Viridian Therapeutics, Inc.\DE 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Company Overview We are a biotechnology company advancing new treatments for patients with serious diseases that are underserved by today’s therapies. Marketed therapies often leave room for improvements in efficacy, safety, and/or dosing convenience. We believe that first-generation drugs rarely represent optimal solutions and that the potential exists to develop alternatives that improve patient outcomes, moderate side effects, enhance quality of life, ease access, and augment market competition. Our business model is to identify product opportunities in indications for which clinical trial data demonstrating compelling proof of concept for a targeted mechanism of action already exists, but the competitive evolution of product profiles and number of entrants appears incomplete. We intend to prioritize indications where fast-follower and bio superior competition could create significant medical benefit for patients. We are engineering medicines to advance patient care. We intend to identify and evaluate product concepts leveraging clinically validated molecular targets using established therapeutic modalities. We prioritize product concepts aligned with clinical and commercial hypotheses that we expect will provide an attractive balance of risk and opportunity, thereby representing a compelling allocation of our resources. We focus on advancing therapeutic antibodies that we either in-license or discover internally, incorporating proprietary monoclonal antibody discovery and optimization platforms to advance clinical candidates with unique characteristics. To date, this approach has led us to initiate research and development programs for therapeutic monoclonal antibodies for serious diseases. We have built relevant expertise in monoclonal antibody discovery and engineering, biologics manufacturing, and nonclinical and clinical development for thyroid eye disease (“TED”) and other undisclosed target indications. Our approach to rapidly discovering and developing novel therapeutics relies on our scientific expertise in evaluating pre-existing proof of concept data for the targets we are pursuing and opportunities to improve upon existing investigational and/or approved therapies. This approach informs how we design, select, and develop our product candidates, including in such critical areas as pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, trial endpoints, and the selection and enrollment of patients. We believe this strategy reduces the risks associated with discovering and developing novel therapeutics. We have prioritized the development of therapies for TED, a debilitating auto-immune disease that causes inflammation and fibrosis of the orbit and tissues surrounding the eye and which can lead to proptosis, or bulging of the eyes, redness and swelling, double vision, pain, and potential blindness. TED significantly impacts quality of life, imposing a high physical and mental burden on patients. The only therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for TED is Tepezza® (teprotumumab), which is an intravenously administered monoclonal antibody that targets insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (“IGF-1R”). Tepezza® is marketed in the United States by Horizon Therapeutics plc. The reported results obtained with teprotumumab provide strong clinical validation linking the targeting of IGF-1R to clinical benefit in TED. However, clinical trials of teprotumumab in TED reported to date used a single dosing regimen, providing little guidance as to the optimal dosing required for clinical activity in TED. We believe that there are multiple opportunities to develop fast-follower therapeutics that improve on teprotumumab’s features, including dosing schedule, and route of administration. We are developing two product candidates, VRDN-001 and VRDN-002, to treat patients who suffer from TED. Our most advanced program, VRDN-001, is a differentiated humanized monoclonal antibody targeting IGF-1R for the treatment for TED. This antibody was previously studied in over 100 oncology patients as AVE-1642. The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability data from that clinical program has informed our plans to evaluate VRDN-001 in TED. In November 2021, we opened an investigational new drug (“IND”) application for VRDN-001 as a new molecular entity and in December 2021, we initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of VRDN-001, which will evaluate proof of concept in TED patients. Initial proof of concept data in patients are expected in the second quarter of 2022. VRDN-002, a distinct IGF-1R antibody that incorporates half-life extension technology, is designed to support administration as a convenient, low volume, subcutaneous injection to treat patients who suffer from TED. In January 2022, we announced FDA clearance of our IND application for VRDN-002. During the first quarter of 2022, we expect to initiate a Phase 1 single ascending dose trial to explore safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic properties of intravenously administered VRDN-002 in healthy volunteers. Data from this Phase 1 trial will allow us to evaluate the feasibility of a low-volume dosing paradigm and are expected to be announced in mid-2022. Pending results, we then plan to evaluate the potential efficacy of a low volume subcutaneous injection of VRDN-002 in TED patients. 5 In addition to developing therapies for TED, we are executing a similar strategic approach to identify opportunities to develop fast-follower therapies in other rare and/or serious disease indications. We intend to identify and initiate additional programs over time and plan to disclose these when we are closer to initiating clinical trials in these programs. Our Strategy Our mission is to create and advance new biologic treatments for patients suffering from serious diseases that are underserved by today’s therapies. We are engineering antibodies to develop best-in-class therapies that improve patient care. Key elements of our business strategy are to: • Identify opportunities to engineer and develop monoclonal antibodies that optimize patient care. Our pipeline of therapeutics programs represents a patient-centric model of innovation that leverages proven biology and antibody technology to reduce research and development risk, while striving to address strategic gaps related to access, delivery, quality of life, efficacy, and/or safety and tolerability in targeted therapeutic areas. Our multidisciplinary search process evaluates scientific and clinical validation of therapeutic targets, market potential, and feasibility of efficiently developing a competitive product. • Focus on Thyroid Eye Disease (TED) : ◦ Rapidly advance VRDN-001 clinical development to enter the TED market quickly. Our ongoing clinical trial for VRDN-001 is a Phase 1/2 proof of concept trial that includes multiple randomized, placebo-controlled cohorts of TED patients designed to assess the potential for VRDN-001 to provide improvement of signs and symptoms of TED, including proptosis. We expect to announce top-line data from the proof-of-concept portion of the trial in the second quarter of 2022. ◦ Offer patients suffering from TED improved convenience and broader settings of care. Our next generation IGF-1R antibody, VRDN-002, is a humanized monoclonal antibody that incorporates half-life extension technology and is designed to support administration as a convenient, low-volume, subcutaneous injection for the treatment of TED. We expect to initiate our first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial of VRDN-002 in the first quarter of 2022, and to announce data from this trial in mid-2022. The results from this Phase 1 clinical trial will inform the feasibility of a low-volume and/or low-frequency, subcutaneous dosing paradigm for the treatment of TED. ◦ Be a trusted partner in the care of TED patients. We plan to cultivate a network across TED stakeholders to inform our patient centric approach, including with patients / patient advocacy groups, key opinion leaders, research institutions, healthcare professionals and payers. ◦ Prepare for commercialization of VRDN-001 and VRDN-002 for TED. We hold worldwide commercialization rights, excluding the greater area of China, to both VRDN-001 and VRDN-002 as well as our other product candidates. As a result, we have the flexibility to develop and potentially commercialize products ourselves, or alternatively to enter collaborations with industry partners. • Expand our portfolio beyond TED with strategically aligned opportunities. We believe there are significant opportunities to provide more convenient, better performing products compared to therapeutics approved or in development for several diseases. To that end, we continue to invest in portfolio expansion and have dedicated resources to seek additional opportunities to develop best-in-class therapeutics for newly validated targets. VRDN-004 and VRDN-005 are discovery-stage therapeutic antibody programs for undisclosed diseases. In our VRDN-004 program, we are currently characterizing leads derived from hit molecules discovered internally. In our VRDN-005 program, we are targeting opportunities to advance new best-in-class therapeutics. As part of that effort, we have licensed certain antibody libraries from Xencor, Inc., pursuant to a license agreement we entered into with them in December 2021. 