHS and CMS. There have been various decisions by the courts considering these cases since they were filed. The HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and various federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. Certain of these cases are now on appeal, and oral arguments took place on October 30, 2024. We expect that litigation involving these and other provisions of the IRA will continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform 66 measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. This may be increasingly true with respect to products approved pursuant to the accelerated approval pathway. State Medicaid programs and other payers are developing strategies and implementing significant coverage barriers, or refusing to cover these products outright, arguing that accelerated approval drugs have insufficient or limited evidence despite meeting the FDA’s standards for accelerated approval. In the EU, similar political, economic, and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the U.S. and the E.U., reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed. Governments outside of the U.S. tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues from the sales of our products, if any. In most foreign countries, including the European Economic Area, or EEA, and the UK, the proposed pricing for certain drugs (in particular, prescription-only drugs) is subject to pricing regulations. In the EU, although Directive 89/105/EEC regulates the framework conditions for the pricing of medicinal products and Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTA), to become fully applicable in January 2025, provides for a coordinated approach to assessing the benefit of new therapies, the decisions on pricing and cost reimbursement remain in the responsibility of the member states. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. In some countries, particularly member states of the EU, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures. Moreover, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In view of the recurring shortages of medicines, individual member states (especially Germany) have decided to adjust price regulations for particularly rare pediatric medicinal products. In some countries, we, or our future collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for biopharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of any product candidate 67 approved for marketing is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed. EU drug marketing and reimbursement regulations may materially affect our ability to market and receive coverage for our products in the European member states. We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the U.S. and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the U.S., the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws, unfair competition laws and laws on advertising in the healthcare sector of EU Member States, and in respect of the UK (which is no longer a member of the EU), the UK Bribery Act 2010 and laws on advertising and promotion in the pharmaceutical, medical devices and healthcare sectors. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. The UK has also recently concluded a public consultation on introducing new statutory requirements for disclosing industry payments in the healthcare sector. Further, certain company associations have adopted so-called transparency codes, according to which payments to certain groups in the healthcare sector must be published or are published voluntarily. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States, as well in as the UK. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment. We may seek to obtain certain regulatory designations for our product candidates. We may not receive such designations, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process. We may seek to obtain breakthrough therapy designation, fast track designation, or priority review designation for our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. FDA fast track designation is possible for drugs intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition. In addition, if the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time the NDA is submitted to the FDA. Such regulatory designations are within the discretion of the FDA, and the FDA may not approve any application that we submit. Even if we were to obtain breakthrough designation or fast track designation, the FDA may subsequently withdraw such designation if the FDA determines that the designation no longer meets the conditions for qualification or is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. In addition, receipt of any such designations may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA of any drug candidates so designated. Accelerated approval by the FDA, even if granted for any of our current or future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval. 68 We may seek approval of any of our current and future product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies, and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA or other applicable regulatory agency makes the determination regarding whether a surrogate endpoint is reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit. Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we will seek feedback from the FDA and otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. As a condition of approval, the FDA requires that a sponsor of a product receiving accelerated approval perform an adequate and well-controlled post-marketing confirmatory clinical trial or trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence and we may be required to evaluate different or additional endpoints in these post-marketing confirmatory trials. These confirmatory trials may require enrollment of more patients than we currently anticipate and will result in additional costs, which may be greater than the estimated costs we currently anticipate. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval preapproval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. There can be no assurance that the FDA will agree with any proposed surrogate endpoints or that we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA or NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for any of our current or future product candidates. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from FDA, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA may withdraw approval of a product candidate approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example, the trial required to verify the predicted clinical benefit of our product candidate fails to verify such benefit or does not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit to justify the risks associated with the drug. The FDA may also withdraw approval if other evidence demonstrates that our product candidate is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use, we fail to conduct any required post approval trial of our product candidate with due diligence or we disseminate false or misleading promotional materials relating to our product candidate. