UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025

OR

Commission File Number 001-42513

AARDVARK THERAPEUTICS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (858) 225-7696

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ☐ NO ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. YES ☐ NO ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). YES ☒ NO ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐ NO ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $162.9 million on June 30, 2025, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter based on the closing price of $13.52 per share, which was the closing price of the registrant’s common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on such date. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed to be an affiliate of the registrant on such date have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of shares of Registrant’s common stock outstanding as of February 28, 2026 was 21,816,041.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Annual Report) contains forward-looking statements about us and our industry within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), which statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements generally relate to future events or our future financial or operating performance. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, product candidates, planned preclinical studies and clinical trials, results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, research and development plans and costs, plans for manufacturing, regulatory approvals, timing and likelihood of success, as well as plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements because they contain words such as “may,” “will,” “might,” “should,” “would,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “could,” “intends,” “target,” “outlook,” “projects,” “forecast,” “contemplates,” “believes,” “estimates," “predicts," “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these words or other similar terms or expressions that concern our expectations, strategy, plans or intentions, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

We caution you that the forward-looking statements highlighted above do not encompass all of the forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report.

We have based the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report primarily on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or growth prospects. The outcome of the events described in these forward-looking statements is subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors described in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors”, of this Annual Report and Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, of this Annual Report and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and challenging environment. New risks and uncertainties emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all risks and uncertainties that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. We cannot assure you that the results, events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur, and actual results, events or circumstances could differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. You should, however, review the factors and risks we describe in the reports we will file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after the date of this Annual Report.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similarly qualified statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and you are cautioned not to rely unduly upon them.

The forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report relate only to events as of the date on which the statements are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures, other strategic transactions or investments we may make or enter into.

Throughout this Annual Report, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “Aardvark,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this Annual Report refer to Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel, small-molecule therapeutics to activate innate homeostatic pathways for the treatment of metabolic diseases. We target biological pathways associated with alleviating hunger that we believe have the potential to deliver transformative outcomes for patients. We have focused our efforts on developing selective compounds, targeting Bitter Taste Receptors (TAS2Rs) for hunger-associated conditions. Our initial compounds target TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen, which normally respond to the chemicals in food and participate in the gut-brain axis. Our research has shown that activating these receptors can induce the secretion of endogenous signaling molecules, including cholecystokinin (CCK), peptide YY (PYY) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1).

TAS2Rs are a family of 26 different nutrient-sensing G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are broadly expressed among vertebrates. TAS2Rs are present in the oral cavity to convey bitter taste and are highly expressed in many other tissues throughout the body where they are key in regulating metabolic and inflammatory pathways. CCK has long been recognized as a promising pharmaceutical target because its release is triggered with food and it helps suppress hunger, which is the feeling of discomfort that comes from a perception of not having eaten recently. We believe suppression of hunger could be complementary to the suppression of appetite reported from patients on GLP-1 receptor targeted treatments, which reduce the desirability of food. Previous approaches to directly agonize CCK receptors through exogenous molecules have been limited by safety concerns driven by systemic exposure, resulting in on-target, off-tissue toxicity, and in turn leading to adverse effects, such as pancreatitis. Our wholly-owned lead product candidate, ARD-101, is an oral, largely gut-restricted small-molecule agonist of certain TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen. ARD-101, in contrast to previous approaches to directly agonize CCK receptors, elicits the endogenous release of CCK by leveraging the body’s natural response to TAS2R agonism. Besides our product candidates, we are not aware of any approved or other clinical-stage candidates targeting certain TAS2Rs.

ARD-101 has limited systemic absorption, which we believe reduces the potential for systemic toxicity and has contributed to ARD-101 being well-tolerated in our Phase 1 and 2 trials. We have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of ARD-101 in healthy volunteers and a Phase 2 clinical trial in subjects with hyperphagia associated with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). The Phase 2 clinical trial in hyperphagia associated with PWS evaluated two dosing regimens over 28 days followed by a 14-day withdrawal period. In Part 1 of the trial, 12 subjects completed the treatment period at a fixed dose of 200 mg delivered orally twice daily (BID). These 12 subjects that completed treatment had no significant treatment-related adverse events and, of these subjects, eight completed the Hyperphagia for Clinical Trial Questionnaire-9 (HQ-CT 9), with seven having complete post–database lock datasets. In this subgroup of seven, the mean decline at day 28 was approximately 9 points. In Part 2 of the trial, four subjects were dosed under a revised protocol: 400 mg BID for seven days, followed by 600 mg BID for seven days and ending with 800 mg BID for 14 days. The four subjects that completed the trial per protocol had only grade 1 treatment-related adverse events and showed a decrease in HQ-CT 9 of approximately eight points at 28 days. In our completed Phase 2 clinical trial in subjects with hyperphagia associated with PWS, ARD-101 was shown to be well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity through a reduction in Hyperphagia Questionnaire for Clinical Trials (HQ-CT) scores.

In the second quarter of 2025, we initiated dosing for a Phase 3 clinical trial for hyperphagia associated with PWS, which we refer to as the HERO (Hunger Elimination or Reduction Objective) trial. We previously reached alignment with the FDA on a protocol for a Phase 3 clinical trial, which we initiated in December 2024. In August 2025, we submitted a protocol amendment to remove the use of anti-psychotics and insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes as exclusion criteria for the clinical trial. In October 2025, we reached alignment with the FDA on a protocol amendment to lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial from 13 to 10 years of age. This change broadened the eligible trial population and expanded the potential addressable opportunity within PWS. In December 2025, we submitted an additional protocol amendment seeking to further lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial to 7 years of age. During the third quarter of 2025, we commenced enrollment for the HERO Open Label Extension (OLE) trial, which was available to patients completing the HERO trial and we initiated our first clinical sites in Australia. In January 2026, we announced over 50% completion of the target enrollment of 90 patients in the HERO trial and within the first quarter of 2026, we initiated clinical sites in the UK, South Korea and Canada.

On February 27, 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO and OLE trials following reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study and are currently reviewing the data and collaborating with the FDA to determine next steps. As a result, aspects of the trial design, development timeline and future clinical plans may change. Following the voluntary pause, we are reviewing the trial designs and protocols in collaboration with the FDA and the previously agreed protocol elements may be revisited. For additional detail, please see the subsection titled “—ARD—ARD-101 Overview” below.

Our second TAS2R program, ARD-201, was planned to be a fixed-dose combination of ARD-101 and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor for the treatment of obesity and obesity-related conditions. We previously initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial, which we referred to as the POWER (Prevention Of WEight Regain) trial, in December 2025, to explore the efficacy of ARD-201 in the prevention of weight regain among patients who have successfully lost over 15% of body weight on GLP-1RA therapy. In addition, we previously planned to initiate a second Phase 2 trial for ARD-201 in the first half of 2026, which we referred to as the STRENGTH (Sitagliptin and TAS2R for weight Reduction with Exercise, Nutrition, and GLP-1RA Trial and Hunger assessment) trial. Because ARD-201 contains ARD-101 as a component of the planned combination therapy, we are assessing the potential implications of the voluntary pause of the HERO trial on the ARD-201 program.

Following this assessment, we have voluntarily paused the STRENGTH and POWER clinical trials while we complete our ongoing evaluation of the safety observations identified in the healthy volunteer study of ARD-101 and continue discussions with the FDA regarding next steps for the ARD-101 program. We expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026.

In preparation for these trials, we expanded our clinical management and regulatory capabilities, including hiring clinical, regulatory and quality personnel, and we expect to continue to need to expand our clinical management and regulatory capabilities and to rely on third parties to conduct our later stage or pivotal clinical trials in the future. However, the timing of additional staffing and operational expansion may be delayed as we evaluate next steps following the voluntary pause of the HERO trial and related clinical programs.

Our Pipeline

We are advancing the below portfolio of wholly-owned novel and proprietary small-molecule programs that we believe can induce satiety in patients with hunger-associated indications, as outlined below. As discussed above, certain clinical programs, including the HERO trial for ARD-101 and the POWER and STRENGTH trials for ARD-201, are currently paused while we evaluate safety observations and continue discussions with the FDA regarding next steps.

Our Hunger Associated TAS2R Pipeline

Our Team and Investors

We have assembled a management team of biopharmaceutical experts with extensive experience in building and operating organizations that develop and deliver innovative medicines to patients. Our Founder, Chairperson of our board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Tien Lee, founded our company in 2017. He brings over 20 years of experience as a biotechnology innovator and executive and was integrally involved with the founding or advancement of several biopharmaceutical companies. Before founding our company, Dr. Lee joined NantKwest in 2014 and served as its Chief Strategy Officer until March 2017. Dr. Lee is also an inventor or co-inventor of multiple biomedical and biotechnology innovations. Our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Manasi Jaiman, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, Nelson Sun, as well as other senior members of our team, collectively bring extensive clinical and business development experience to our company.

Prior to our IPO in February 2025, we had raised $129.1 million supported by a syndicate of leading life sciences and institutional investors, including the completion of our $85.0 million Series C financing led by Decheng Capital in May 2024. In February 2025, we completed our IPO with the sale of 6,120,661 shares of common stock, which included the partial exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase 232,661 additional shares, at an initial public offering price of $16.00 per share and received net proceeds of approximately $87.5 million.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a leader in the treatment of obesity and obesity-related conditions, starting with rare hyperphagias. We intend to leverage the experience and capabilities of our executive management team and our established networks throughout the biopharmaceutical industry to identify, develop and commercialize product candidates that are designed to offer enhanced efficacy, tolerability and convenience, thereby providing benefits to patients and their treating clinicians. We intend to achieve our goals by implementing the following strategies:

TAS2R as a Therapeutic Target

TAS2R Overview

Bitterness is one of five basic taste sensations that play a crucial role in survival by helping guide organisms to avoid harmful toxins and noxious substances. The sensors for bitter compounds in vertebrates are the evolutionarily-conserved TAS2Rs, a class of GPCRs initially identified in type II taste receptor cells located in the taste bud. In the human genome, 26 TAS2R genes have been identified. They are located not only in the mouth and throat but are expressed widely throughout the body, for example in the intestines, skin, brain, bladder, and lower and upper respiratory tract. The expression of TAS2Rs throughout the body, as well as their involvement in multiple physiologic processes, underscore TAS2Rs as compelling potential therapeutic targets for a wide array of diseases.

In the gut, TAS2Rs control the secretion of satiety regulating gut hormones and regulate gut motility, ultimately decreasing hunger, food intake and body weight. TAS2Rs are expressed on enteroendocrine cells in the gut lining and their activation by bitter molecules triggers the local release of peptides, including CCK, PYY and GLP-1, which subsequently act through the corresponding receptors in afferent sensory fibers of the vagus nerve or directly via the bloodstream to then transmit signals to the brain to control satiety and food intake. This approach is fundamentally different from other oral metabolic programs that attempt to mimic nutrient-driven gut hormone release. ARD-101 and ARD-201 activate the gut’s protective chemosensory system via bitter taste receptors, engaging rapid vagal neural circuits that limit intake early and reinforce satiety through secondary hormone release. This non-nutritive, neural-first mechanism is designed to reduce hunger drive without inducing nausea and we believe this may overcome the physiologic ceiling that limits nutrient-mimic therapies.

CCK has long been recognized as a promising pharmaceutical target because its release is triggered with food and helps suppress feelings of hunger in addition to providing other therapeutic applications as shown in Figure 1 below. Major companies such as AbbVie, AstraZeneca, GSK and Novo Nordisk have attempted to pursue direct CCK receptor agonism through exogenous molecules. However, the limitations of this approach have remained a significant barrier to an effective therapy. Specifically, there were challenges with high systemic exposure, resulting in on-target, off-tissue toxicity leading to safety concerns and adverse effects, including pancreatitis.

Figure 1: Potential Therapeutic Targets Involving CCK

Our lead product candidate, ARD-101, is an oral gut-restricted small-molecule targeting certain TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen. ARD-101 is composed of denatonium acetate monohydrate, and is one of the most potent TAS2R agonists identified. In our preclinical studies and clinical trials to date, we have found it to be approximately 99% restricted to the gut with minimal systemic exposure, which has led to local elevation of endogenous gut peptide hormones, such as CCK and GLP-1, within physiological levels. The selective local secretion avoids the off-target side effects seen with approaches using systemic exposure of artificial CCK analogue molecules. As shown in Figure 2 below, ARD-101 has the potential to affect hunger, metabolism and inflammation through gut-brain signaling.

Figure 2: CCK Release Helps to Attenuate Hunger and Leads to Satiety

The Role of TAS2Rs in Hunger Versus Appetite

The key differentiating feature of gut lumen-based TAS2R agonism is its ability to stimulate local secretion of gut hormones such as CCK, which acts in an autocrine/paracrine-like manner to induce a gut-brain signal that abrogates sensations of hunger. Hunger and appetite are often subjectively perceived to be different sensations along the same axis. However, hunger and appetite represent different neurologically-based drives that guide human behavior and metabolic regulation, as shown in Figure 3 below. Appetite represents neurologic reward and pleasure seeking, whereas hunger represents the avoidance of pain and discomfort.