6 • Leverage our therapeutic antibody and multi-disciplinary search expertise to continue discovering and developing novel, best-in class product candidates. We plan to continue to identify and advance novel product candidates and technologies to generate best in class antibody therapeutics, either internally or through in-licensing. We are currently evaluating a number of disease targets and therapeutic candidates with the aim of advancing a steady pipeline of best-in-class product candidates from discovery and preclinical research into clinical trials. Thyroid Eye Disease (TED) TED, commonly associated with Graves’ Disease, is a sight-threatening autoimmune disorder affecting the eye and tissue adjacent to the eye. Initial symptoms include a dry and gritty ocular sensation, sensitivity to light, excessive tearing, double vision, and a sensation of pressure behind the eyes, commonly associated with ocular pain. By the time TED is clinically diagnosed, most patients have retraction of their upper eyelids causing exposure of the cornea and ensuing dryness resulting in further inflammatory changes and increased symptomatology. In addition, TED causes soft tissue swelling, redness surrounding the eyes and protrusion of the eyes from their normal position within the orbit – proptosis. As these inflammatory changes progress, they lead to increased erythema, redness, edema, and hemorrhagic appearance of the tissues external to the globe, adding to the symptoms of TED and exacerbating signs. As the fibrocytes within the orbit become further involved, changes unfold within the extraocular muscles themselves - those muscles within the orbit that move the eye and hold the globe in positions of gaze. The size of the muscles increases further exacerbating the proptosis and causing a cascade of increasing inflammation and worsening of symptoms. As the swelling and stiffness of the muscles increase, they exert a tethering effect upon the globe, and ocular motility is disturbed. Commonly, gaze becomes limited as the eyes become tethered by fibrotic and thickened muscles. As the process is not perfectly symmetric, one orbit to the other, the eyes may have differing motility and no longer line up perfectly with each other, causing a misalignment of position that is perceived by the patient as double vision, or diplopia. Diplopia in and of itself is a disabling condition that dramatically interferes with most activities of daily living. Patients cannot easily read, drive, navigate ambulation, or often continue in their current work. As the volume of tissue within the fixed bony orbit increases, the inflammatory mass squeezes upon and compresses the optic nerve, which must pass through this space from globe to optic canal and central nervous system. This compression causes loss of central vision, color vision, and visual field and can progress to loss of acuity and eventual blindness. Pathologies Leading to the Development of TED TED develops in parallel with Graves’ Disease, an autoimmune disease in which antibodies form against the thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (“TSHR”), which is present in the thyroid and other cells such as adipocytes and fibroblasts. A close temporal relationship exists between the onset of Graves’ Disease and the onset of TED. Regardless of which condition occurs first, the other condition develops within 18 months in 80% of patients. In addition to antibodies against TSHR, patients with TED also develop antibodies against IGF-1R. 7 Insulin-like growth factor 1 (“IGF-1”) is a hormone similar in molecular structure to insulin with higher growth-promoting activity. IGF-1R, the receptor for IGF-1, is highly expressed in fibrocytes, cells that are derived from the bone marrow and that have the potential to differentiate into either myofibroblasts or fat cells. IGF-1R and TSHR function in concert to regulate the proliferation and differentiation of fibrocytes in the orbital socket. One potential cause of TED is autoimmune antibodies against IGF-1R that lead to the activation of IGF-1R, resulting in increased proliferation, secretion of extracellular complex carbohydrates, and differentiation into fat cells. These antibodies, and autoimmune antibodies to TSHR, can elicit an immune attack against the fibrocytes that surround the eye triggering the development of TED. Inflammation associated with this attack combined with activation of IGF-1R leads to the wide spectrum of pathologies seen with this disease. Exposure to other inflammatory agents, such as cigarette smoke, leads to exacerbation of the disease resulting in more severe symptoms. Current Treatments for TED Prior to 2020, moderate to severe cases of TED were treated off-label with steroids - as daily doses of oral prednisone, or in more severe cases, weekly doses of intravenous methylprednisolone. Treatment with steroids is associated with a wide range of serious complications including high blood pressure, diabetes, psychological effects, personality change, insomnia, skin thinning, immunosuppression, hyperglycemia, and increased risks of infections. Systemic steroids showed limited efficacy for most of the signs and symptoms of TED and are not a sustainable long-range intervention given the side effects. If steroid treatment proved to be inadequate, or could not be tolerated, the only remaining options for patients were orbital radiation or surgery to reduce swelling, decompress orbital contents, and protect the vision. Again, each of these therapies was incomplete and inadequate from the perspective of both patient and treating physician. In January 2020, teprotumumab, an antibody that blocks the activation of IGF-1R, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of TED. In two randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials, infusions of teprotumumab every three weeks, for a total of eight doses, led to a greater than 2 mm decrease in proptosis in 71% and 83% of patients, respectively, compared to 20% and 10% with placebo. Treatment with teprotumumab also led to a 53% decrease in diplopia compared to a 25% decrease when patients were treated with placebo control. Thus, the defined target and its successful blockade has been de-risked and shown to provide a clinically meaningful improvement in the quality of life for these patients, allowing them to return to the workforce and to avoid radiation therapy or orbital decompressive surgeries. Market Potential TED has an annual incidence of approximately 19 in 100,000 people, which corresponds to over 60,000 patients in the United States. Of these, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 25,000 patients in the United States have acute disease that requires intravenous treatment, either with teprotumumab or steroids. At launch, Horizon Therapeutics plc announced a price of $14,900 per vial of Tepezza ® which translates to a list price of approximately $343,000 for a six-month course of therapy. Horizon Therapeutics plc reported full-year 2020 and 2021 net sales for Tepezza ® of $820 million and $1.66 billion, respectively, in the first two years of launch. We believe this demonstrates that TED is a multi-billion dollar market that will accommodate multiple entrants. Our Product Candidates VRDN-001 The clinical results from teprotumumab serve to validate the role of anti-IGF-1R antibodies in the treatment of TED. The clinical data for teprotumumab in TED highlights the opportunity to rapidly develop product candidates that work through a similar mechanism. First, the majority of TED patients in a clinical trial of teprotumumab responded to treatment, which implies that, in clinical testing of a different IGF-1R antibody, it should be possible to detect clinical signs of improvement in a relatively small cohort of patients. Second, significant improvements in proptosis were observed within six weeks of dosing, providing the potential to quickly determine if a product candidate is likely to be effective. In addition, clinical trials for teprotumumab in TED did not explore the dose-dependency of the clinical response with the single teprotumumab dosing regimen selected based on data generated in oncology clinical trials, providing an opportunity to alter the dosing schedule, dosing duration, or route of administration while maintaining or improving efficacy, safety, and/or tolerability. 