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period for commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace. Further, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions, that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary”. The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s designee and a written appeal, among other things. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval. More recently, in March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, 69 the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidances relating to accelerated approval. These guidances describe FDA’s views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While these guidances are currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, sponsors typically observe the FDA’s guidance closely to ensure that their investigational products qualify for accelerated approval. In the EU, a “conditional” marketing authorization may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. A conditional marketing authorization is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. A conditional marketing authorization is valid for one year and has to be renewed annually until fulfillment of all relevant conditions. Once the applicable pending studies are provided, a conditional marketing authorization can become a “standard” marketing authorization. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the marketing authorization will cease to be renewed. Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, collaborators and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements. We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, collaborators and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to comply with the laws and regulations of the FDA, CMS and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, CMS and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the U.S. and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws, or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the U.S., our potential exposure under such laws and regulations will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws and regulations will also increase. These laws and regulations may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics and maintain a quality management system, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could result in the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment of our operations. If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business. We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our research and development activities involve the use of biological and hazardous materials and produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and 70 such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage, workers compensation or property and casualty and general liability insurance policies that include coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination, and as such we would have to pay the full amount of any resultant liability out of pocket, which could significantly impair our financial condition. Additional laws and regulations governing international operations could negatively impact or restrict our operations. If we expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business entity from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the biopharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information products classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products, technology and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs. The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. Changes in U.S. and international trade policies, particularly with respect to China, may adversely impact our business and operating results. We currently rely on foreign third-party manufacturers, including those in China. The U.S. government and persons involved in the Trump administration have made statements and taken certain actions that may lead to potential changes to U.S. and international trade policies. In February 2025, the U.S. government announced a 10% tariff on imports from China. If maintained and if extended to other countries, tariffs and the potential escalation of trade disputes with China and other countries could pose a significant risk to our business and could result in higher operating expenses. The extent and duration of any tariffs and the resulting impact on general economic conditions and on our business are uncertain and depend on various factors, such as negotiations between the United States and China and/or other countries, the response of such countries, exemptions or exclusions that may be granted, availability 71 and cost of alternative sources of supply of materials we purchase from companies in China or other countries targeted with tariffs. Trade tensions and conflicts between the U.S. and China have been escalating in recent years and, as such, we are exposed to the possibility of product supply disruption and increased costs and expenses in the event of changes to the laws, rules, regulations and policies of the governments of the U.S. or China, or due to geopolitical unrest and unstable economic conditions. Certain Chinese biotechnology companies may become subject to trade restrictions, sanctions, other regulatory requirements or proposed legislation by the U.S. government, which could restrict or even prohibit our ability to work with such entities, thereby potentially disrupting their supply of material or services to us. In 2024, the U.S. House or Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act, and the Senate has advanced a substantially similar bill. Though such legislation was not enacted into law in 2024, Congress could re-introduce similar measures, which legislation, if passed and enacted into law, would have the potential to restrict the ability of U.S. biopharmaceutical companies like us to purchase services or products from, or otherwise collaborate with, certain Chinese biotechnology companies “of concern”, without losing the ability to contract with, or otherwise receive funding from, the U.S. government. It is possible some of our contractual counterparties could be impacted by such legislation. Any unfavorable government policies on international trade, such as export controls, capital controls or tariffs, may increase the cost of manufacturing our product candidates and platform materials, affect the demand for our drug products (if and once approved), the competitive position of our product candidates, and import or export of raw materials and finished product candidate used in our and our collaborators’ preclinical studies and clinical trials, particularly with respect to any product candidates and materials that we import from China. If any new tariffs, export controls, legislation and/or regulations are implemented, or if existing trade agreements are renegotiated or, in particular, if either the U.S. or Chinese government takes retaliatory trade actions due to the recent trade tension, such changes could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may incur substantial costs in our efforts to comply with evolving global data protection laws and regulations, and any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with such laws and regulations may harm our business and operations. The global data protection landscape is rapidly evolving, and we may be or become subject to or affected by numerous federal, state and foreign laws and regulations, as well as regulatory guidance, governing the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, security and processing of personal data, such as information that we collect about participants and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials. Implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, which may create uncertainty in our business, affect our or our service providers’ ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal data, result in liability or impose additional compliance or other costs on us. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity, diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. In addition to our operations in the U.S., we may seek to conduct clinical trials in the EEA and may become subject to additional European data protection laws, regulations and guidelines. The General Data Protection Regulation, (EU) 2016/679, or GDPR, became effective on May 25, 2018, and deals with the collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals in the EEA. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal information relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the U.S., providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent to certain processing activities from the individuals to whom the personal data relates, keeping personal data secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal data, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal data, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR provides for substantial penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to two percent of our total worldwide annual revenues, whichever is greater, for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to four percent of our total worldwide annual revenues, whichever is greater, for more serious offenses. The GDPR also 72 confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers, and recent court decisions and regulatory guidance have substantially increased the compliance burden and legal uncertainty associated with transferring the personal data of EEA individuals to third countries outside of the EEA whose data protection laws are not believed to be adequate by European standards (although the recent EU-US Data Privacy Framework offers a new route for data transfers from the EU to be made lawfully to the U.S.). Further, the GDPR provides for opening clauses in certain areas, which enable the legislators of member states of the EU to implement additional requirements to the GDPR in national law, whereby national laws may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic, biometric and health data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. The UK’s decision to leave the EU (and it is important to note that the EEA does not include the UK), often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the UK and to what extent UK law will diverge from the GDPR in the future. At this point in time, the UK Government has incorporated the GDPR into UK law, known as the “UK GDPR”, but has also published proposals recently to reform UK data protection law which are going through the UK Parliament and likely to become law in 2024. In the context of international data transfers, European Commission has issued adequacy decisions which have the effect of authorizing data transfers from the EEA to the UK The UK Government and the Information Commissioner’s Office have also published proposals recently to indicate how data transfers between the UK and the rest of the world will be regulated now that the UK has left the EU. For instance, the UK Government proposes recognizing more countries as adequate for data transfers as part of reducing barriers to data flows—this would include countries not yet authorized by the European Commission. The UK Government has also approved the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework for data transfers from the UK to the U.S. The GDPR increases our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms and safeguards to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. We face uncertainty as to whether our efforts to comply with our obligations under European data protection laws are sufficient, and personal data transfers from the EEA to the U.S. (which include accessing in the U.S. personal data from EEA individuals, even if the data actually remains stored in the EEA) may face particular scrutiny. If we are investigated by a European data protection authority, we may face fines and other penalties. Any such investigation or charges by European data protection authorities could have a negative effect on our existing business and on our ability to attract and retain new clients or biopharmaceutical partners. We may also experience hesitancy, reluctance, or refusal by European or multi-national clients or biopharmaceutical partners to continue to use our products and solutions due to the potential risk exposure as a result of the current (and, in particular, future) data protection obligations imposed on them by certain data protection authorities in interpretation of current law, including the GDPR. Such clients or biopharmaceutical partners may also view any alternative approaches to compliance as being too costly, too burdensome, too legally uncertain, or otherwise objectionable and therefore decide not to do business with us. Any of the forgoing could materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. We are subject to certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations. Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions and other trade laws and regulations, which are collectively referred to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, 73 tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. We also expect our non-U.S. activities to increase in time. We plan to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, 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 and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations. The same is true of disruptions related to public health emergencies that have occurred or that may occur in the future. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. The FDA has now indicated that it can and will conduct timely reviews of applications for medical products in line with its user fee performance goals, including conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. However, in the event of a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic or another similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to future emergencies and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities. The application of newly developed artificial intelligence and other technologies which are widely anticipated to reduce the development time to bring new products to market may materially increase the volume of applications for product approval to the FDA compared to historical application levels. If this increased application volume materializes and additional staff and resources are not allocated to the FDA, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace of application reviews and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. facing similar increases in application volume may also experience delays in their regulatory activities. Accordingly, if a prolonged government shutdown or other disruption occurs, or the volume of application to the FDA for new product candidates increases materially, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets. 74 Further, with the change in presidential administrations in 2025, there is substantial uncertainty as to how, if at all, the new administration will seek to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. There is also uncertainty as to how other measures being implemented by the Trump Administration across the government will our activities and those of the FDA and its operations. For example, the potential loss of FDA personnel could lead to further disruptions and delays in FDA review of our product candidates. Similarly, efforts by the new administration to substantially reduce research funding by the National Institutes of Health of medical research could have substantial direct or indirect impacts on our research activities. Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties We rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our clinical trials and preclinical studies. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any potential product candidates. We depend upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our clinical trials and preclinical studies, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic collaborators and others. We expect to have to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely especially heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and, as a result, will have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with GCP or other requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional clinical trials or preclinical studies before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws. Any third parties conducting aspects of our clinical trials or preclinical studies will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our clinical programs and preclinical studies. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons or if due to federal or state orders they are unable to meet their contractual and regulatory obligations, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or 75 adding additional CROs might require prior regulatory approvals or notifications and involves additional cost. Furthermore, it requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects. Because we rely on third-party manufacturing and supply vendors, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality. We rely on third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates for clinical trials and preclinical studies. We do not own manufacturing facilities for producing any clinical trial product supplies. There can be no assurance that our preclinical and clinical development product supplies will not be limited, interrupted, or of satisfactory quality or continue to be available at acceptable prices. The manufacturing process for a product candidate is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority review. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as cGMPs. In the event that any of our manufacturers fail to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third-party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all, or on a delayed basis. In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third-party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on such manufacturer or may require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacture our product candidates. If we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates in a timely manner or within budget. In addition, the new manufacturer must comply with the aforementioned quality-related regulatory requirements. We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers if we receive regulatory approval for LTI-03, LTI-01 or any other product candidate. To the extent that we have existing, or enter into future, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for product candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our product candidates successfully. Our or a third-party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements and comply with cGMP or other requirements could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including, but not limited to: • an inability to initiate or continue clinical trials of product candidates under development; • imposition of a clinical hold; • initiation of an Import Alert or Automatic Detection; • delay in submitting regulatory applications, or receiving regulatory approvals, for product candidates; • loss of the cooperation of an existing or future collaborator; • subjecting third-party manufacturing facilities or our manufacturing facilities to additional inspections by regulatory authorities; • requirements to cease distribution or to recall batches of our product candidates; • increase manufacturing costs for delays and/or finding replacement manufacturers; and 76 • in the event of approval to market and commercialize a product candidate, an inability to meet commercial demands for our products. In addition, we contract with fill and finishing providers with the appropriate expertise, facilities and scale to meet our needs. Failure to maintain cGMP and other regulatory compliance can result in a contractor receiving sanctions by the FDA or another foreign regulatory agency, which can impact our ability to operate or lead to delays in any clinical development programs. We believe that our current fill and finish contractors are operating in accordance with cGMP and other regulatory requirements, but we can give no assurance that the FDA or other regulatory agencies will not conclude that a lack of compliance exists. In addition, any delay in contracting for fill and finish services, or failure of the contract manufacturer to perform the services as needed, may delay any clinical trials, registration and launches, which could negatively affect our business. The manufacture of our clinical and, if approved, commercial drug supply of LTI-01 involves a highly complex manufacturing process that is subject to a number of risks. The manufacturing process for the development of clinical, and if approved, commercial supply for LTI-01 involves a complex, multi-step process involving mammalian-based cell expression of the proenzyme and harvest, viral inactivation, purification and