Figure 3: Hunger and Appetite are Distinct Neural Pathways

For certain hyperphagia-associated disorders, such as PWS, patients are driven to eat by hunger regardless of perceived desirability of food, even going so far as to eat garbage. For general obesity, addressing hunger along with appetite has the potential for a complementary effect. Current therapeutics that engage GLP-1RAs reduce sensations of appetite to drive reduced food consumption and therefore result in weight loss, yet cannot sufficiently attenuate or improve self-reported hunger levels. This increased hunger state is in part driven by GLP-1 induction of higher levels of serum ghrelin. Ghrelin is a hormone that, when elevated, is concordant with sensations of hunger. In humans, hunger scores and ghrelin levels show similar temporal profiles over a wide range of inter-meal intervals, and individuals with PWS have dramatically elevated ghrelin levels (Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Ghrelin, Hunger, and Prader-Willi Syndrome: The Hormonal Connection

Previous attempts at pharmaceutical development of CCK receptor agonists included the development of long-acting systemic CCK analogues by chemically altering the natural CCK to extend its half-life and by administering it as a subcutaneous depot. These development programs were discontinued because of unintended on-target off-tissue toxicities, including pancreatitis. We believe that ARD-101 elicits expression of CCK in a localized manner in the peri-gut region to selectively elicit vagal gut-brain signaling without significant concomitant rise in systemic CCK. We believe ARD-101 offers a more anatomically targeted and selective approach to invoke the effects of CCK signaling.

ARD-101

ARD-101 Overview

Our lead product candidate, ARD-101, is an oral gut-restricted small-molecule agonist of certain TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS (Figure 5 below). We believe its unique ability to induce gut-localized CCK and GLP-1 secretion could result in a sustainable and clinically relevant reduction in hyperphagia with a profile designed for long-term dosing without dose-limiting safety or tolerability issues.

Figure 5: ARD-101 Targets Three TAS2Rs Expressed on Enteroendocrine Cells

Our Phase 1 clinical trial showed that ARD-101 was well-tolerated in healthy volunteers. Data from the first of two parts of our Phase 2 clinical trial of ARD-101 in subjects 17 years or older with hyperphagia associated with PWS showed a reduction from baseline in their HQ-CT 9 or Hyperphagia for Clinical Trial Questionnaire-13 (HQ-CT 13) scores, and it was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events (SAEs). In Part 2 of the trial, the four subjects that completed the trial per protocol showed a decrease in HQ-CT 9 of approximately eight points at 28 days.

We initiated our Phase 3 HERO trial for subjects 13 years or older with hyperphagia associated with PWS in December 2024. In August 2025, we submitted a protocol amendment to remove the use of anti-psychotics and insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes as exclusion criteria for the clinical trial. In October 2025, we reached alignment with the FDA on a protocol amendment to lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial from 13 to 10 years of age. This change broadens the eligible trial population and expands the potential addressable opportunity within PWS. In December 2025, we submitted an additional protocol amendment seeking to further lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial to 7 years of age.

On February 27, 2026, we announced a voluntary pause of enrollment and dosing in the HERO trial and the OLE trial following reversible cardiac observations identified during routine safety monitoring in a healthy volunteer study. We are conducting a comprehensive review of the data and collaborating closely with the FDA to inform next steps, including potential revisions to the trial design and protocol. We no longer anticipate announcing topline data from the HERO trial in the third quarter of 2026 and expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026.

The healthy volunteer study was designed to formally assess cardiac safety and satisfy anticipated requirements for a future New Drug Application for ARD-101. In this study, the first cohort of subjects received dosing directly at the supratherapeutic level of 1600 mg twice daily in February 2026 without prior dose escalation. In this cohort, two out of eight participants experienced increases in QRS duration of greater than 25% from baseline, and one additional participant had a QRS increase of less than <25% above baseline; these findings contributed to our decision to voluntary pause the HERO and OLE trials. In contrast, a dose-escalation approach was used in the HERO trial where patients receiving ARD-101 or placebo were dosed first at 200 mg twice daily for one week, then 400 mg twice daily for one week, then 800 mg twice daily for 10 weeks. Of note, a finding of QRS duration greater than 25% above baseline was considered significant per protocol. These observations were not reported as SAEs and were not accompanied by severe cardiac symptoms. No such cardiac signals were observed in our Phase 1 or Phase 2 clinical trials or in animal studies with oral dosing, and our preclinical ion channel assays suggested minimal ion channel liability relating to cardiac risk.

We subsequently conducted a follow-on cohort in the healthy volunteer study at the target dose of 800 mg twice daily for up to one week (without prior dose escalation) in which one of 23 participants experienced a transient increase in QRS duration of greater than 25% above baseline and one additional participant experienced an increase in QRS duration of less than 25% above baseline. These observations were not reported as SAEs and were not accompanied by serious cardiac symptoms. These findings in the 800 mg twice daily cohort were identified during subsequent data review approximately one week after our decision to pause the HERO and OLE trials.

While safety data from our healthy volunteer study demonstrated elongated QRS effects in some subjects, our preclinical studies included assays intended to screen for potential interactions of ARD-101 with cardiac ion channels and those studies did not indicate significant risk of cardiac liability. Animal studies with oral dosing at supratherapeutic doses, including doses up to approximately 350 mg/kg/day (175 mg/kg, BID) in non-human primates (NHP), had also shown no electrocardiogram changes or suggestions of compromised cardiac function. Based on body surface area and adjusted human equivalent dose comparisons, the no adverse effect level (NOAEL) from the 3-month NHP study provided a >4-fold safety margin over the 800 mg BID dose used in the HERO trial, while the NOAEL from the 39-week NHP study provided a 1.4-fold margin, which supported the 800 mg BID dose in clinical trials.

Additionally preliminary analysis of clinical data in the healthy volunteer study indicates a clear exposure–response relationship, where higher ARD-101 plasma concentrations are associated with an increased risk of QRS prolongation. Importantly, in exposure response modeling for lower doses, including the 200 mg twice daily dose, concentrations remain substantially below the threshold at which QRS effects were observed in the healthy volunteer study. This is consistent with findings from the Phase 2 trial, where no clinically meaningful cardiac events detected at these lower exposure levels. Together, these data support a predictable safety profile and dose selection within a well-characterized exposure range. In addition, we believe this relationship allows for proactive safety management through exposure monitoring and routine cardiac assessments, ensuring that any potential QRS changes can be identified and managed appropriately.

While our evaluation and comprehensive review of these observations is ongoing and final conclusions have not yet been determined, we believe ARD-101 can be administered at a dose that will provide therapeutic benefit within an acceptable margin of safety. We remain focused on the development of ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS and are collaborating closely with the FDA to determine appropriate next steps for the program. Based on the ongoing activities in the ARD-101 program, we no longer anticipate announcing topline data from the HERO trial in the third quarter of 2026 and expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026.

PWS Background

PWS is a genetic neurodevelopmental disorder caused by a lack of expression of certain genes on paternal chromosome 15, impacting males and females equally. The cardinal clinical features of PWS include severe infantile hypotonia, developmental delay, short stature and, most notably, severe hyperphagia, which typically initially presents in PWS patients between the ages of 3 and 8 years old.

PWS-associated hyperphagia manifests as a chronic and life-threatening feeling of intense persistent hunger, food pre-occupation, extreme drive to food-seeking behaviors, and consumption of food, leading to early onset obesity and metabolic disorders. This disease’s impact on quality of life affects both the patient and their family.

PWS is thought to have an incidence of approximately 1 in 15,000 births globally, with approximately 10,000 to 20,000 patients living with PWS in the United States. PWS is typically diagnosed at an early age, with many of the cases confirmed by genetic diagnoses within the first year of life. In the EU, there are approximately 15,000 PWS patients. Worldwide, there are estimated to be 350,000 to 400,000 PWS patients.

Role of CCK in Patients with PWS

CCK plays an important role in regulating hunger. In a healthy individual, when a meal is eaten, the food stimulates enteroendocrine cells to secrete CCK, which in turn stimulates the vagus nerve to send a signal to the brain through the gut-brain axis, alleviating hunger. Individuals with PWS have been found to have abnormalities in their regulation of CCK, ghrelin and other related hormones, which may drive their hyperphagia. While individuals with PWS are thought to have functioning CCK receptors, some have been observed to have irregular CCK levels, which may contribute to persistent hunger.

Additional observations imply that dysfunction of CCK secretion drives many signs and symptoms of PWS. For instance, CCK is known to facilitate gut motility and contraction of the gall bladder. Individuals with PWS often experience extremely slow gut transit times, up to 4 days, and often present with gallstones at an earlier age. Other studies have observed that CCK dysfunction may also be implicated in behavioral issues, such as anxiety, often experienced by individuals with PWS. Animal studies also support the role of CCK in controlling the perception of hunger as CCK receptor knock-out rats display hyperphagia signs similar to those in individuals with PWS.

Limitations of the Current Standard of Care for PWS

Despite the approval of one treatment for hyperphagia associated with PWS, there currently is no single therapy that fully addresses the severity of hyperphagia across the entire PWS population, and patients’ symptoms continue to be managed through a combination of such approved therapy and behavioral, dietary and food-access interventions. Patient management frequently includes restricting access to all food in the environment in order to limit food-seeking behavior. Such hyperphagia-driven limitations impact not only the patients, but also their caregivers. Bariatric surgery is not a safe option for PWS patients due to the risk of stomach rupture from overeating.

There is currently one approved drug for hyperphagia associated with PWS. The only other approved drug for PWS patients is growth hormone to address certain non-hyperphagia aspects of the disease, notably growth. A variety of other drugs, including incretins, have been tried off-label and in clinical trials to attempt to treat hyperphagia, but are not used routinely because of limited impact on hyperphagia symptoms.

ARD-101 for the Treatment of Hyperphagia Associated with PWS

ARD-101 is a proprietary bitter taste receptor agonist. It is an oral tablet coated to avoid conscious bitter taste perception. A key differentiating feature of ARD-101 is its ability to stimulate local secretion of the satiety hormone CCK, which acts in an autocrine/paracrine-like manner to induce a gut-brain signal that abrogates sensations of hunger and may have additional effects regulating metabolism and inflammation.

The role of abnormal CCK secretion in PWS led us to consider stimulation of the TAS2R pathway as a means to upregulate production of endogenous CCK to restore satiety and possibly address other clinical features prominent in PWS.

We completed a Phase 1 clinical trial that consisted of Single Ascending Dose (SAD) and Multiple Ascending Dose (MAD) segments in healthy volunteers. The trial demonstrated that ARD-101 was well-tolerated and was approximately 99% restricted to the gut with minimal systemic exposure.

We also evaluated ARD-101 in an open-label Phase 2 clinical trial in hyperphagia associated with PWS, which consisted of two parts: Part 1 was a consistent dose segment and Part 2 was an intra-subject dose escalation segment. Data from Part 1 of the trial showed notable reductions in hunger levels and that ARD-101 was well-tolerated, with no dose-limiting safety issues at the dose levels evaluated in those studies. In Part 2 of the trial, the four subjects that completed the trial per protocol showed a decrease in HQ-CT 9 of approximately eight points at 28 days. We believe this effect on hunger is attributed to ARD-101’s effect on regulating CCK release and gut-brain signaling. DEXA scans from the PWS Phase 2 trial data measuring body composition indicate a trend toward decreased body fat (approximately 1.5%) and increased lean muscle (over 2%) following 28 days of ARD-101 dosing.

In December 2024, we initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial, which we refer to as the HERO (Hunger Elimination or Reduction Objective) trial, for subjects with hyperphagia associated with PWS. In preparing for this Phase 3 clinical trial, we expanded our clinical management and regulatory capabilities, including hiring clinical, regulatory and quality personnel, and we expect to continue to need to expand our clinical management and regulatory capabilities and to rely on third parties as we plan to continue advancing this trial and other clinical trials. However, the timing of additional staffing and operational expansion may be delayed as we evaluate next steps following the voluntary pause of the HERO trial and related clinical programs. We believe ARD-101 has the potential to transform the treatment landscape of hyperphagia associated with PWS.

ARD-101 Preclinical and PK/PD Data Summary

We have evaluated the tolerability and efficacy of ARD-101 in proof-of-concept preclinical models that support ARD-101’s potential to address the hyperphagia in hypothalamic syndromes, including PWS as well as obesity and obesity-related conditions. Our preclinical studies suggest that ARD-101 shows potential to be a well-tolerated, satiety-inducing drug. Animal models of obesity showed ARD-101’s potential to decrease food intake and body weight without treatment tachyphylaxis, or rapidly diminishing response to successive doses of a drug, even with chronic daily administration.

In an in vitro experiment, ARD-101 significantly stimulated the release of CCK from mouse and human enteroendocrine cell lines (representative data shown in Figure 6 below).

Figure 6: Upregulation of CCK

In an ex vivo study, we further investigated the effect of ARD-101 to induce CCK secretion in various regions of the gastrointestinal tract. Porcine duodenum, jejunum, ileum and proximal colon tissue were isolated and incubated in 6-well plates with ARD-101 at 300 mmol. A blank 6-well plate was included in the study, as well as a 24-well plate incubated with a mixture of non-radiolabeled and radiolabeled mannitol and caffeine as a reference control. Gut-tissue samples after one hour of exposure to ARD-101 were analyzed for the release of CCK, as determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Major effects on hormone release were observed for ARD-101, resulting in a notable increase in the gut-tissue release of CCK in most intestinal regions, as seen in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: CCK Release in the Porcine Gastrointestinal Tract

In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, healthy participants were treated with ARD-101 (800 mg, once daily) or placebo for two days to assess the effect on plasma gut hormone levels. On day two under fasting conditions, ARD-101 increased baseline placebo normalized levels of GLP-1, CCK and PYY, with both GLP-1 and PYY levels being substantially greater in ARD-101-treated participants, and decreased ghrelin levels (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Effects of ARD-101 on plasma levels of GLP-1, PYY, CCK, and ghrelin

in fasted healthy adults

In a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 proof of concept trial, 20 adults with obesity were treated with either ARD-101 (200 mg, twice daily) or placebo for 28 days. ARD-101 was well tolerated, with one case of transient nausea and one case of acid reflux considered related to ARD-101. The Control of Eating Questionnaire (CoEQ) is a 21-item visual-analog-scale measure of eating behaviors, including hunger and cravings (0 “not at all” to 10 “extremely”). At Day 28, CoEQ hunger (Question 1, “How hungry have you felt?”) decreased by 34% from screening in ARD-101 recipients (P < 0.001 within group) and was lower than placebo at Day 28 (P = 0.003). Notably, ARD-101 reduced hunger and certain food cravings without adversely affecting eating-related mood measures. Taken together with the gut-hormone findings described above, these results provide additional evidence of ARD-101’s pharmacologic activity consistent with its proposed gut–brain mechanism. These data were recently published in a peer-reviewed manuscript in the journal Molecular Metabolism (Mol Metab. 2026 Mar 14:106:102340. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2026.102340).