8 VRDN-001 is a monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks the IGF-1R signaling pathway with sub-nanomolar affinity. This mechanism of action is clinically and commercially validated for the treatment of TED (see Figure 1 below). We are aiming for VRDN-001 to be second to market in this class, with the opportunity to offer less burdensome intravenous (“IV”) dosing, as well as potential to achieve a subcutaneous product presentation that could simplify patient care by obviating the need for infusion center visits, thereby enabling administration in the prescriber’s office, or even potentially at home. Figure 1. Teprotumumab led to significant reductions in proptosis in as early as six weeks of dosing. We have an exclusive license to the worldwide rights to develop and commercialize VRDN-001 for all non-oncology indications that do not use radiopharmaceuticals, including the treatment of TED, from ImmunoGen. This antibody had previously been developed in oncology as AVE-1642 and studied in over 100 patients. However, development in oncology was stopped in 2009 due to its failure to meet the primary efficacy endpoints in multiple myeloma. We are developing this antibody sequence as VRDN-001 in TED. As described below, we have sublicensed the right to develop, manufacture, and commercialize certain IGF-1R directed antibody products for non-oncology indications in the greater area of China to Zenas BioPharma (Cayman) Limited. A clinical trial conducted by Aventis investigated the safety and efficacy of AVE-1642 in 27 patients with solid tumors when dosed in combination with docetaxel. In the first treatment cycle, AVE-1642 was administered as monotherapy, allowing assessment of its pharmacokinetics and tolerability. In this trial, no Grade 3 or above drug-related adverse events were reported with AVE-1642 as monotherapy. Importantly, there was only a single report of Grade 1/2 hyperglycemia among this group of patients. However, at least 50% of patients experienced hyperglycemia in subsequent cycles when patients received corticosteroids as pre-medication for docetaxel. Adverse events due to hyperglycemia have been reported for other IGF-1R antibodies, including in 10% of patients treated with teprotumumab. Evidence of target engagement was obtained by assessing the serum levels of biomarkers previously shown to be induced by IGF-1R inhibition. A common effect of IGF-1R inhibition is the elevation of IGF-1 serum levels. In this Aventis oncology trial, IGF-1 serum concentrations increased subsequent to administration of AVE-1642, and these serum concentrations remained elevated through repeat doses. No obvious dose-concentration relationship was observed, suggesting that IGF-1 levels reached their plateau at the lowest dose of AVE-1642 administered. 9 Figure 2. Serum levels of IGF-1 increased by over 300% after AVE-1642 administration. Clinical Trial Design for VRDN-001 Clinical trials of teprotumumab in TED reported to date used a single dosing regimen, providing little guidance as to the optimal dosing required for clinical activity in TED. Our goal is to explore dose-dependency of VRDN-001 on proptosis in TED. Dose selection was informed by VRDN-001 pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics reported in previous oncology studies. We are focused on rapidly determining a minimum effective dose. If this trial is successful, we plan to quickly move to pivotal trials. The first clinical trial for VRDN-001 is a Phase 1/2 proof of concept trial including multiple randomized, placebo-controlled cohorts of TED patients to assess the potential for VRDN-001 to provide rapid improvement of signs and symptoms of TED, including proptosis. The protocol for this trial allows for additional patient cohorts to assess differing treatment paradigms that may offer advantages over currently available therapies and mitigate patient treatment burden. We expect to announce top line data from the proof-of-concept portion of the trial in the second quarter of 2022. VRDN-002, a Potential Best-In-Class IGF-1R Antibody VRDN-002 is a next generation IGF-1R humanized monoclonal antibody targeting IGF-1R and incorporating half-life extension technology, designed to support administration as a convenient, low-volume, subcutaneous injection for the treatment of TED. We believe this product profile could expand settings of care by reducing the complexity of administration. Our first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial of VRDN-002 is an intravenous, single ascending dose study to explore safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of intravenously administered VRDN-002 in healthy volunteers. Data from this Phase 1 trial are expected to be announced in mid-2022 and will inform the feasibility of a low-volume subcutaneous dosing paradigm for TED patients. VRDN-003 We believe that VRDN-002 may offer a durable best-in-class profile for a therapeutic antibody targeting IGF-1R for the treatment of TED. However, to ensure that Viridian is a leader in the development of novel therapies for TED, we are evaluating several hypotheses that may yield a product profile differentiated beyond what VRDN-002 may deliver. We expect to disclose these hypotheses only if and when we have identified and advanced meaningfully differentiated molecules. Intellectual Property As of December 31, 2021, with regard to our VRDN-001 and VRDN-002 product candidates, we have two U.S. non- provisional patent applications, two PCT applications, two foreign applications, and seven provisional applications directed to compositions and directed to methods of using VRDN-001 and/or VRDN-002 for the treatment of TED. Any patents that were 10 to issue from such non-provisional applications would be expected to expire no earlier than 2041, without taking potential patent term extensions or disclaimers into account. Competition The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense and rapidly changing competition to develop new technologies and proprietary products. Our product candidates may address multiple markets. Ultimately, the diseases our product candidates target, and for which product candidates we may receive marketing authorization, will determine our competition. We believe that for most or all of our product development programs, there will be one or more competing programs under development by other companies. Any products that we may commercialize will have to compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. We face potential competition from many different sources, including larger and better-funded biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. In many cases, the companies with competing programs will have access to greater resources and expertise than we do and may be more advanced in those programs. Horizon Therapeutics plc’s Tepezza ® is the only FDA-approved medication for TED. Other therapies, such as corticosteroids, have been used on an off-label basis to alleviate some of the symptoms of TED. Other companies that are developing TED therapies include Immunovant, Inc., Novartis International AG, Harbour BioMed and Valenza Bio Inc. License Agreements License Agreement with Zenas BioPharma In October 2020, Viridian Therapeutics, Inc. (“Private Viridian”) entered a license agreement with Zenas BioPharma (Cayman) Limited (“Zenas BioPharma”) to license technology comprising certain materials, patent rights, and know-how to Zenas BioPharma. On October 27, 2020, in connection with the closing of the Private Viridian acquisition, we became party to the license agreement with Zenas BioPharma. Since February 2021, we have entered into several letter agreements with Zenas BioPharma in which we agreed to provide assistance to Zenas BioPharma with certain development activities, including manufacturing. The license agreement, as amended, and letter agreements (collectively, the “Zenas Agreements”) were negotiated with a single commercial objective and are treated as a combined contract for accounting purposes. Under the terms of the Zenas Agreements, we granted Zenas BioPharma an exclusive license to develop, manufacture, and commercialize certain IGF-1R directed antibody products for non-oncology indications in the greater area of China. As consideration for the Zenas Agreements, the transaction price included upfront non-cash consideration and variable consideration in the form of payment for our goods and services provided and