filtration of LTI-01 drug substance which is then lyophilized into drug product. Manufacturing any biological drug, such as LTI-01, is highly complex and is subject to a number of risks, and failure can occur at any stage in the production process. If our manufacturing partners fail to achieve and maintain high quality controls, processing and manufacturing standards, including avoidance of manufacturing errors, defects or product failures, we could experience recalls or withdrawals of our products, delays in delivery, cost overruns or other problems that would adversely affect our business. If our manufacturing partners are unable to manufacture our products on a timely basis, at acceptable quality and costs, and in sufficient quantities, or if we experience unanticipated technological problems or delays in production, our business would be adversely affected. We depend on sole-source third-party suppliers for materials that are necessary for the conduct of preclinical studies and manufacture of our product candidates for clinical trials, and the loss of these third-party suppliers and manufacturers or their inability to supply us with sufficient quantities of adequate materials, or to do so at acceptable quality levels and on a timely basis, could harm our business. Manufacturing our product candidates requires many specialty materials and equipment, some of which are manufactured or supplied by small companies with limited resources and experience to support commercial biologics production. We currently depend on a limited number of vendors for certain materials and equipment used in the manufacture of our product candidates. For example, we are reliant on one manufacturer as the sole drug substance manufacturer of LTI-01. If this sole supplier is unable to supply to us in the quantities we require, or at all, or otherwise defaults on its supply obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain alternative supplies from other suppliers on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. We also do not have long-term supply agreements with any of our suppliers. Our current contracts with certain suppliers may be canceled or not extended by such suppliers and, therefore, do not afford us with protection against a reduction or interruption in supplies. Moreover, in the event any of these suppliers breach their contracts with us, our legal remedies associated with such a breach may be insufficient to compensate us for any damages we may suffer. In addition, we developed the cell line and manufacturing process for drug substance manufacture in collaboration with our sole manufacturer. The loss of this contract development and manufacturing company, or CDMO, or its failure to supply us with material to support our clinical development program on a timely basis could impair our ability to develop our product candidates or otherwise delay the development process, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Some of our CDMO’s raw material suppliers may not have the capacity to support clinical trials and commercial products manufactured under cGMP or other regulatory requirements by biopharmaceutical firms or may otherwise be ill-equipped to support our needs. We also do not have supply contracts with many of these suppliers directly, and we or our CDMOs may not be able to obtain supply contracts with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we or our CDMOs may experience delays in receiving key raw materials and equipment to support clinical or commercial manufacturing. 77 For some of these specialty materials, we and our CDMOs rely on and may in the future rely on sole-source vendors or a limited number of vendors. The supply of specialty materials and equipment that are necessary to produce our product candidates could be reduced or interrupted at any time. In such case, identifying and engaging an alternative supplier or manufacturer could result in delay, and we may not be able to find other acceptable suppliers or manufacturers on acceptable terms, or at all. Switching suppliers or manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines. If we change suppliers or manufacturers for clinical or commercial production, applicable regulatory agencies may inspect the new vendor or require us to conduct additional studies or trials. If key suppliers or manufacturers are lost, or if the supply of the materials is diminished or discontinued, we may not be able to develop, manufacture and market our product candidates in a timely and competitive manner, or at all. An inability to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to a number of issues, including regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for our product candidates, which could adversely and materially affect our product sales and operating results or our ability to conduct preclinical and clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm our business. Our existing collaborations and future collaborations are and will be important to our business. If we are unable to enter into new collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected. A part of our strategy is to selectively establish partnerships in indications and geographies where we believe partners can add significant commercial and/or development capabilities. Further, we have limited capabilities for product development and do not yet have any capability for commercialization. Accordingly, we have and may in the future enter into collaborations with other companies to provide us with important technologies and funding for our programs and technology. Our existing collaborations and any future collaborations we enter into may pose a number of risks, including the following: • collaborators have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply; • collaborators may not perform their obligations as expected; • collaborators may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs or license arrangements based on clinical trial results, changes in the collaborators’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as a strategic transaction that may divert resources or create competing priorities; • collaborators may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing; • collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our products and product candidates if the collaborators believe that the competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours; • product candidates discovered in collaboration with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of our product candidates; • collaborators may fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the development, manufacture, distribution or marketing of a product candidate or product; • collaborators with marketing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product or products; 78 • collaborators may not provide us with timely and accurate information regarding development progress and activity under any future license agreement, which could adversely impact our ability to report progress to our investors and otherwise plan development of our product candidates; • disagreements with collaborators, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or terminations of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive; • collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation; • collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability; • if a collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us; and • collaborations may be terminated by the collaborator, and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates. If our existing collaborations and any future collaborations we enter into do not result in the successful research, development and commercialization of product candidates or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under such collaboration. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization also apply to the activities of any therapeutic collaborators. Additionally, if one of our existing or future collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators for our product candidates, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully establish a collaboration for one or more of our product candidates, potential collaborators must view these product candidates as economically valuable in markets they determine to be attractive in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available products for licensing by other companies. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large biopharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to enter into future collaborations or do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates, bring them to market and generate revenue from sales of drugs or continue to develop our technology, and our business may be materially and adversely affected. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish new strategic collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such strategic collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any delay in entering into new strategic collaboration agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market. 79 We have entered into a collaboration agreement with Taiho for the development of LTI-01 and may in the future seek to enter into collaborations with third parties for the development and commercialization of other product candidates. If we fail to enter into such collaborations, or our collaborations are not successful, we may be unable to continue development of such product candidates, we would not receive any contemplated milestone payments or royalties, and we could fail to capitalize on the market potential of such product candidates. In November 2020, Lung entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Taiho for the development and commercialization of our clinical product candidate, LTI-01. In the first quarter of 2021, Lung received an up-front license payment of $5.0 million for the exclusive license to develop and commercialize LTI-01 in Japan. Pursuant to the Taiho Agreement, we are eligible to receive a milestone payment, transfer supply payments for manufacture of clinical and commercial supplies of LTI-01 and royalties on annual nets sales of LTI-01. If we are unable to successfully advance the development of our product candidates or achieve milestones, including pursuant to the Taiho Agreement, we will not receive any revenue and cash resources from milestone and royalty payments under our collaboration agreements. In addition, to the extent that any of our existing or future collaborators were to terminate a collaboration agreement, we may be forced to independently develop these product candidates, including funding preclinical or clinical trials, assuming marketing and distribution costs and defending intellectual property rights, or, in certain instances, abandon product candidates altogether, any of which could result in a change to our business plan and a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to ensure their protection. Our business will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark and trade secret protection of our proprietary technologies and our product candidates, their respective components, synthetic intermediates, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities and whether a court would issue an injunctive remedy. If we are unable to secure and maintain patent protection for any product or technology we develop, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop may be adversely affected. The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue, obtain, or maintain patent protection in all relevant markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors or licensees. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the U.S. or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our technology, including our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we 80 encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. We cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our technology, including our product candidates, and, if we were not, we may be precluded from obtaining patent protection for our technology, including our product candidates. We cannot be certain that we are the first to invent the inventions covered by pending patent applications and, if we are not, we may be subject to priority disputes. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. Similarly, for U.S. applications in which at least one claim is not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, derivation proceedings can be instituted to determine whether the subject matter of a patent claim was derived from a prior inventor’s disclosure. We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patents or all of the term of certain patent applications. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent or patent application claim. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable or that even if found valid and enforceable, would adequately protect our product candidates, or would be found by a court to be infringed by a competitor’s technology or product. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our product candidates, but our competitors may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, which block our efforts or may potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. The possibility exists that others will develop products which have the same effect as our products on an independent basis which do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights or will design around the claims of patents that may issue that cover our products. Recent or future patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. Under the enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or America Invents Act, enacted in 2013, the U.S. moved from a “first to invent” to a “first-to-file” system. Under a “first-to-file” system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and establish a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes are currently unclear as the USPTO only recently developed new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act and man