Additionally, orally administered ARD-101 was observed to have minimal systemic exposure, as seen in Figure 9 below, with approximately 99% of ARD-101 staying in the digestive tract, as evidenced by less than 1% bioavailability observed in mouse and monkey pharmacokinetic models, along with high fecal concentrations in mice following oral administration of ARD-101.

Figure 9: Localized CCK and GLP-1 Release with Minimal Systemic Exposure in Humans

In an in vivo study with diet-induced obese (DIO) mice, the mice were randomly assigned to different groups (12 per group based on body weight) to receive either vehicle or ARD-101 at assigned dose regimens (20, 40 and 80 mg/kg BID) for 8 weeks. Estimated corresponding human doses are 162, 324 and 650 mg BID. The mice were weighed at least three times weekly. Blood was collected from fasted animals at baseline, at the study mid-point (day 28), and at termination; and serum was evaluated for metabolic parameters, including blood glucose, HbA1c, insulin, triglycerides (TG), bile acids (BA), LDL, HDL and total cholesterol (TC).

ARD-101 dosing by various regimens was well-tolerated with no notable discrepancies in metabolic parameters. As seen in Figure 10 below, all dosing regimens prevented high-fat diet-induced body weight gain in DIO mice at the 8-week treatment mark and exhibited a dose-dependent pattern.

Our preclinical studies included assays intended to screen for potential interactions of ARD-101 with cardiac ion channels and did not indicate significant risk of cardiac liability in those studies. Animal studies with oral dosing at supratherapeutic doses, including doses up to approximately 350 mg/kg/day (175 mg/kg, BID) in NHPs, had also shown no electrocardiogram changes or suggestions of compromised cardiac function. Based on body surface area and adjusted human equivalent dose comparisons, the NOAEL from the 3-month NHP study provides a >4-fold safety margin over the 800 mg BID dose used in the HERO trial, while the NOAEL from the 39-week NHP study provides a 1.4-fold margin, supporting the 800 mg BID dose in the clinical trials.

Figure 10: Preclinical Modeling Doses Above 200 mg BID

Our Completed Phase 1 Clinical Trial in Healthy Volunteers

We completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of ARD-101 in healthy volunteers in 2021. In the SAD segment, we administered ARD-101 at 40 mg, 100 mg or 240 mg orally once daily to healthy adult subjects after eight hours of fasting. In the MAD segment of the clinical trial, we administered oral doses of ARD-101 at 40 mg, 100 mg or 240 mg BID for 14 days in healthy adult subjects. ARD-101 was well-tolerated by subjects. Investigator-identified treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were limited to grade 1 or 2, as shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Summary of TEAEs in ARD-101 Phase 1 Clinical Trial

Pharmacokinetic parameters for ARD-101 following repeat BID oral doses of 40 mg, 100 mg and 240 mg in healthy subjects were consistent with animal models and confirmed the drug was gut-restricted, with approximately 1% detectable in systemic circulation. Of the minor amount that was in circulation, ARD-101 reached a steady state before day 11 at all tested dose levels by evaluating trough plasma concentrations (Ctrough) on days 11, 12 and 13, demonstrating overall favorable pharmacokinetic properties across test subjects. A summary of PK data following oral doses of ARD-101 is shown in Figure 12 below.

Figure 12: Summary of Pharmacokinetic Data from Phase 1 SAD and MAD Dosing

Our Completed Open-Label Phase 2 Clinical Trial in Hyperphagia Associated with PWS

We evaluated ARD-101 in an open-label, two-part Phase 2 clinical trial in subjects with hyperphagia associated with PWS. Both parts of the trial included a 28-day treatment period followed by a 14-day withdrawal period. To participate, the study protocols required subjects to be between 17 and 65 years old (inclusive), have a HQ-CT score of at least 10, and be at a stable weight for two months. As illustrated in Figure 13 below, a total of 19 subjects received at least one dose of ARD-101 in our Phase 2 trial.

In Part 1 of the trial, subjects received a fixed 200 mg dose of ARD-101 twice daily for 28 days. Study assessments were conducted at baseline and on days 15 and 28 during the treatment period. Of the 13 subjects that enrolled, 12 completed dosing and were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, as shown in Figure 13 below. The one subject excluded from the ITT population withdrew prior to completing dosing and was therefore not included. Of the 12 subjects that were included in the ITT population, four subjects received HQ-CT 13 and eight subjects received HQ-CT 9. Although both versions are informative, they differ in scaling and item wording, which precludes direct comparison between the two questionnaires. The HQ-CT 9 is also the only FDA-validated endpoint assessment tool for hyperphagia. Of the four subjects that received HQ-CT 13, all had complete hyperphagia questionnaire data available to support an assessment of change from baseline for endpoint efficacy. However, of the eight subjects that received the HQ-CT 9, only seven subjects had complete hyperphagia questionnaire data available to support the same assessment. In total, 11 subjects met the criteria for inclusion in the HQ-CT Analysis Population: four subjects that completed the HQ-CT 13 and seven subjects that completed the HQ-CT 9.

In Part 2 of the trial, subjects received ARD-101 using an intra-subject dose-escalation regimen, with BID dosing that increased from 400 mg to 600 mg, then to 800 mg over the same 28-day treatment period. Study assessments were conducted according to the Part 1 schedule, with an additional assessment on day 8 to monitor safety during dose escalation. A total of six subjects received ARD-101 in Part 2, including four ARD-101 naïve subjects and two subjects that had previously participated in Part 1. All six subjects in Part 2 completed dosing, had complete endpoint assessments, and were included in the ITT and HQ-CT Analysis Population. While two subjects had major endpoint-related protocol deviations and were excluded from per-protocol (PP) analyses, both are still included in ITT analyses. Subjects that had previously participated in Part 1 and were re-enrolled in Part 2 are designated as re-dosed as shown in Figure 13 below.

Figure 13: Subject Disposition and Analysis Populations of ARD-101 Phase 2 Clinical Trial (Parts 1 and 2)

Phase 2 Part 1 Analysis

Results from Part 1 of the Phase 2 trial demonstrated significant reductions in hyperphagia scores across all HQ-CT Analysis Populations as defined on the left side of Figure 13 above. Figure 14 below presents the average total HQ-CT scores over time for both Part 1 ITT populations. Both questionnaire versions (HQ-CT 13 and HQ-CT 9) showed reductions in hyperphagia during the treatment period with scores rebounding following treatment discontinuation.

Figure 14: HQ-CT Data Observed in Part 1 of the Phase 2 Trial

Figure 15 below depicts the individual point change from baseline HQ-CT score (normalized to origin) for all subjects included in the ITT population. The average reduction in HQ-CT score among subjects evaluated on HQ-CT 9 was approximately eight points at 28 days. Based on this data, we received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA.

Figure 15: Individual Subject Change in HQ-CT Data Observed in Part 1 of the Phase 2 Trial

Figure 16 below shows the absolute HQ-CT scores of the HQ-CT Analysis Population, which includes only subjects with validated hyperphagia questionnaire data. Of the four subjects that completed HQ-CT 13 in the ITT population, all met the criteria for inclusion in the HQ-CT Analysis Population. Of the eight subjects that completed HQ-CT 9 in the ITT population, seven met the criteria for inclusion in the HQ-CT Analysis Population.

Figure 16: Individual Subject Absolute HQ-CT Scores Observed in Part 1 of the Phase 2 Trial

Figure 17 below presents the average HQ-CT scores over time for the seven subjects in the HQ-CT 9 Analysis Population, demonstrating a mean 9-point reduction in hyperphagia score among subjects using the FDA-validated endpoint.

Figure 17: Average Change from Baseline in Part 1 of the Phase 2 trial: HQ-CT 9 Score (HQ-CT Analysis Population)

Phase 2 Part 2 Analysis

Based on preclinical modeling that showed doses of ARD-101 above 200 mg BID had the potential for greater efficacy as well as clinical observations that demonstrated ARD-101 was generally well-tolerated, we initiated Part 2 of the Phase 2 trial (the dose-escalation portion) approximately a year after Part 1. Subjects in Part 2 were dosed at 400 mg BID for one week, 600 mg BID for a second week, and 800 mg BID for the final two weeks of the trial. Six subjects participated in Part 2 of the trial, including four ARD-101 naïve subjects and two subjects that were re-dosed following prior participation in Part 1. Each of the six subjects that enrolled in Part 2 completed dosing; however, two subjects committed significant protocol deviations, as further described below. Of the subjects that adhered to the trial protocol, each experienced a reduction in hyperphagia score, with the majority of subjects experiencing a deepening benefit over time.

Figures 18 and 19 below show the average HQ-CT 9 scores from all six subjects that completed Part 2 of the Phase 2 trial, as well as the subset of subjects that did not deviate from protocol. Each group exhibited average reductions in hyperphagia, with scores returning toward baseline during the withdrawal portion of the study. A greater magnitude of hyperphagia reduction was observed among subjects that adhered to protocol, with members of the PP population experiencing an average decrease of 7.8 points in HQ-CT 9 score at day 28.

Figure 18: Average HQ-CT Data Observed in Part 2 of the Phase 2 Trial

Figure 19: Average Change from Baseline in Part 2: HQ-CT 9 Score

Figure 20 below depicts the individual point change from baseline HQ-CT score (normalized to origin) for the six subjects that completed dosing in Part 2, with the solid lines representing subjects that adhered to protocol and the dotted lines representing those who deviated from protocol. As mentioned above, two subjects had major protocol deviations in the endpoint assessment and were excluded from the PP analysis of our Phase 2 trial. Subject 2.1 received a high dose of steroids known to cause significant weight gain from a primary care physician not involved in the trial. This subject also took two vacations during the 28-day trial period, causing food access environment-related deviations. Subject 2.2 experienced a change in their home environment and designated caregiver between day 8 and day 15 of the trial period, resulting in inconsistencies in reported results between the two caregivers.

Figure 20: Detailed HQ-CT Data Observed in Part 2 of the Phase 2 Trial

For additional reference, Figure 21 below is a graph showing absolute HQ-CT scores of subjects that participated in Part 2 of our Phase 2 trial.

Figure 21: Detailed Subject Level Absolute HQ-CT Data Observed in Part 2 of the Phase 2 Trial

Signal of Dose Dependency

As described above, two subjects that participated in Part 1 were subsequently re-dosed with ARD-101 in Part 2. One re-dosed subject completed the same hyperphagia assessment (HQ-CT 9) during both parts of the trial, while the second re-dosed subject completed HQ-CT 13 in Part 1 and HQ-CT 9 in Part 2. Figure 22 below presents the percent change from baseline in the HQ-CT score for both re-dosed subjects across both trial parts. Percent change was used to enable within-subject comparison across treatment periods and to allow comparability between questionnaire versions, which are reported on different scales. Both subjects exhibited dose-dependent reductions in HQ-CT score.

Figure 22: Within-Subject Percent Change from Baseline in HQ-CT Score for Re-Dosed Subjects

For the re-dosed subject that completed the HQ-CT 9 assessment in both Part 1 and Part 2, a detailed individual-subject trajectory is shown in Figure 23 below (Subject B in Figure 22). During treatment in Part 2 of the trial, this subject exhibited a 16-point reduction in HQ-CT 9 score from baseline to day 28, followed by a return toward baseline hyperphagia scores approximately 14 days after discontinuation of study drug.

Figure 23: Detailed Subject-Level Change in HQ-CT Data Observed in Part 2 of the Phase 2 Trial

Phase 2 Data on Body Composition

In addition to reductions in hyperphagia, ARD-101 also demonstrated a reduction in body fat. DEXA scans analysis from the Phase 2 trial data measuring body composition indicated a trend toward decreased body fat (approximately 1.5%) and increased lean muscle (over 2%) following 28 days of ARD-101 dosing.

Phase 2 Safety Data

Figure 24 below summarizes the adverse events (AEs) from Part 1 and Part 2 of the Phase 2 clinical trial. Across both parts, a total of 19 subjects with PWS received at least one dose of ARD-101 and were included in the safety population in Figure 24 below (fixed-dose N=13, dose-escalation N=6). AEs considered related to ARD-101 were generally mild to moderate in severity. No Grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs were observed. In the fixed-dose cohort, one subject discontinued treatment due to a drug hypersensitivity reaction at the 200 mg BID dose. In Part 2 of the Phase 2 trial, treatment-related AEs were limited to Grade 1 and did not result in treatment discontinuation.

Within the dose ranges evaluated in this Phase 2 trial, no increases in the severity of the treatment-related AEs were observed with increasing dose levels.