milestone payments due upon the achievement of specified events. Under the Zenas Agreements, we can receive non-refundable milestone payments upon achieving specific milestone events during the contract term. Additionally, we may receive royalty payments based on a percentage of the annual net sales of any licensed products sold on a country-by-country basis in the greater area of China. The royalty percentage may vary based on different tiers of annual net sales of the licensed products made. Zenas BioPharma is obligated to make royalty payments to us for the royalty term in the Zenas Agreements. License Agreement with ImmunoGen, Inc. On October 12, 2020, Private Viridian entered into a license agreement with ImmunoGen (the “ImmunoGen License Agreement”), under which we obtained rights to an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain patents and other intellectual property rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize certain products for non-oncology and non-radiopharmaceutical indications. In consideration for rights granted by ImmunoGen, we are obligated to make certain development milestone payments of up to $48.0 million. Additionally, if we successfully commercialize any product candidate subject to the ImmunoGen License Agreement, we are responsible for royalty payments equal to a percentage in the mid-single digits of net sales and commercial milestone payments of up to $95.0 million. We assumed the ImmunoGen License Agreement in the Merger. License Agreements with Xencor, Inc. In December 2020, we entered into a license agreement with Xencor, Inc. (“Xencor”) (the “Xencor License Agreement”), under which Xencor granted us rights to an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable, non-transferable, royalty-bearing license to use specified Xencor technology for the research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization of therapeutic antibodies targeting IGF-1R. In consideration for rights granted by Xencor, we issued 322,407 shares of our common stock to Xencor in December 2020. The shares were valued at $6.0 million and recorded as research and development expense in 2020. Under the terms of the Xencor License Agreement, we are obligated to make future development milestone payments of up to 11 $30.0 million. Additionally, if we successfully commercialize any product candidate subject to the Xencor License Agreement, we are responsible for royalty payments equal to a percentage in the mid-single digits of net sales and commercial milestone payments of up to $25.0 million. In December 2021, we entered into a subsequent technology license agreement with Xencor (the “2021 Xencor License Agreement”) for a non-exclusive license to certain antibody libraries developed by Xencor. Under the 2021 Xencor License Agreement, Xencor we received a one-year research license to review the antibodies and the right to select up to three antibodies for further development. In consideration for rights granted by Xencor, we issued 394,737 shares of our common stock to Xencor in December 2021. The shares were valued at $7.5 million and recorded as research and development expense during the year ended December 31, 2021. Under the terms of the 2021 Xencor License Agreement, for each licensed product, we are obligated to make future milestone payments of up to $27.75 million, which includes development and regulatory milestone payments of up to $4.75 million, special milestone payments of up to $3.0 million, and commercial milestone payments of up to $20.0 million. Additionally, for each licensed product that we successfully commercialize, we are responsible for royalty payments equal to a percentage in the mid-single digits of net sales. Government Regulation and Product Approvals FDA Drug Approval Process In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as imposition of clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending new drug applications (“NDA”), warning or untitled letters, withdrawal of approval, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution. We cannot market a drug product candidate in the United States until the drug has received FDA approval. The steps required before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally include the following: • completion of extensive preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies in accordance with the FDA’s good laboratory practices (“GLP”) regulations; • approval by an independent institutional review board (“IRB”) at each clinical site before each trial may be initiated at that site; • submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin; • performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug for each proposed indication; • submission to the FDA of an NDA after completion of all pivotal clinical trials; • satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable; • satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) and finished drug product are produced and tested to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”); and • FDA review and approval of the NDA prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug in the United States. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years, and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP. An IND sponsor must submit the results of preclinical testing to the FDA as part 12 of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin if all other requirements, including IRB review and approval, have been met. If the FDA raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trial, such as whether human research subjects will be exposed to an unreasonable health risk, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in compliance with federal regulations, including GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial participants. The study protocol and informed consent information for participants in clinical trials must also be submitted to an IRB for approval at each site at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements or may impose other conditions. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on their www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to study metabolism of the drug, pharmacokinetics, the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 clinical trials, also called pivotal trials, are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single clinical trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity, or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome, and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible. After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing, and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to annual program fees. These fees are typically increased annually. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA 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. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether the drug is safe and effective and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packaged, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, quality, and purity. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee, which is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an 13 advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMPs is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’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 Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS can include a medication guide, a communication plan for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use, such as special training and certification requirements for individuals who prescribe or dispense the drug, requirements that patients enroll in a registry, and other measures that the FDA deems necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs. Such supplements are typically reviewed within 10 months of receipt by the FDA. Orphan Drug Designation Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug or biologic for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or a biological license application (“BLA”). After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. The orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusive approval (or exclusivity), which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full NDA or BLA, to market the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent FDA from approving a different drug or biologic for the same disease or condition, or the same drug or biologic for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the marketing application fee. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. 