Figure 24: Summary of AEs in ARD-101 in Two-Part Phase 2 Clinical Trial in PWS

Phase 3 Clinical Trial in Hyperphagia Associated with PWS

Following discussions with the FDA during pre-IND meetings, we submitted an IND for ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS on August 30, 2024. In September 2024, following correspondence with the FDA regarding the BID dosing and titration strategy in the Phase 3 clinical trial, the FDA determined that the Phase 3 clinical trial may proceed. We designed a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which we refer to as the HERO (Hunger Elimination or Reduction Objective) trial (see Figure 25 below for a graphical depiction of the trial design). The trial was designed to treat subjects over 12 weeks to support the further development of ARD-101 in subjects with PWS-associated hyperphagia. The primary objective of the Phase 3 HERO trial was to evaluate the effect of ARD-101 on hyperphagia-related behavior, using the HQ-CT questionnaire. Secondary objectives included evaluating caregiver-reported outcomes and physician-reported outcomes. Additionally, exploratory objectives aimed to assess the effects of ARD-101 on various health markers, such as body weight, lean body mass, waist circumference, inflammatory cytokines, lipid parameters, glycemic control and food safety practices.

Enrollment criteria for this trial were designed to ensure that eligible subjects had a confirmed diagnosis of PWS and hyperphagia, were medically stable and were able to adhere to the trial’s requirements, with only subjects with a baseline HQ-CT score of 13 or greater expected to be included in the efficacy analysis. In November 2025, we announced that the minimum age of eligibility for HERO was reduced from 13 to 10 years old following alignment with the FDA. In December 2025, we submitted a protocol amendment seeking to lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial to 7 years of age. The trial protocol allowed dose modification in case a higher dose was not tolerated by a subject. An interim analysis was to be used to help determine the statistical power of the trial, triggered by enrollment milestones. Following the voluntary pause of the HERO trial in February 2026, we are reviewing the trial design and protocol in collaboration with the FDA and the previously agreed protocol elements may be revisited.

We initiated the Phase 3 HERO trial in December 2024. In February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO trial based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study, and we are conducting a comprehensive review of the data in collaboration with the FDA. We no longer anticipate topline data readout in the third quarter of 2026.

Figure 25: Phase 3 HERO Trial Design for ARD-101 in PWS-Associated Hyperphagia

ARD-201

Our second program, ARD-201, was planned to be a fixed-dose combination of our proprietary bitter taste receptor agonist, ARD-101 (denatonium acetate monohydrate), and a DPP-4 inhibitor. Because ARD-201 contains ARD-101 as a component of the planned combination therapy, we are assessing the potential implications of the voluntary pause of the HERO trial on the ARD-201 program. Following this assessment, we have voluntarily paused the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials while we complete our ongoing evaluation of the safety observations identified in the healthy volunteer study of ARD-101 and continue discussions with the FDA regarding next steps for the ARD-101 program. We no longer anticipate preliminary or interim data for the POWER trial to be available in the second half of 2026, nor do we plan to initiate the STRENGTH trial in the first half of 2026. We expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026.

Our Other Programs

Beyond our lead product candidate, ARD-101, we are also developing other programs for the potential treatment of indications with high unmet need, including other indications mediated by TAS2R signaling.

We also have a clinical program in development not related to TAS2R that is a low-dose liquid extended-release naltrexone formulation for the treatment of autism.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. While we believe that our platform and our knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.

If any of our product candidates are approved for the indications for which we expect to conduct clinical trials, we anticipate they will compete with marketed drugs, as well as any drugs potentially in development. It is also possible that we will face competition from other pharmaceutical approaches as well as other types of therapies. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our programs, if approved, are likely to be their potency, tolerability, convenience, price, level of generic competition and availability of reimbursement.

With respect to ARD-101, VYKAT XR from Soleno Therapeutics is the only FDA-approved treatment for hyperphagia in patients with PWS. We are also aware of other clinical-stage therapeutic candidates being evaluated for hyperphagia and related conditions, including those from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Relmada Therapeutics and Bright Minds Biosciences Inc.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Mergers and acquisitions in the biopharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that have fewer or less severe side effects, are more potent, are more convenient, are less expensive or are sold more effectively than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other applicable regulatory authority approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are generic products currently on the market for certain of the indications that we are pursuing and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our product candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. Competitive products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of our product candidates and currently have no immediate plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We currently engage with third-party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), for the manufacture of our product candidates. We rely on and expect to continue to engage third-party manufacturers for the production of both drug substance and finished drug product. We currently obtain our supplies from these manufacturers on a purchase order basis and do not have long-term supply arrangements in place. Should any of these manufacturers become unavailable to us for any reason, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we may incur some delay in identifying and qualifying such replacements.

Sales and Marketing

We have not yet defined our sales, marketing or product distribution strategy for our product candidates because they are still in development. Our commercial strategy may include the use of strategic partners, distributors, a contract sales force or the establishment of our own commercial sales force. We plan to further evaluate these alternatives as we approach approval for our product candidates.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks and copyrights, is important to our business. Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary intellectual property protection for our product candidates, as well as for future product candidates and novel discoveries, product development technologies and know-how. Our commercial success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to develop and maintain protection of our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing applications for U.S. and foreign patents relating to our product candidates and their methods of use.

Our patent portfolio is built with a goal of establishing broad protection that generally includes, for the product candidates, claims directed to compositions of matter, pharmaceutical compositions or formulations, methods of manufacturing and methods of treatment. We are seeking and maintaining patent protection in the United States and key foreign jurisdictions where we intend to market our product candidates, if they are approved. As of February 28, 2026, our patent portfolio comprises 26 distinct patent application families protecting our technology relating to our product candidates and include 22 issued U.S. patents, 25 issued foreign patents (not including validated European patents in individual countries) and 69 pending patent applications, of which 17 are Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or U.S. patent applications and the remainder are foreign.

We are developing our lead product candidate, ARD-101, for, among others, the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS. We have an issued patent for an oral formulation of the acetate salt, as well as several other salts, of denatonium. U.S. Patent No. 10,835,505 generally and specifically claims oral formulations of denatonium salts as products as well as methods for both effecting weight loss and treating adult-onset diabetes. U.S. Patent No. 10,835,505 is set to expire in 2038. Members of the same patent family have also been filed in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. We have also obtained an orphan drug designation for the treatment of PWS. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if, in relevant part, it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States. If ARD-101 receives the first marketing approval for the treatment of PWS, then it would be entitled to marketing exclusivity for seven years, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same use or indication for seven years after ARD-101’s marketing approval.

ARD-101 is further covered by additional patents and applications. We are pursuing patent applications directed to solid-state forms of denatonium acetate monohydrate, filed in the United States (U.S. Ser. No. 18/631,587), Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Taiwan and Japan. This family contains composition of matter claims and process claims and is expected to expire in 2042. U.S. Patent No. 12,268,660 is directed to treatment of pulmonary hypertension with certain denatonium salts, which contains use claims and is projected to expire in 2041 (use claims in the U.S. take the form of methods of treatment). In addition, we are pursuing a patent application directed to treatment of asthma with certain denatonium salts, filed in the United States (U.S. Ser. No. 17/256,212), which contains use claims and is projected to expire in 2039. We are also pursuing patent applications directed to treatment of certain inflammatory disorders with certain denatonium salts, filed in the United States (U.S. Ser. No. 17/845,399), Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. This family contains use claims, and patents issuing from this family are projected to have expiration dates in 2039. We are also pursuing patent applications directed to treatment of fatty liver diseases with certain denatonium salts, filed in the United States (U.S. Ser. No. 18/274,180), Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. This family contains use claims, and patents issuing from this family are projected to have expiration dates in 2041. U.S. Patent No. 12,427,125 is directed to treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or prevention of acute respiratory distress syndrome with certain denatonium salts, which contains use claims and is projected to have an expiration date in 2042. We are also pursuing patent applications directed to abuse-deterrent pharmaceutical compositions comprising a controlled pharmaceutical substance and a bitter agonist compound, filed in the United States (U.S. Ser. No. 18/924,880), Europe, Canada and Australia. This family contains product claims and is projected to expire in 2043. U.S. Patent No. 11,253,490, relating to treating or alleviating a symptom of cognitive impairment in a subject with a COVID-19 infection, contains use claims and is projected to expire in 2041.

Related to ARD-201, we are pursuing patent applications directed to combinations of certain denatonium salts and a DPP-4 inhibitor and treatment of obesity and certain related disorders, filed in the United States (U.S. Ser. No. 18/557,182), Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong and Japan. This family contains product and use claims, and patents issuing from this family are projected to have expiration dates in 2041.

The term of individual patents in our portfolio depends upon the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, the term of a patent may be eligible for patent term adjustment, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for delays incurred at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO), during the patent prosecution process. In addition, for patents that cover an FDA-approved drug, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act) permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. While the length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review, patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent per approved drug may be extended under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek any available patent term extension to any granted patents in any jurisdiction where such extensions are available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

We may also rely on trade secrets relating to our discovery programs and product candidates, and seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us, and for employees and consultants to enter into invention assignment agreements with us.

Governmental Regulations

U.S. Regulation

As a biopharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Our product candidates will be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, including that production of our products must occur in registered facilities in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements (cGMPs).

Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biopharmaceutical products such as those we are developing.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the comparable foreign regulatory authority before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects. We, along with our CMOs, contract research organizations (CROs), and third-party vendors, will be required to satisfy these requirements in each of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our product candidates. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Drug Product Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FDCA) and its implementing regulations and associated guidance. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval, or subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical trials, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of untitled or warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits or civil or criminal investigations or penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on Aardvark.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The data required to support an NDA is generated in two development stages: preclinical and clinical. The preclinical development stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, manufacturing and controls, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The conduct of the preclinical studies must comply with federal regulations, including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies together with manufacturing information, analytical data, clinical data (if available from studies conducted outside the United States pre-IND) or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, as well as other information, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human trials. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on full clinical hold or partial clinical hold within that 30-day time period.

Under a full clinical hold, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Under a partial clinical hold, there may be a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical trial (or full clinical trial in the case of a partial clinical hold) may only resume after the FDA has notified the sponsor that the trial may proceed. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the clinical trial can proceed. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns, non-compliance or other issues affecting the integrity or utility of the trial.

Accordingly, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that could cause the trial to be suspended or terminated.

The clinical stage of development generally involves the administration of the drug product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND before a trial commences. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee (IEC) and informed consent from subjects. The GCP requirements are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. FDA must also be able to validate the data from the study through an on-site inspection if necessary. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is made publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Clinical trials are generally conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap. Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the drug product candidate. The primary purpose of these clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, tolerability, adverse effects, dosage, distribution, excretion, safety of the drug product candidate and, if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness and to determine maximal dosage. Phase 2 clinical trials typically involve studies in disease-affected subjects to determine dosage tolerance and the optimal dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected, as well as identification of possible adverse effects and safety risks and preliminary evaluation of efficacy. Phase 3 clinical trials (also referred to as confirmatory trials, pivotal trials, registrational trials or adequate and well-controlled trials) generally involve large numbers of subjects at multiple sites, in multiple countries, and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the efficacy of the product for its intended use and its safety in use, and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval. Phase 3 clinical trials may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the intended use of a product during marketing. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials demonstrating that the statutory standard is met are required by the FDA for approval. In certain instances, FDA may condition approval of an NDA on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies (post-marketing commitments or post-marketing requirements) to further assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of subjects in the intended therapeutic indication and, in the case of drugs approved under Accelerated Approval, confirm clinical benefit seen with a surrogate endpoint using a long-term clinical outcome endpoint. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting such Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products or other consequences.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA; written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for Serious and Unexpected Suspected Adverse Reactions, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, a data safety monitoring board or committee may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity and potency of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

FDA Review Process

Following completion of each clinical trial and trial phase, trial data are analyzed to assess safety and efficacy. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA, along with proposed labeling for the product and information about the manufacturing process and facilities that will be used to ensure product quality, results of analytical testing conducted on the chemistry of the product candidate and other relevant information. The NDA is a request for approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications, which is demonstrated by extensive non-clinical and clinical testing. The application may include both negative or ambiguous results of preclinical and clinical trials as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators, with appropriate rights of reference. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product for the specified indication(s) to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before a drug may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as amended (PDUFA), each NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which is adjusted on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual prescription drug product program fee. Fee waivers, reductions or exemptions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business (with fewer than 500 employees) and for applications seeking approval for orphan drugs.

Once an NDA is submitted, the FDA has 60 days to file the NDA, at which time the FDA begins its review process. Incomplete applications are subject to a Refuse-to-File decision. The FDA’s stated goal is to review NDAs within 10 months of the filing date for standard review or six months of the filing date for priority review. Products are eligible for priority review (a status assigned by the FDA at filing) if the application is for a product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and the product, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to any existing licensed products for the same intended use. The FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to file any application or not approve an NDA if the FDA determines that the data are insufficient for approval. The FDA may also require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies before it accepts the filing. Additionally, the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the NDA is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements. The FDA may refer applications for drug product candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. The FDA conducts its own analysis of the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and us during the review process. The review and evaluation of an NDA by the FDA is extensive and time-consuming and may take longer than originally planned to complete, and we may not receive a timely approval, if at all.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will generally conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. In addition, before approving an NDA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it may issue an Approval Letter or a Complete Response Letter. An Approval Letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications and conditions of use. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter describes the deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. Responding to a Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, or engage in a dispute resolution proceeding or request a hearing. Even if additional data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive, and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

There is no assurance that the FDA will ultimately approve a product for marketing in the United States, and we may encounter significant difficulties or costs during the review process. If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific populations, severities of the condition being treated, and dosages, or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Furthermore, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment or requirement to conduct post-market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 trials designed to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized, including long-term follow up for certain cellular products. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use (ETASU), such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. Additionally, post-approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, changing manufacturing processes and adding labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. Such post-approval requirements can be costly and time-consuming and can affect the potential market and profitability of the product.

Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally 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 and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the product and its orphan designated use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, or if a subsequently designated product is determined to be clinically superior to the first such product on the basis of greater effectiveness or safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues, the sponsor will be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a supply shortage. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If we pursue marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan drug designation we have received, we may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity for the broader indication. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

In Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021), the court disagreed with the FDA’s longstanding position that the orphan drug exclusivity only applies to the approved use or indication within the relevant orphan drug designation. This decision created uncertainty in the application of the orphan drug exclusivity. In January 2023, the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register to clarify that while the FDA complies with the court’s order in Catalyst, the FDA intends to continue to apply its longstanding interpretation of the regulations to matters outside of the scope of the Catalyst order – that is, the agency will continue tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved, which permits other sponsors to obtain approval of a drug for new uses or indications within the same orphan designated disease or condition that have not yet been approved. In February 2026, legislation amended the FDCA to clarify the scope of the orphan-drug exclusivity to the same approved use or indication within the rare designation for which the drug is approved. It is unclear how future litigation and administrative actions will impact the scope of the orphan drug exclusivity.

Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program

Under the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher program, the FDA may award a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved marketing application for a drug that is for the prevention or treatment of a rare pediatric disease. The sponsor can use the voucher to obtain priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application. The sponsor can also transfer or sell the voucher to another company.

To be eligible for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher, the NDA must be for a drug that prevents or treats a “rare pediatric disease” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or affects 200,000 or more individuals in the U.S. but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales of the drug in the U.S. Additionally, the NDA must be deemed eligible for priority review, rely on clinical data derived from studies examining a pediatric population and dosages of the drug intended for that population, not seek approval for a different adult indication in the original rare pediatric disease product application and be for a drug that does not include a previously approved active ingredient. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of the NDA; however rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the NDA.

The Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher program began to sunset in December 2024 but was reauthorized in February 2026. Under this reauthorization, the FDA may award a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher if the NDA for the product is approved before September 30, 2029.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

Fast-Track Designation and Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA has a fast track designation program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biological products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biological products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the 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 or biologic may request the FDA to designate the drug or biologic as a fast track product concurrently with, or at any time after, submission of an IND, and the FDA must determine if the product qualifies for fast track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. Under the fast track designation, the FDA may consider for review sections of the marketing application on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application.

Any product submitted to the FDA in a marketing application, including a fast track designated product, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month timeframe from the date a complete NDA is accepted for filing, if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies for the same intended use. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

Additionally, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (IMM), that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA will require that a sponsor of a drug or biological product receiving accelerated approval perform a post-approval confirmatory study and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), the FDA is now permitted to require, as appropriate, that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after the date of approval for a product approved under the accelerated approval pathway.

FDA has issued draft guidance that proposes criteria it will evaluate to determine if a trial is underway, including whether enrollment in the trial has been initiated. Since the FDORA amendments, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval review of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. Fast track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

A product can be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that it may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. A sponsor may request that a drug product candidate be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy concurrently with, or at any time after, the submission of an IND, and the FDA must determine if the drug product candidate qualifies for Breakthrough Therapy designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request. If so designated, the FDA shall act to expedite the development and review of the product’s marketing application, including by meeting with the sponsor throughout the product’s development, providing timely advice to the sponsor to ensure that the development program to gather preclinical and clinical data is as efficient as practicable, involving senior managers and experienced review staff in a cross-disciplinary review, assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor, and taking steps to ensure that the design of the clinical trials is as efficient as practicable. Breakthrough Therapy designation does not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Pediatric Trials

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a marketing application for a drug or biological product for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDCA requires that a sponsor submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from nonclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers. Furthermore, with some exceptions, requirements under the Pediatric Research Equity Act generally do not apply to a drug for an indication for which orphan drug designation has been granted.

Post-Approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer of the approved product is subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling, distribution, and tracking and tracing requirements and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as off-label use), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs and biologics for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses.

Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or manufacturing changes are often subject to the approval of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which may result in a lengthy review process and additional fees in certain cases. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use.

In the United States, once a product is approved, its manufacturer is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws.

Manufacturers are also subject to record requests from the FDA that demonstrate cGMP compliance through data and other information. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance and oversight. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories, or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute products manufactured, processed or tested by them. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

The FDA also may require post-approval testing, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 testing, REMS and post-marketing surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in addition to the FDA, including, in the United States, the CMS, other Agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (e.g., the Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights), the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments. In the United States, sales, marketing and scientific/educational programs must also comply with federal and state fraud and abuse laws, data privacy and security laws, transparency laws and pricing and reimbursement requirements in connection with governmental payor programs, among others. The handling of any controlled substances must comply with the U.S. Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if a firm complies with FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or efficacy of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

505(b)(2) NDAs

The FDA is authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference from the data owner. The applicant may rely upon the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy for an approved product that acts as the “listed drug.” The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the listed drug. The FDA may then approve the new product for all, or some, of the conditions of use for which the branded reference drug has been approved, or for a new condition of use sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications

The Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FDCA established a statutory procedure for submission and FDA review and approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) for generic versions of listed drugs. An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data, and quality control procedures. Premarket applications for generic drugs are termed abbreviated because they generally do not include clinical data to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. However, a generic manufacturer is typically required to conduct bioequivalence studies of its test product against the listed drug. Bioequivalence is established when there is an absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent for absorption of the generic product and the reference listed drug. For some drugs, other means of demonstrating bioequivalence may be required by the FDA, especially where the rate or extent of absorption is difficult or impossible to measure. The FDA will approve an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the reference listed drug. A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not bioequivalent to the reference listed drug if it is intended for a different use or if it is not subject to, and requires an approved suitability petition.

Hatch-Waxman Patent Certification and the 30-Month Stay

In seeking approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval, each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Upon submission of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA, an applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the RLD in the Orange Book that:

Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through the last type of certification, also known as a paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a paragraph IV certification the applicant must send notice of the paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the paragraph IV certification. If the paragraph IV certification is challenged by an NDA holder or the patent owner(s) asserts a patent challenge to the paragraph IV certification, the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner(s) regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation. If the drug has new chemical entity (NCE) exclusivity and the ANDA is submitted four years after approval, the 30-month stay is extended so that it expires seven and a half years after approval of the innovator drug, unless the patent expires or there is a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant before then.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process.

However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and, among other requirements, the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide a period of five years of non-patent marketing exclusivity for the first approved drug containing an NCE as an active ingredient. An NCE is an active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An “active moiety” is defined as the molecule or ion responsible for the drug substance’s physiological or pharmacologic action. During the five-year exclusivity period, the FDA cannot accept for filing any ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA seeking approval of a product that contains the same active moiety, except that the FDA may accept such an application for filing after four years if the application includes a paragraph IV certification to a listed patent. In the case of such applications accepted for filing between four and five years after approval of the reference drug, the 30-month stay of approval triggered by a timely patent infringement lawsuit is extended by the amount of time necessary to extend the stay until 7-1/2 years after the approval of the reference drug NDA. If approved in the United States, as ARD-101 has not been previously approved in the United States for any indication, ARD-101 may be eligible for five years of NCE, which would run concurrently with its seven years of orphan drug exclusivity. Although ARD-101’s active moiety has been available as a bittering agent, it has not ever previously been approved by the FDA in an NDA.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of the other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion and submission of data from of a pediatric trial conducted in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

Pricing and Reimbursement

United States

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products, if approved, will be covered and reimbursed by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products and services. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that a payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any drug product candidate that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the drug product candidate, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our drug product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new drug products are typically made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new drug product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Additionally, one third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product or service, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process will often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs, including biologics, 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, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. In many countries, the prices of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems.

In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for drug products may be reduced compared with the United States. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. The IRA, for example, includes provisions that impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition. Orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program provided that the only approved indications (or indications) is for one or more rare diseases or conditions for which the drug received orphan drug designation by the FDA. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our drug product candidate or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our drug product candidate could reduce physician usage of the drug product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been approved. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations in the United States and our current and future arrangements with clinical investigators, healthcare providers, consultants, third-party payors and patients may expose us to broadly applicable federal and state fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and the HIPAA.

The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that 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 Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution.

Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, drug manufacturers can be held liable under the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include 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, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. The federal False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, if approved, 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 product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law.

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.

Additionally, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and states in which we conduct our business. For example, HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, 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 by trick, scheme or device, 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.

HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and its 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, which include certain health care providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, 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 and other personal data in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent or otherwise different 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 criminal penalties.

Further, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the Sunshine Act) within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other licensed health care practitioners and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members. In addition, many states also govern the reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted, and may have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts.

We may become subject to federal government price reporting laws, which would require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs, as well as federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. 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. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with federal and state laws relating to drug supply chain traceability, including those that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Federal laws require the implementation of systems to provide, capture, and maintain information about transactions involving drug products distributed within the United States and the trading partners who engaged in such transactions. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities and/or register their sales representatives and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies regularly scrutinize interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future law. If our operations are found to be in violation of any applicable laws, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, individual imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities can be time-and resource-consuming, and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

Current and Future Legislation

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare.

For example, in 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA:

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, in June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to challenge the ACA, dismissing the case on procedural grounds without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, while the ACA remains in effect in its current form, it is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted:

In addition, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Previous administrations have issued multiple executive orders seeking to reduce prescription drug costs, and the current Trump administration has signaled that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority.

The IRA includes several provisions that may impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from $7,050 to $2,000 starting in 2025, thereby effectively eliminating the coverage gap; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition; require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation; and delay until January 1, 2032 the implementation of the HHS rebate rule that would have limited the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Various industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, have lawsuits pending against the federal government asserting that the price negotiation provisions of the IRA are unconstitutional. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, but certain of these cases continue to be appealed. Under the Trump Administration, CMS has continued to negotiate drug prices pursuant to the IRA framework. The Trump Administration has also issued public statements about its commitment to lowering the cost of prescription drugs and has sought additional voluntary agreements to reduce drug pricing from certain pharmaceutical manufacturers. The effects of the IRA on our business is not yet known.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain drug access, marketing cost disclosure, transparency measures and other measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In January 2024, the FDA authorized Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s drug importation program, which is the first step toward Florida facilitating importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Authorization of other state programs may follow as other states have submitted importation program proposals. The Trump Administration has publicly supported such state-directed importation programs, and the FDA has taken steps to facilitate such states in initiating such programs. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our drugs or put pressure on our drug pricing, which could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The FCPA prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, state and federal laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Resource Conservancy and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

Europe / Rest of World Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we may be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions that we may in the future select, which may govern, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval of a product, we would need to obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a clinical trial application must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the clinical trial application is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed.

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU Member States (decentralized procedure or mutual recognition procedure) for obtaining a marketing authorization in multiple EU Member States. A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Economic Area (EEA) (which is comprised of the EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).

U.S. Privacy Laws

In addition to HIPAA, we may be subject to other U.S. federal and state privacy laws. For example, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal data secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of the FTC Act. Additionally, the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule applies to health apps and other similar technologies and expanded breach notification requirements, which adds complexity to compliance obligations. Further, the SEC implemented rules around incident reporting, requiring cybersecurity incidents to be reported four business days after determining that an incident is material.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a final rule entitled, “Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons,” codified at 28 CFR part 202 (the Bulk Transfer Rule). The Bulk Transfer Rule prohibits and restricts bulk transfers of sensitive personal data (including genetic and health data) to countries of concern, such as China, Russia, and Iran to prevent access by foreign adversaries. It restricts our ability to engage in certain cross-border transactions involving genomic or biological samples and related data, which may increase compliance costs, lead to increased regulatory scrutiny or liability, and may require additional contractual negotiations, which may adversely impact our business, financial condition, and operating results.

We may be subject to certain state laws that govern the privacy and security of health-related and other personal information in certain circumstances, some of which may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information than HIPAA, many of which may differ from each other, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), revised and amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), created new individual privacy rights for California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their data and the right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information (including health information). While California was the first among the states to adopt comprehensive data privacy legislation similar to the GDPR, many other states are following suit, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. More than 20 states have adopted statewide comprehensive privacy laws and many other states have privacy legislation that is pending. Many of these new state laws contain some type of exemption for information collected under HIPAA and some data processed in the context of clinical trials, either at the entity level or the data level, so the impact might be limited particularly as it relates to protected health information. Some states also have laws that specifically focus on the processing of personal data related to individuals’ health, including California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Washington’s My Health My Data Act. Finally, all 50 U.S. states and territories and international jurisdictions have varying breach notification laws that may require us to notify patients, employees or regulators in the event of unauthorized access to or disclosure of personal or confidential data experienced by us or our service providers.

European Union General Data Protection Regulation and Other International Data Protection Laws

In addition to EU regulations related to the approval and commercialization of our products, we may be subject to international laws governing data privacy. For example, the GDPR in the EEA and the GDPR in the United Kingdom (together, the GDPR) impose stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of individuals within the EEA or the United Kingdom. The EU and UK GDPRs impose stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons in the EEA and UK, including, for example, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to special categories of data, such as health data and additional obligations when we contract with third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The EU and UK GDPRs also impose strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States and other third countries. In addition, the EU and UK GDPRs provide that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

The GDPR applies extraterritorially, and we may be subject to the GDPR because of our data processing activities that involve the personal data of individuals located in the European Union, such as in connection with our EU clinical trials. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU member states may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 (£17.5 million) or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. EEA and UK GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to the personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new data protection rules. Such requirements may be subject to change in the near future as the European Commission announced proposed amendments to the GDPR in November 2025.

In addition, on June 19, 2025, the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the DUAA) was granted Royal Assent, implementing various measures concerning data usage in the UK and reforming data protection laws. The provisions within the DUAA will come into force through 2026, and it remains too soon to tell how the DUAA will be implemented and what impact it will have on our international activities. Further, other EU and member state laws and regulations may impose further obligations or restrictions on processing health information in the EEA, such as the European Health Data Space Regulation. Further, in the EEA, the NIS 2 Directive (NIS 2) is replacing the cybersecurity legal framework under the current NIS framework, aiming to ensure a high level of cybersecurity in the region. NIS 2 brings new medium and large organizations providing services in the EEA within scope of the legal framework. It extends to additional sectors and expands the list of in-scope healthcare organizations, including to certain providers engaged in research and development of medicinal products. The new regime imposes direct obligations on management in respect of an in-scope organization's compliance with NIS 2, requires covered organizations to put in place certain cyber risk management measures, strengthens incident reporting requirements and provides supervisory authorities with greater oversight. To the extent that we become subject to NIS 2 in the future, we may require additional investment of our resources in compliance programs. Under NIS 2, companies may be subject to administrative fines of up to the higher amount of €10 million or 2% of worldwide turnover.

Certain jurisdictions, including the EEA, have enacted laws and regulations governing cross-border personal information transfer and providing for data localization in certain cases. For example, absent appropriate safeguards or other circumstances, the GDPR and laws in Switzerland and the UK generally restrict the transfer of personal information to countries outside the EEA, Switzerland and the UK, such as the United States. Such safeguards include the use of standard contractual clauses approved by the European Commission and the UK and Swiss Data Protection Authorities as well as the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. Additionally, other countries outside of the EU have enacted or are considering enacting similar cross-border data transfer restrictions and laws requiring local data residency, which could increase the cost and complexity of operating our business. The types of challenges we face in the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK will likely also arise in other jurisdictions that adopt laws similar to the GDPR or regulatory frameworks of equivalent complexity.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of February 28, 2026, we had 40 employees, all of whom were full-time. Of those, 25 were engaged in research and development activities. All of our employees are located in the United States. We do not have any employees that are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our future success depends on our ability to attract, develop and retain key personnel, maintain our culture and ensure diversity and inclusion in our board of directors, management and broader workforce. Our human resources objectives include, among other things, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and prospective employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards. As these areas directly impact our ability to compete and innovate, they are key focus areas for our board of directors and senior executives.

Corporate and Other Information

We were incorporated in Delaware on May 17, 2017. Our principal executive offices are located at 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 1050, San Diego, CA 92122 and our telephone number is 858-225-7696. We have two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Artisan Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated in Delaware in October 2024, and Ardia Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated in Delaware in February 2026. Our website address is https://aardvarktherapeutics.com. Our investor relations website is located at https://ir.aardvarktherapeutics.com. We make available free of charge on our investor relations website under “Financials—SEC Filings” our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, our directors’ and officers’ Section 16 reports and any amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after filing or furnishing such materials to the SEC. They are also available for free on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

We use our investor relations website as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Investors should monitor such website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts. Information relating to our corporate governance is also included on our investor relations website. The information in or accessible through the SEC and our website are not incorporated into, and are not considered part of, this filing, and inclusions of our website address in this Annual Report are inactive textual references only.

The Aardvark Therapeutics design logo, “Aardvark Therapeutics,” and our other registered or common law trademarks, service marks or tradenames appearing in this Annual Report are our property. Solely for convenience, our trademarks, tradenames and service marks referred to in this Annual Report appear without the ®, TM, and SM symbols, but those references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights to these trademarks, tradenames and service marks. This Annual Report contains additional trademarks, tradenames and service marks of other companies that are the property of their respective owners. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, tradenames or service marks to imply relationships with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, these other companies.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. In deciding whether to invest, you should carefully consider and read the following risk factors, as well as the financial and other information contained in this Annual Report, including in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, of this Annual Report and in our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report. Any of the following risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects and cause the value of our common stock to decline, which could cause you to lose all or part of your investment. The risks described below are not the only ones facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are unaware, or that we currently deem immaterial also may become important factors that affect us.

Risk Factor Summary

Below is a summary of material factors that make an investment in our securities speculative or risky. Importantly, this summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks and uncertainties summarized in this risk factor summary, as well as other risks that we face, follows this summary. This summary is qualified in its entirety by that more complete discussion of such risks and uncertainties:

Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult for an investor to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate the success of our business to date and assess our future viability. Since our inception in 2017, we have focused primarily on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, establishing our intellectual property portfolio, raising capital, identifying and developing our product candidates, conducting preclinical studies and, more recently, clinical trials, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. To date, we have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully obtain regulatory approvals, manufacture a product on a commercial scale, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Our approach to the discovery and development of product candidates is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to develop any products of commercial value. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing products.

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We may also need to transition from a company with a research focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. Our inability to adequately address these risks and difficulties or successfully make such a transition could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred significant losses since our inception and expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for at least the next several years. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we reported a net loss of $57.6 million and $20.6 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $115.9 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. ARD-101 will require substantial additional development time and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive marketing approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:

Even if we succeed in developing and obtaining marketing approval for one or more product candidates, we may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis and we will continue to incur substantial research, development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. If we fail to become and remain profitable, it would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our development efforts, obtain product approvals, diversify our offerings or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development programs, commercialization efforts or other operations.

The development of biopharmaceutical product candidates is capital-intensive. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we conduct our ongoing and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials of ARD-101 and our other product candidates and programs, and any future product candidates we may develop. Our expenses will increase substantially if our product candidates successfully complete early clinical and other studies and also could increase beyond expectations if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities require us to perform studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Because the outcome of any clinical trial or preclinical study is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, we will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Furthermore, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of approximately $110.0 million. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our projected operations into the second quarter of 2027. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through equity offerings, debt financings or other capital sources, including potential grants, collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements. Even if we believe we have sufficient capital for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations.

Such financing may result in dilution to our stockholders, imposition of burdensome debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

Any additional capital raising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and, if approved, commercialize our current and any future product candidates. Additional funding may not be available when we need them, on acceptable terms, or at all. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly or more dilutive. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis or on terms we believe are acceptable, we may be required to:

We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own. To date, we have primarily financed our operations through the sale of equity securities. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to do so through public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities, collaborations or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.

If additional funding is not available when we need it or on acceptable terms, our ability to grow and support our business and to respond to market challenges could be significantly limited, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Research, Development and Approval of Our Product Candidates

Our business is heavily dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our lead product candidate, ARD-101.

We currently have no products that are approved for commercial sale. Our lead product candidate, ARD-101, is an oral gut-restricted small-molecule agonist of certain TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen for which we have initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial for hyperphagia associated with PWS. In February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO trial and the open label extension (OLE) trial based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study. We are conducting a comprehensive review of the data and collaborating with the FDA to determine next steps and expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026. The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our lead product candidate. We cannot be certain that ARD-101 or any other current or future product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.

We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or any similar approval filing to a comparable foreign regulatory authority, for any product candidate. An NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe and effective for each desired indication. The NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. It may also necessitate a successful regulatory inspection of manufacturing facilities and/or clinical sites. We cannot be certain that our current or future product candidates will be successful in clinical trials. Further, even if they are successful in clinical trials, our current or future product candidates may not receive regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for current or future product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our revenue will depend, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights, as well as the availability of competitive products, whether there is sufficient third-party reimbursement and adoption by physicians.

We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates both in the United States and in select foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval generally is similar in other countries, in order to obtain separate regulatory approval in other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy. Other countries also have their own regulations governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, as well as pricing and distribution of drugs, and we may be required to expend significant resources to obtain regulatory approval and to comply with ongoing regulations in these jurisdictions.

Before we can generate any revenue from sales of our lead product candidate, ARD-101, or any other current or future product candidates, we must undergo additional preclinical and clinical development, regulatory review and approval in one or more jurisdictions. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates are approved, we must ensure access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and conduct significant marketing efforts in connection with any commercial launch. These efforts will require substantial investment, and we may not have the financial resources to continue development of our product candidates. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

These factors, many of which are beyond our control, could cause us to experience significant delays or an inability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our product candidates. Even if regulatory approvals are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates, if approved, to continue our business or achieve profitability.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval or other marketing authorizations by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, and it typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, policies, regulations, and the type and amount of clinical data that the regulatory authority views as necessary for approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that we may never obtain regulatory approval for any product candidate we may seek to develop in the future. Neither we nor any current or future collaborator is permitted to market any product candidate in the United States until the product candidate receives regulatory approval from the FDA.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with sufficient evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Our approach is designed to target biological pathways associated with alleviating hunger, specifically by developing selective compounds targeting TAS2Rs, is unproven and may not result in marketable products. Although multiple studies are currently underway, to date, this mechanism has not been definitively proven to successfully treat hunger-associated conditions. Targeting TAS2Rs is a novel approach in a rapidly developing field, and there can be no assurance that we will not experience currently unknown problems or delays in developing our product candidates, that such problems or delays will not result in unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems can be solved. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies, clinical trials or other studies for our product candidates either prior to or after approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development programs.

Of the large number of products in development globally, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval and marketing authorization process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval and marketing authorization to market our product candidates, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources in the development of our clinical and preclinical product candidates. Our business is dependent on our ability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and, if approved, successfully commercialize, our current and future product candidates in a timely manner.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval or other marketing authorization from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, the FDA or the comparable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval or other marketing authorization contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA or the comparable foreign regulatory authority also may approve or authorize for marketing a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally propose, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may not approve or authorize the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval or other marketing authorization would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially and adversely impact our business and prospects.

In addition, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may change their policies, issue additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions, which may prevent or delay approval of our future products under development on a timely basis. There remains substantial uncertainty as to how the current U.S. administration will seek or continue to modify or revise the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our product candidates. State governments may also attempt to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their own regulatory frameworks in a manner that is adverse to our operations. This uncertainty could present new challenges or potential opportunities as we navigate the clinical development and approval process for our product candidates. Such policy or regulatory changes through, for example, executive orders or legislation could impose additional requirements upon us that could delay our ability to obtain approvals, increase the costs of compliance or restrict our ability to maintain any marketing authorizations we may have obtained.

Preclinical and clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with uncertain timelines and outcomes, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. If development of our product candidates is unsuccessful or delayed, we may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals and we may be unable to commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

Our product candidates, including ARD-101, are still in clinical development and their risk of failure is high. To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and lengthy, complex and expensive clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans for the indications for which we intend to commercialize our product candidates. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the preclinical or clinical trial process. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a product candidate. Preclinical tests and Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials are primarily designed to test safety, to study pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and to understand the side effects of product candidates at various doses and regimens. Success in preclinical studies and early or Phase 2 clinical trials does not ensure that later large-scale efficacy trials will be successful nor does it predict final results. Our product candidates may fail to show the required safety and effectiveness through clinical trials despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials, particularly because we are targeting novel pathways that have not yet been tested in later-stage clinical trials.

A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after receiving promising results in earlier non-clinical or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, non-clinical findings made while clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and effectiveness traits despite having progressed through preclinical and earlier phase clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many sponsors that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

We may incur additional costs and experience delays in ongoing clinical trials for our product candidates, and we do not know whether future clinical trials, if any, will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of subjects on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during or as a result of clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs representing the institutions at which such trials are being conducted, by a data monitoring committee for such trial or by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate candidate product benefit, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the interpretation of the trial. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site(s) and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, refusal to accept or rejection of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of our product candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates or terminate any such clinical trial, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate drug revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Certain disorders we seek to treat, such as PWS, have low prevalence and it may be difficult to identify and enroll patients with these disorders. If we encounter difficulties or delays enrolling subjects in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may not be able to initiate or continue our planned clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible subjects to participate in these trials. For example, we are developing ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS. PWS is a rare disease with a limited patient pool from which to draw. In February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO trial, the OLE trial, and the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201 based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study of ARD-101. We are conducting a comprehensive review of the data and collaborating with the FDA to determine next steps and expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026. There can be no assurance that we will be able to resume enrollment or dosing in these trials on a timely basis, or at all, which could further delay our clinical development timelines. Moreover, there is no guarantee that, if and when we resume any clinical trials, we may encounter further delays or difficulties in resuming enrollment and/or dosing, including due to our announcement of having voluntarily paused our HERO and other clinical trials.