14 Expedited Development and Review Programs The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for development and review of new drug products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drug products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a new drug may request that the FDA designate the drug as a Fast Track product at any time during the clinical development of the product. For a Fast Track-designated product, the sponsor may provide a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted. The sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The FDA may choose not to perform an earlier review even if it agrees to accept sections of the application in advance. The PDUFA date for regular or priority review, including two months for the filing determination, is set based on the date when the FDA receives the complete application. Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may be eligible for accelerated approval, which means that they may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug product subject to accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires, as a condition for accelerated approval, pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. In addition, the Breakthrough Therapy Designation is intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. 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 or life-threatening disease or condition, where 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. The designation includes all of the features of Fast Track designation, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The Breakthrough Therapy Designation is distinct from both accelerated approval and priority review, but these can also be granted to the same product candidate if the relevant criteria are met. The FDA must take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy. Requests for breakthrough therapy designation will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt, and the FDA will either grant or deny the request. Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and priority review do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process by allowing more frequent and timely interactions with the FDA review team and/or the potential for a more efficient or more rapid application review. Similarly, products granted accelerated approval must meet statutory standards for safety and effectiveness although they may be approved based on a surrogate endpoint likely to predict clinical benefit of the underlying drug, rather than through a direct measure of clinical benefit. Even if our product candidates are deemed eligible for one or more of these programs for expedited product development and approval, the FDA may later decide that our product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification. In addition, these programs may not provide us with a material commercial advantage. Post-Approval Requirements Once an NDA is approved, a product may be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet and social media. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. 15 Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-approval testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or restrictions on the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, 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 studies or clinical trials 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; • fines, warning letters, or holds on post-approval clinical trials; • refusal of the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications or suspension or revocation of product approvals; • product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products, or injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies 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. Foreign Regulation In order to market any product outside of the United States, we would need to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety, and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in foreign countries and jurisdictions. Some countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application (“CTA”) much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. Regulation in the European Union Drug and Biologic Development Process The conduct of clinical trials is currently governed by the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (“CTR”), which entered into force on January 31, 2022. The CTR introduced a complete overhaul of the previous regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU, the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, or Clinical Trials Directive. The Clinical Trials Directive will expire after a transition period of three years. During the first year of the transition period, clinical trial sponsors may choose to apply to run a trial under the CTR or under the Clinical Trials Directive. Under the Clinical Trials Directive, which will expire after a transition period of one or three years, respectively, as outlined below in more detail, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each EU Member State where there is a site at which the trial is to be conducted. The approval must be obtained from two separate entities: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees. The NCA of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial will be conducted must authorize the conduct of the trial, and the independent Ethics Committee must grant a positive opinion in relation to the conduct of the clinical trial in the relevant EU Member State before the commencement of the trial. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be submitted to or approved by the relevant NCA and Ethics Committees. Under the Clinical Trials Directive all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the NCA and to the Ethics Committees of the EU Member State where they occur. 16 A more unified procedure will apply under the new CTR. A sponsor will be able to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial through a centralized EU clinical trials portal. One national regulatory authority (the reporting EU Member State proposed by the applicant) will take the lead in validating and evaluating the application and will consult and coordinate with the other concerned Member States. If an application is rejected, it may be amended and resubmitted through the EU clinical trials portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor may start the clinical trial in all concerned Member States. However, a concerned EU Member State may in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval and prevent the clinical trial from being conducted in such Member State. The CTR also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting, and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to the EU Database. After several postponements of the coming into effect of the CTR due to technical difficulties with the underlying information technology systems , the “go live” of these systems and, accordingly, the coming into force of the regulation, occurred on January 31, 2022. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. Member States will work in Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”) immediately after the system has gone live. For one year, until 31 January 2023, clinical trial sponsors can still choose whether to submit an initial clinical trial application in line with the current system (Clinical Trials Directive) or via CTIS. From 31 January 2023, submission of initial clinical trial applications via CTIS becomes mandatory, and by 31 January 2025, all ongoing trials approved under the current Clinical Trials Directive will be governed by the new Regulation and have to be transitioned to CTIS. Under both the Clinical Trials Directive and the new CTR, national laws, regulations, and the applicable Good Clinical Practice and Good Laboratory Practice standards must also be respected during the conduct of the trials, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines on Good Clinical Practice (“GCP)” and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. During the development of a medicinal product, the European Medical Agency (“EMA”) and national regulators within the EU provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party (“SAWP”). A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure, but is significantly reduced for designated orphan medicines. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding with regard to any future marketing authorization application of the product concerned. Orphan Designation and Exclusivity The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. The EMA grants orphan drug designation if the medicinal product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union (prevalence criterion). In addition, Orphan Drug Designation can be granted if, for economic reasons, the medicinal product would be unlikely to be developed without incentives and if there is no other satisfactory method approved in the European Union of diagnosing, preventing, or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed medicinal product is a significant benefit to patients affected by the condition. An application for orphan drug designation (which is not a marketing authorization, as not all orphan-designated medicines reach the authorization application stage) must be submitted first before an application for marketing authorization of the medicinal product is submitted. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted, and sponsors must submit an annual report to EMA summarizing the status of development of the medicine. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. Designated orphan medicines are eligible for conditional marketing authorization. The EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products reassesses the orphan drug designation of a product in parallel with the review for a marketing authorization; for a product to benefit from market exclusivity it must maintain its orphan drug designation at the time of marketing authorization review by the EMA and approval by the EC. Additionally, any marketing authorization granted for an orphan medicinal product must only cover the therapeutic indication(s) that are covered by the orphan drug designation. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization, orphan drug designation provides up to ten years of market exclusivity in the orphan indication. During the 10-year period of market exclusivity, with a limited number of exceptions, the regulatory authorities of the EU Member States and the EMA may not accept applications for marketing authorization, accept an application to extend an existing marketing authorization or grant marketing authorization for other similar medicinal products for the same therapeutic 17 indication. A similar medicinal product is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in a currently authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. An orphan medicinal product can also obtain an additional two years of market exclusivity for an orphan-designated condition when the results of specific studies are reflected in the Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”), addressing the pediatric population and completed in accordance with a fully compliant Pediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”). No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. The 10-year market exclusivity 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, i.e. the condition prevalence or financial returns criteria under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products. When the period of orphan market exclusivity for an indication ends, the orphan drug designation for that indication expires as well. Orphan exclusivity runs in parallel with normal rules on data exclusivity and market protection. Additionally, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product (orphan or not) for the same or overlapping indication subject to certain requirements. PRIME Designation In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies on the basis of compelling non-clinical data and tolerability data from initial clinical trials. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, once a candidate medicine has been selected for the PRIME scheme, a dedicated contact point and rapporteur from the CHMP or from CAT are appointed facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee level. A kick-off meeting with the CHMP/CAT rapporteur initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts to provide guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy. PRIME eligibility does not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that any such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval. Other Regulations Although we currently do not have any products on the market, our current and future business operations may be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws or regulations include, without limitation, state, federal, and foreign anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting, and physician sunshine laws or regulations. Some of our pre-commercial activities are subject to some of these laws. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, lease of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. The government often takes the position that to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, only one purpose of the remuneration need be to induce referrals, even if there are other legitimate purposes for the remuneration. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, and can also result in criminal fines, civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal 18 healthcare programs. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Persons and entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under the False Claims Act for engaging in a variety of different types of conduct that caused the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, for example, a claim resulting from a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute is deemed to be a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act imposes mandatory treble damages and per-violation civil penalties up to approximately $23,000. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, False Claims Act violations may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items, or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, to the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their implementing regulations, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and 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 attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA, and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposes, among other things, annual reporting requirements for covered manufacturers for certain payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians, as defined under such law, and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately, and completely the required information for all payments and transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties. Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices, and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation, and other remuneration to physicians or drug pricing, and certain states and localities require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. 19 If we intend to commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other government healthcare programs, we will develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal control to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject. Although the development and implementation of compliance programs designed to establish internal controls and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of investigation, prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. Such laws and regulations will be subject to interpretation by various courts and other governmental authorities, thus creating potentially complex compliance issues for us and our future customers and strategic partners. In addition, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) on June 28, 2018, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA creates individual privacy rights for California consumers and increases the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain personal data. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and many similar laws have been proposed at the federal level and proposed or enacted in other states. Any liability from failure to comply with the requirements of these laws could adversely affect our financial condition. Foreign data protection laws, including, without limitation, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and EU member state data protection legislation, also apply to health-related and other personal data that we process, including, without limitation, personal data relating to clinical trial participants in the EU. The United Kingdom and Switzerland have also adopted data protection laws and regulations. The collection and use of personal health data and other personal information in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the GDPR, which came into force in May 2018 and related implementing laws in individual EU Member States. The GDPR imposes a number of strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to process (processing includes collection, analysis and transfer of) personal data of individuals within the European Union and in the EEA, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR also includes requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data or personal health data, notification of data processing obligations to the national data protection authorities and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. EU Member States may also impose additional requirements in relation to health, genetic and biometric data through their national implementing legislation. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EU Member States may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater, other administrative penalties and a number of criminal offenses (punishable by uncapped fines) for organizations and in certain cases their directors and officers as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed. Data protection authorities from the different EU Member States may still implement certain variations, enforce the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in the European Union. Guidance developed at both EU level and at the national level in individual EU Member States concerning implementation and compliance practices are often updated or otherwise revised. There is, moreover, a growing trend towards required public disclosure of clinical trial data in the European Union which adds to the complexity of obligations relating to processing health data from clinical trials. Such public disclosure obligations are provided in the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation, EMA disclosure initiatives and voluntary commitments by industry. Failing to comply with these obligations could lead to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, harm to our reputation, and adversely impact our business and operating results. The uncertainty regarding the interplay between different regulatory frameworks, such as the Clinical Trials Regulation and the GDPR, further adds to the complexity that we face with regard to data protection regulation. With regard to the transfer of data from the European Union to the United Kingdom, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”) provided for a transition period of up to six months as of January 1, 2021 to enable the European Commission to complete its adequacy assessment of the UK’s data protection laws. On June 28, 2021 the European Commission adopted two adequacy decisions for the United Kingdom – one under the GDPR and the other for the Law Enforcement Directive. Personal data may now freely flow from the European Union to the United Kingdom since the United Kingdom is deemed to have an adequate data protection level. Additionally, following the UK's withdrawal from the European Union and the EEA, companies also have to comply with the UK’s data protection laws (including the UK GDPR, which is based on the EU GDPR), the latter regime having the ability to separately fine up to the greater of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. The adequacy decisions include a ‘sunset clause’ which entails that the decisions will automatically expire four years after their entry into force. 20 If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, regulatory, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, and exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. These laws or governmental regulations could require us or our collaborators to incur additional costs to achieve compliance, limit our competitiveness, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to use, store, transfer, and process data, impact our or our collaborators’ ability to process or use data in order to support the provision of our products or services, affect our or our collaborators’ ability to offer our products and services in certain locations, or cause regulators to reject, limit, or disrupt our clinical trial activities. Health Reform In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to healthcare systems that could affect our future results of operations. There have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. In particular, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the “Affordable Care Act”), has had a significant impact on the healthcare industry. The Affordable Care Act was designed to expand coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall healthcare costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, the Affordable Care Act revised the definition of “average manufacturer price” for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices and imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import certain branded prescription drug products. There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. In January 2017, Congress voted to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017 (the “Budget Resolution”) that authorizes the implementation of legislation that would repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act. Further, on January 20, 2017, an Executive Order was signed, directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Affordable Care Act that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Congress also has considered subsequent legislation to repeal or replace elements of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have been signed into law. The legislation informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”) included a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care Act-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. In June 2021, the Supreme Court held that the states and individuals that brought the lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate did not have standing to challenge the law. Although the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the challenge, it vacated the judgment of the Texas U.S. District Court and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss, effectively ending the case. There are no changes to our business as a result of the decision, however, in the coming years, additional legislative and regulatory changes could be made to governmental health programs that could significantly impact pharmaceutical companies and the success of their product candidates. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These included reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further 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. 21 Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, among others, related to product tracking and tracing. Among its requirements, manufacturers need to provide certain information regarding the drug product to individuals and entities to which product ownership is transferred, label drug product with a product identifier, and keep certain records regarding the drug product. The transfer of information to subsequent product owners by manufacturers will eventually be required to be done electronically. Manufacturers will also be required to verify that purchasers of the manufacturers’ products are appropriately licensed. Further, manufacturers will have drug product investigation, quarantine, disposition, and notification responsibilities related to counterfeit, diverted, stolen, and intentionally adulterated products, as well as products that are the subject of fraudulent transactions or which are otherwise unfit for distribution such that they would be reasonably likely to result in serious health consequences or death. Further, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) model that would cap the price Medicare can pay for a drug to the lowest price paid in an economically comparable country within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The MFN model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and would have applied to all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. However, on December 29, 2021, CMS rescinded the proposed MFN rule. Additionally, on December 2, 2020, HHS published 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 have been delayed until January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers to ensure the full value of co-pay assistance is passed on to the patient or these dollars will count toward the Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price calculation of the drug. On May 21, 2021, PhRMA sued the HHS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to stop the implementation of the rule claiming that the rule contradicts federal law surrounding Medicaid rebates. It is unclear how the outcome of this litigation will affect the rule. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business. It is unclear whether or how the Biden administration will move forward with the rule. But if the new administration implements the rule in its current form and the rule survives judicial scrutiny, the MFN model will subject certain physician-administered drugs or biologicals identified by CMS as having the highest annual Medicare Part B spending to an alternative payment methodology based on international reference prices, with the list of products to be updated annually to add more products and products not to be removed absent limited circumstances. The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Further, in December 2019, the FDA issued draft guidance describing procedures for drug manufacturers to facilitate the importation of FDA-approved drugs and biologics manufactured abroad and originally intended for sale in a foreign country into the United States. On November 2, 2021, President Biden’s administration announced a new framework for prescription drug pricing. This plan allows Medicare to negotiate prices for a set number of small molecule drugs that have been on the market for more than nine years, and for biologics that have been on the market for more than 12 years. The plan also imposes a tax penalty on drug companies that increase prices faster than inflation and lowers out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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. For example, after some pharmacy benefit managers and insurers adopted policies stating that the amount of a copay coupon would not be applied to the enrollee’s deductible or out-of-pocket maximum (referred to as “accumulator adjustment programs”), some states passed legislation banning these policies. On January 31, 2020, CMS released its proposed 2021 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters rule, which provides that insurers would no longer be required to count any coupons from drug manufacturers towards a consumer’s out-of-pocket limit. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. 22 Coverage and Reimbursement Sales of our product candidates, once approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, private health insurers, and managed care organizations. Third-party payors generally decide which drugs they will cover and establish certain reimbursement levels for such drugs. In particular, in the United States, private health insurers and other third-party payors often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government (through the Medicare or Medicaid programs) provides reimbursement for such treatments. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such products. Sales of our product candidates, and any future product candidates, will therefore depend substantially on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates, and any future product candidates, will be paid by third-party payors. Additionally, the market for our product candidates, and any future product candidates, will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ formularies without prior authorization, step therapy, or other limitations such as approved lists of treatments for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for therapeutic products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a costly and time-consuming process. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs and increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls and transparency requirements, 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 limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products once approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our products once approved or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our products could reduce or eliminate utilization of our products and have an adverse effect on our sales, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, state and federal healthcare reform measures have been and 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 products once approved or additional pricing pressures. Manufacturing We do not own or operate clinical or commercial manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidates that we develop, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and finished product candidates for our clinical trials. We do not have any current contractual arrangements for the manufacture of commercial supplies of our product candidates that we develop. We currently employ internal resources and third-party consultants to manage our manufacturing contractors. Historically, we have relied on third-party contract development and manufacturing organizations (“CDMOs”), to manufacture and supply our preclinical and clinical materials used during the development of our product candidates. Over the last twelve months, demand for biological therapeutic manufacturing has increased and supply has been constrained, in part due to the displacement caused by efforts to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. We initially pursued three separate manufacturing paths to supply investigational product for our planned clinical trials in order to mitigate delays and uncertainties. We currently rely on a single multi-site CDMO for such manufacturing, although other avenues remain if our current manufacturer were to be negatively impacted. We maintain a long-term master services agreement with our CDMO pursuant to which the CDMO provides biologics development and manufacturing services on a per project basis and a related cell line license. We may terminate the master services agreement at any time for convenience in accordance with the terms of the agreement. We may also terminate the master services agreement in the event that the CDMO does not obtain or maintain any material governmental license or approval in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The agreement includes confidentiality and intellectual property provisions to protect our proprietary rights related to our product candidates. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply. While any reduction or halt in supply from the CDMO could limit our ability to 23 develop our product candidates until a replacement CDMO is found and qualified, we believe that we have sufficient supply to support our current clinical trial programs. Any reduction or halt in supply from the CDMO could limit our ability to develop our product candidates until a replacement CDMO is found and qualified, although we believe that we have supply on hand that can partially support our current clinical trial programs until a replacement CDMO is secured. Sales and Marketing We have not yet defined our sales, marketing, or product distribution strategy for our product candidates because our product candidates are still in preclinical or early-stage clinical development. Our commercial strategy may include the use of strategic partners, distributors, a contract sale force, or the establishment of our own commercial and specialty sales force. We plan to further evaluate these alternatives as we continue to advance into later stages of development for each one of our product candidates. Employees As of December 31, 2021, we had 50 full-time employees located in the United States. We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees is represented by a labor organization or under any collective bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good. Our Corporate Information We were initially founded as a Delaware limited liability company in January 2010 and subsequently incorporated as a Delaware corporation in June 2014. On January 20, 2021, pursuant to the Merger Agreement (as defined below) under which miRagen Therapeutics, Inc. acquired Viridian Therapeutics, Inc., we changed our name from Miragen Therapeutics, Inc. to Viridian Therapeutics, Inc. Our common stock currently trades on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “VRDN.” Our principal executive office is located at 221 Crescent Street, Suite 401, Waltham, MA 02453, and our telephone number is (617) 272-4600. Our website address is www.viridiantherapeutics.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this Annual Report. We have included our website in this Annual Report solely as an inactive textual reference. This Annual Report contains references to our trademarks and trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report, including logos, artwork, and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other company. Available Information Our Annual Reports, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) are available free of charge on our website located at www.viridiantherapeutics.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with the SEC. The reports are also available at the SEC’s internet website at www.sec.gov. A copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominative and Corporate Governance Committee are posted on our website, www.viridiantherapeutics.com, under “Corporate Governance.”