The timely completion of any clinical trial in accordance with its protocol depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of subjects who remain in the study until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties in subject enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The enrollment of subjects depends on many factors, including:

Our Phase 3 HERO trial, evaluating the effect of ARD-101 on hyperphagia-related behavior in PWS, is currently limited to subjects 10 years of age and older after reaching alignment with the FDA in October 2025 on a protocol amendment to change the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial from 13 to 10 years of age or older. In December 2025, we submitted an additional protocol amendment seeking to further lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial to 7 years of age. However, certain factors may preclude us from receiving regulatory approval to treat younger pediatric subjects, including potential disagreements regarding appropriate dose and dose escalation, product presentation for possibly lower doses, validity of patient-reported outcomes in younger, actively growing patients, and avoiding inappropriate hunger suppression in these growing individuals. We can neither predict if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will approve the use of our product candidates or programs in younger pediatric subjects, nor provide an estimate for the timing of such approval, if any. Furthermore, if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities do not approve the use of our product candidates or programs in this population, such product candidates or programs will not be labeled for use in these subjects. Given that the median lifespan of PWS patients is currently 30 years, the size of our market opportunity in this indication will be more limited if ARD-101 is not ultimately approved in pediatric patients and does not result in a significant increase in patient lifespan. Following the voluntary pause of the HERO trial in February 2026, we are reviewing the trial design and protocol in collaboration with the FDA and the previously agreed protocol elements may be revisited.

In addition, our clinical trials may compete for patients that are already taking existing products approved for the indications we are seeking to treat and also compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of subjects available to us, because some subjects who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Furthermore, if subjects drop out of our clinical trials, miss scheduled doses or follow-up visits, or otherwise fail to follow clinical trial protocols, the integrity of data from our clinical trials may be compromised or not accepted by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which would represent a significant setback for the applicable program. In addition, we may rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials and we will have limited influence over their performance.

As a result, delays in subject enrollment or inability to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible subjects may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

Interim “topline” and preliminary results from our clinical trials and preclinical studies that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim topline or preliminary results from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following the availability of more data or following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, interim results from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or topline results also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

Differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could adversely affect our business prospects and may cause the trading price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and investors or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the interim, topline or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy of our product candidates, or serious adverse events or side effects may be identified during the development of our product candidates, which could prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization, increase our costs or necessitate the abandonment or limitation of the development of some of our product candidates.

Unforeseen adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in each target indication, and failures can occur at any stage of testing. Clinical trials often fail to demonstrate safety or efficacy of the product candidate studied for the target indication. Our clinical trials of ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS rely on measurement of reduction of hyperphagia behavior based on HQ-CT scores, which are typically caregiver reported questionnaires. Because these questionnaires rely on subjective caregiver feedback, responses can be influenced by factors outside of our control, and can vary widely from day to day for a particular patient/caregiver, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial.

If our product candidates are associated with adverse events in clinical trials or have side effects or other characteristics that are serious or unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses in which the adverse events, side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. We may also be required to modify our trial plans based on findings in our ongoing clinical trials. The FDA may also require that we conduct additional studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated. Such findings could further result in regulatory authorities failing to provide marketing authorization for our product candidates or limiting the scope of the approved indication, if approved. Many product candidates that initially showed promise in early stage testing have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of such product candidates.

Treatment-related side effects could also affect subject recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Furthermore, we may be required to expend time and incur costs to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. Moreover, if any serious side effects or other adverse events were to occur in any of our clinical programs, we could be subject to negative publicity and our company and reputation may be harmed.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others identify adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

There can be no assurance that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities in a timely manner or at all. Moreover, any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. For example, in February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO trial following reversible cardiac observations identified in a healthy volunteer study of ARD-101. While these observations were not reported as serious adverse events and were not observed at the target therapeutic dose used in our clinical trials, they may nevertheless lead to additional regulatory scrutiny or changes to our development program.

As an organization, we have not previously conducted pivotal clinical trials, and we may be unable to do so successfully for any product candidates we may develop.

We will need to successfully complete pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain product approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market ARD-101 or any other current or future product candidate. Carrying out pivotal clinical trials is a complicated process. We initiated a Phase 3 HERO clinical trial in hyperphagia associated with PWS in December 2024. In February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO trial based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study. We are conducting a comprehensive review of the data and collaborating with the FDA to determine next steps. If the FDA determines that additional nonclinical studies, dose modifications, enhanced monitoring or other protocol changes are required, our clinical development timelines could be significantly delayed. We no longer anticipate topline data from the HERO trial in the third quarter of 2026, and the timing of additional staffing and operational expansion may be delayed as we evaluate next steps following the voluntary pause of the HERO trial and related clinical programs. We expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026. Additionally, because ARD-201 contains ARD-101 as a component, we have also voluntarily paused the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201. As an organization, we have not previously successfully conducted any later stage or pivotal clinical trials. In order to do so, we have expanded our clinical management and regulatory capabilities, including hiring clinical, regulatory and quality personnel, and we expect to potentially need to expand our clinical management and regulatory capabilities, but may be unable to recruit and train qualified personnel. We also expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct our later stage or pivotal clinical trials. See the subsection titled “—Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties—We have relied and expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as investigator-initiated trials. If those third parties do not perform as contractually required, fail to satisfy legal or regulatory requirements, miss expected deadlines or terminate the relationship, our development programs could be delayed, more costly or unsuccessful, and we may never be able to seek or obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.” Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to submission of an NDA and approval of ARD-101 or any other current or future product candidates. In addition, no product candidate can receive FDA approval unless clinical trials show both safety and efficacy for each target indication in accordance with FDA or foreign country standards. We plan to conduct a number of clinical trials for multiple product candidates in parallel over the next several years depending on the outcome of our ongoing evaluation of the voluntary pause of our HERO trial and related clinical programs. This may be a difficult process to manage with our limited resources and may divert the attention of management. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and management resources, we focus on development programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As such, we are currently primarily focused on the development of ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications for our product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential.

Moreover, in February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the Phase 3 HERO trial and the OLE trial for ARD-101, and the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201, based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study of ARD-101. We are conducting a comprehensive review of the data and collaborating with the FDA to determine next steps and expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. We must continually assess the potential commercial viability of our research programs and product candidates, and we may decide to pause, discontinue or deprioritize development of any of our product candidates based upon such assessments, even if we obtain positive data from our product candidates in preclinical studies and clinical trials. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the regulatory submission, preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our drugs is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our drugs in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are conducting and plan to conduct certain clinical trials for our product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We are conducting and plan to conduct certain clinical trials of ARD-101 outside the United States, including, but not limited to, in the United Kingdom, South Korea, Canada and Australia. The acceptance of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA or, if the FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical power, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, we would need to conduct additional trials, which could be costly and time-consuming.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions on marketing or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates, when and if any of them are approved.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, export, import, and advertising and promotional activities for such product, among other things, will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration and drug listing requirements, continued compliance with cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, product tracking and tracing requirements, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Even if we receive approval for our product candidates, they may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such product candidate outweigh the risks for each potential subject, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive subject monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or engage in similar actions, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any drug that we develop alone or with collaborators.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things, the following actions by regulators:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

Advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the FTC), the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of the U.S. Congress and the public. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product candidate, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

Additionally, advertising and promotion of any product candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign entities and stakeholders. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of our drugs for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or comparable foreign bodies. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The government has also required companies to enter into consent decrees and/or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may result in fines, warning letters, mandates to corrective information to healthcare practitioners, injunctions or civil or criminal penalties.

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

Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies caused by funding shortages, government shutdowns or global health concerns could negatively impact our business operations, regulatory interactions and access to capital.

Significant disruptions to the operations of government agencies, including from prolonged or repeated shutdown of the federal government, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, on October 1, 2025, the U.S. government shut down for 43 days, during which time certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, furloughed certain employees and stopped critical activities. On October 10, 2025, the U.S. government implemented substantial layoffs and workforce reductions in connection with the federal government shutdown, which resulted in the suspension or delay of various government-funded programs. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products, to provide feedback on clinical trials and development programs, to meet with sponsors and to otherwise review regulatory submissions can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, reductions in workforce, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, substantial changes in leadership and shifting policy priorities as a result of changes in the presidential administration and its appointees tasked to oversee the agency, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result and may continue in the future. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, including as a result of reductions in force, significant organizational changes, substantial leadership departures, and policy changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, the current U.S. administration has discussed several changes to the reach and oversight of the FDA, which could affect its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, transparency in decision making and ultimately the cost and availability of prescription drugs. Additionally, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough certain employees and stop certain critical activities. The current U.S. administration also has taken steps to reduce the number of federal employees by establishing voluntary termination programs, by position eliminations or by involuntary terminations. If funding for the FDA is reduced, if the FDA workforce is reduced, or if government shutdowns reoccur, any of these factors could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Further, a future shutdown of the U.S. federal government could materially impact the operations of the SEC. For example, during the most recent U.S. federal government shutdown, the SEC announced that it would not declare registration statements effective. In the event of a future shutdown, the SEC may operate with limited staff or suspend certain functions altogether, which could delay the review or effectiveness of our filings, including registration statements or other financing-related disclosures. Such delays could adversely affect our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue to fund our operations.

In addition, future government shutdowns or funding freezes could negatively affect broader business operations and economic conditions and cause delays in or suspension of manufacturing facility and shipping operations, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and supply of product candidates. If these disruptions reoccur or worsen, our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to execute our strategic plans could be materially and adversely affected.

The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also face delays or resource constraints relating to foreign inspections, such as those that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, such agencies may shift inspection priorities, may turn to remote regulatory assessments, or may issue other policies that could affect product approval timelines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. A U.S. government shutdown or reduction in FDA funding or workforce may also affect inspection-related activities.

Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates proceed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards regulatory application submission, potential approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and product characteristics. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve their intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the materials manufactured using altered processes. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA agreement. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence sales and generate revenue.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates in the future.

Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. If we are unable to identify suitable compounds for preclinical and clinical development, we will not be able obtain product revenue in future periods for such programs.

We have received Orphan Drug Designation and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for ARD-101 for the treatment of PWS, and we may seek Orphan Drug Designation and/or Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for some or all of our other product candidates. However, we may not receive either such designation, and we may not be able to maintain Orphan Drug Designation or Rare Pediatric Disease Designation or obtain a Rare Pediatric Disease priority review voucher or orphan drug exclusivity for ARD-101, which could limit the potential profitability of our product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs intended to treat relatively small patient populations as orphan drug products. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States.

In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for granting funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and application fee waivers. If a drug or biologic with an Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product may be entitled to an expanded period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for that time period, except in limited circumstances. The applicable period is seven years in the United States. An orphan drug benefiting pediatric patients can qualify as a drug for a Rare Pediatric Disease Designation as well. If so designated, the sponsor of the Rare Pediatric Disease designated product may be eligible for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher, which would be issued in connection with FDA approval for the designated product. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FDCA), a rare pediatric disease product application may be eligible for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher if the drug receives marketing approval before September 30, 2029.

The FDA granted us an Orphan Drug Designation and a Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for the use of ARD-101 in PWS in August 2023, and we may also seek Orphan Drug Designation for some or all of our other product candidates. However, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining Orphan Drug Designation and/or Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for other product candidates, and we may be unable to obtain or maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug Designation or Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for ARD-101 or other product candidates for which we may receive such designations. The exclusivity granted under the Orphan Drug Designation may not effectively protect ARD-101 from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition, and orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving the same or a different drug for another indication. The FDA may be able to subsequently approve a later application for the same drug for the same condition before the expiration of the seven-year exclusivity period if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer in a substantial portion of the target populations, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, 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.

Moreover, orphan-drug-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 we are unable to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Neither Orphan Drug Designation nor Rare Pediatric Disease Designation shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug and does not give the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. Additionally, even if we obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for that product candidate. Similarly, we may not be able to obtain a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for any product candidate for which we receive a Rare Pediatric Disease Designation, particularly if such product candidate does not receive marketing approval before September 30, 2029 and the program is not further extended.

A Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval in the United States.

We may apply for a Breakthrough Therapy designation for ARD-101 and any other current or future product candidates for one or more indications when we have placebo-controlled data and we believe that the clinical data may support such a designation for one or more product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition with unmet medical need, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug, or biologic, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For product candidates that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs and biologics designated as Breakthrough Therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for rolling review (submissions of portions of an application before the complete marketing application is submitted) and priority review.

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and determine not to make such designation. For example, we previously applied for Breakthrough Therapy designation for ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS; however, the FDA noted that we would need to provide additional information in order to support such a Breakthrough Therapy designation. We may determine to submit a new request for Breakthrough Therapy designation for ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS that includes the additional information requested by the FDA when available. However, there can be no assurances that the FDA would consider any such additional information to be sufficient or otherwise determine to grant a Breakthrough Therapy designation for ARD-101 for the treatment of hyperphagia associated with PWS. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for such qualification.

We may not be successful in pursuing or maintaining fast track or other expedited regulatory designations for our product candidates, and such designations may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory approval process.

We may apply for fast track designation, priority review or accelerated approval status for ARD-101 or any other current or future product candidates. However, even if we receive fast track designation, priority review or accelerated approval status or other accelerated review designation for one or more of our product candidates, these designations do not assure that we will experience a faster development process, regulatory review or regulatory approval process compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw a fast track, priority review, accelerated approval status or other accelerated review designation if it believes that the status or designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Additionally, qualification for any expedited review procedure does not ensure that we will ultimately obtain regulatory approval for such product candidate. Access to an expedited program may expedite the development or approval process, but it does not change the standards for approval.

Furthermore, although we may pursue additional opportunities to accelerate the development of certain of our product candidates through one or more of the FDA’s expedited program designations, we cannot be assured that any of our product candidates will qualify for such programs. The FDA may determine that our proposed target indication or other aspects of our clinical development plans do not qualify for such expedited program.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We have relied and expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as investigator-initiated trials. If those third parties do not perform as contractually required, fail to satisfy legal or regulatory requirements, miss expected deadlines or terminate the relationship, our development programs could be delayed, more costly or unsuccessful, and we may never be able to seek or obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates.

We rely and intend to rely in the future on third-party clinical investigators, CROs, and clinical data management organizations to conduct, supervise and monitor preclinical studies and clinical trials of our current or future product candidates. In addition, third parties are conducting and we expect will continue to conduct investigator-initiated trials with our product candidates. Because we currently rely and intend to continue to rely on these third parties, we will have less control over the timing, quality and other aspects of preclinical studies and clinical trials than we would have had we conducted them independently. These parties are not, and will not be, our employees and we will have limited control over the amount of time and resources that they dedicate to our programs. Additionally, such parties may have contractual relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position.

Large-scale clinical trials require significant financial and management resources, and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, CROs, partners or consultants. Relying on third-party clinical investigators or CROs may force us to encounter delays and challenges that are outside of our control. We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient comparability between products manufactured at different facilities to allow for inclusion of the clinical results from participants treated with products from these different facilities, in our product registrations. Further, our third-party clinical manufacturers may not be able to manufacture our product candidates or otherwise fulfill their obligations to us because of interruptions to their business, including the loss of their key staff or interruptions to their raw material supply.

Our reliance on these third parties for development activities will reduce our control over these activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable trial protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs, clinical trial sites, and other third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies is conducted in accordance with GLPs, and clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCPs. Moreover, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities require us to comply with GCPs for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these requirements through periodic inspections (including pre-approval inspections once an NDA or biologics license application is submitted to the FDA) of trial sponsors, clinical investigators, trial sites and certain third parties including CROs. If we, our CROs, clinical trial sites, or other third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP or other regulatory requirements, we or they may be subject to enforcement or other legal actions, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with GCP regulations. Moreover, our business may be significantly impacted if our CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties violate federal or state healthcare fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

In the event we need to repeat, extend, delay or terminate our clinical trials because these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, our clinical trials may need to be repeated, extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates, and we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates or we or they may be subject to regulatory enforcement actions. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed. To the extent we are unable to successfully identify and manage the performance of third-party service providers in the future, our business may be materially and adversely affected.

If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional contractors involves additional cost and time and requires management's time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays could occur, which could compromise our ability to meet our desired development timelines. In addition, if an agreement with any of our collaborators terminates, our access to technology and intellectual property licensed to us by that collaborator may be restricted or terminate entirely, which may delay our continued development of our product candidates utilizing the collaborator’s technology or intellectual property or require us to stop development of those product candidates completely.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute product supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential revenue.

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our clinical drug supplies and we intend to rely on third parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved product candidate, and our commercialization of any of our product candidates could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to obtain approval of the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities, fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or internal capability to manufacture our clinical drug supplies for use in the conduct of our clinical trials, and we lack the internal resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

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

We rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our product candidates and there may be a need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our product candidates, the commercial launch of our product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our product candidates.

We, or our manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we or our manufacturing partners are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or become infeasible, and marketing approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

We expect to continue to depend on third-party contract manufacturers for the foreseeable future. We have not entered into long-term agreements with our current contract manufacturers or with any alternate fill/finish suppliers, and though we intend to do so prior to commercial launch in order to ensure that we maintain adequate supplies of finished drug products, we may be unable to enter into such an agreement or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. Our product candidates, and any drugs that we may develop, may compete with other product candidates and drugs for access to manufacturing facilities. Qualifying and validating such manufacturers may take a significant period of time and reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

Under recent legislation, certain third-party manufacturers and other third parties (frequently China-based companies) may be considered a “biotechnology company of concern.” If a third-party manufacturer receives such a designation, it may restrict the ability of U.S. companies like us to purchase services or products from, collaborate with, or otherwise work with such manufacturers. For example, it may delay the procurement or supply of such material or have an adverse effect on our ability to secure significant commitments from governments to purchase our potential therapies. Such disruption could have adverse effects on the development of our product candidates.

Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supply of our products.

We have entered into collaborations with third parties for the development of certain potential product candidates, and we may seek additional collaborations in the future for the development and commercialization of these or other potential candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could be adversely affected.

We currently have collaborations with third parties to develop certain of our potential product candidates, although none of these collaborations relate to ARD-101. In the future, we may seek collaboration arrangements for the commercialization, or potentially for the development, of other product candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into collaboration arrangements. For example, certain disease areas that we believe our product candidates address require large, costly and later-stage clinical trials, which a collaboration partner may be better positioned to finance and/or conduct.

If we enter into any additional such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Collaborations involving our product candidates would pose the following risks to us:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner or at all. If any future collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, the continued pursuit and emphasis on our product development or commercialization program could be delayed, diminished or terminated.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for any collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to subjects in our clinical trials, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

We may not be able to negotiate additional collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of such product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate revenue.

If conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

If conflicts arise between our collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Current or future collaborators or strategic partners may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations.

Our current or future collaborators or strategic partners may preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Furthermore, competing products, either developed by our current or future collaborators or strategic partners or to which our collaborators or strategic partners may have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our product candidates. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Reliance on third parties to manufacture or commercialize our current or any future product candidates, and on collaborations with additional third parties for the development of our current or any future product candidates, requires us to share trade secrets with these third parties. We may also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, services agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce, and any other elements of our product candidates, technology and product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share our facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.

Trade secrets and confidential information, however, may be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets, know-how and confidential information, including our proprietary processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific advisors, contractors, and collaborators. With our consultants, contractors, and outside scientific collaborators, these agreements typically include invention assignment obligations. Despite these efforts, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using commonly accepted physical and technological security measures. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, outside scientific advisors, contractors, and collaborators might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information, including to competitors. In addition, competitors or other third-parties may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Despite our efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to fully protect our interests. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our product candidates that we consider proprietary. Trade secrets will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information, which could harm our competitive position.

Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad.

If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, or misappropriation of our intellectual property by third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

The operations of our suppliers, some of which may source raw materials and other supplies outside of the United States, are subject to additional risks that are beyond our control and that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Currently, some of our suppliers may source raw materials and other supplies outside of the United States. As a result, we may be subject to risks associated with doing business abroad, including:

These and other factors beyond our control could interrupt our suppliers’ production, influence the ability of our suppliers to export our clinical supplies cost-effectively or at all, and inhibit our suppliers’ ability to procure certain materials, any of which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain, maintain and enforce intellectual property protection directed to our current and any future technologies that we develop, others may be able to make, use or sell product candidates substantially the same as ours, which could adversely affect our ability to compete in the market.

The market for pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals is highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change. Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to maintain a competitive position in the development and protection of technologies and any future product candidates for use in these fields and upon our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights. We seek to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property rights to restrict the ability of others to market products that misappropriate our technology and/or infringe our intellectual property to unfairly and illegally compete with any of our product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new planned products, patents protecting such products might expire before or shortly after such products are commercialized. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, our competitive position and our business could be harmed, as third parties may be able to make, use or sell products that are substantially the same as any product candidates we may sell without incurring the sizeable development and licensing costs that we have incurred, which would adversely affect our ability to compete in the market. We use a combination of patents, trademarks, know-how, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary technology and that of our licensors. However, these protections may not be adequate and may not provide us with any competitive advantage. For example, patents may not issue from any of our or our licensors’ currently pending or any future patent applications, and our or our licensors’ issued patents and any future patents that may issue may not survive legal challenges to their scope, validity or enforceability or provide significant protection for us.

To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates that we consider important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive, time-consuming and complex. We may not be able to file, prosecute and maintain all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, depending on the terms of any future license or collaboration agreements to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology licensed from third parties.

Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Furthermore, the patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to biological and pharmaceutical products commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which have in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Thus, we cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents, whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties or whether any issued patents will effectively prevent others from commercializing competing technologies and product candidates.

The USPTO, international patent offices or judicial bodies may deny or significantly narrow claims made under our patent applications, and our issued patents may be successfully challenged, may be designed around or may otherwise be of insufficient scope to provide us with protection for our drugs or combination therapies.

Further, the USPTO, international trademark offices or judicial bodies may deny our trademark applications and, even if published or registered, these trademarks may not effectively protect our brand and goodwill. Like patents, trademarks also may be successfully opposed or challenged.

We cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent unauthorized use or unauthorized reverse engineering of our technology. Moreover, third parties may independently develop technologies that are competitive with ours and such competitive technologies may or may not infringe our intellectual property. The enforcement of our intellectual property rights also depends on the success of any legal actions we may take against these infringers in the respective country or forum, but these actions may not be successful. As with all granted intellectual property, such intellectual property may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, may not provide protection and/or may not prove to be enforceable in actions against specific alleged infringers.

Even if our patents are determined by a court to be valid and enforceable, they may not be interpreted sufficiently broadly to prevent others from marketing products similar to ours or designing around our patents. For example, third parties may be able to make products that are similar to ours but that are not covered by the claims of our patents. Third parties may assert that we or our licensors were not the first to make the inventions covered by our issued patents or pending patent applications. The claims of our or our licensors’ issued patents or patent applications when issued may not cover our product candidates or any future product candidates that we develop. We may not have freedom to commercialize unimpeded by the patent rights of others. Third parties may have patents that dominate, block or are otherwise relevant to our technology. In addition, there may be prior public disclosures or other art that could be deemed to invalidate one or more of our patent claims. We may not develop additional proprietary technologies in the future, and, if we do, they may not be patentable.

We may not be able to correctly estimate or control our future operating expenses in relation to obtaining intellectual property, enforcing intellectual property and/or defending intellectual property, which could affect operating expenses. Our operating expenses may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including the costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patent and trademark claims and other intellectual property-related costs, including adverse proceedings and litigation costs.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a negative impact on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability and the ability of our current or future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our current and any future product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Because the intellectual property landscape in the industry in which we participate is rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on third-party rights. U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields relating to our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that others may assert our product candidates infringe the patent rights of others. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of drugs, products or their methods of use or manufacture.

Thus, because of the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, there may be a risk that third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods.

Our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop may infringe existing or future patents owned by third parties. We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current and any future product candidates and technologies, including interference or derivation, post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the USPTO. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could have a negative impact on our ability to commercialize our current and any future product candidates. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, a court of competent jurisdiction may not invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe a third party’s valid and enforceable intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our product candidate(s) and technologies. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technologies or product candidate, or redesign our product candidates or processes so they do not infringe, which may not be possible or may require substantial monetary expenditures and time. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from manufacturing and commercializing our current or any future product candidates or force us to cease some or all of our business operations, which could adversely affect our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Third parties asserting their patent or other intellectual property rights against us may also seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business, cause development delays, and may impact our reputation.

Many of our employees were employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer.

In addition, if our product candidates are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, these third parties may assert infringement claims against our licensees and other parties with whom we have business relationships, and we may be required to indemnify those parties for any damages they suffer as a result of these claims. The claims may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of licensees and other parties regardless of the merits of these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of those parties or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use.

Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations or could otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Additionally, during the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the initiation of the litigation as well as results of hearings, rulings on motions and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our existing product candidates, programs or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline. Such announcements could also harm our reputation or the market for our future products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We or our licensors may in the future rely on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that we or our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our patents, including in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, universities or other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies including our competitors or potential competitors. These employees and consultants may have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such other current or previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may become subject to claims that we, our employees or a consultant inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, which could adversely affect our business. Such intellectual property could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or drugs and combination therapies. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team. Any of the foregoing would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be unsuccessful in licensing or acquiring intellectual property from third parties that may be required to develop and commercialize our current or future product candidates.

A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights that are important or necessary to the development and commercialization of our current or future product candidates. It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our product candidates, in which case we would be required to acquire or obtain a license to such intellectual property from these third parties, and we may be unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and expenses and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible.

The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a highly competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We license or otherwise have access to patent rights from third-party owners. Such licenses or other arrangements may be subject to early termination if we fail to comply with our obligations in our agreements with third parties, which could result in the loss of rights or technology that are material to our business.

We are and may become a party to licenses and other agreements that give us rights to third-party intellectual property that are necessary or valuable for our business, and we may enter into additional licenses or other agreements in the future. Under these agreements, we are or may be obligated to pay the counterparties' fees, which may include annual license fees, milestone payments, royalties, a percentage of revenues associated with the applicable technology and a percentage of sublicensing revenue. In addition, under certain of such agreements, we are or may be required to diligently pursue the development of products using the applicable technology. If we fail to comply with these obligations and fail to cure our breach within a specified period of time, the counterparty may have the right to terminate the applicable agreement. Termination of this agreement, or reduction or elimination of our rights under it or any other agreement, may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated arrangements on less favorable terms, or our not having sufficient intellectual property rights to operate our business. The occurrence of such events could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

We may rely on third parties from whom we license proprietary technology to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that may be licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than if we conduct them ourselves.

The risks described elsewhere pertaining to our intellectual property rights also apply to any intellectual property rights that we may license, and any failure by us or any future licensor to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce these rights could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our intellectual property agreements with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our intellectual property licensed from third parties may be subject to retained rights.

Our future licensors may retain certain rights under their agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for non-commercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It is difficult to monitor whether our licensors limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our licensed technology in the event of misuse.

Government agencies may provide funding, facilities, personnel or other assistance in connection with the development of the intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to us. Such government agencies may have retained rights in such intellectual property. The U.S. federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (the Bayh-Dole Act); these include the right to grant or require us to grant mandatory licenses or sublicenses to such intellectual property to third parties under certain specified circumstances, including if it is necessary to meet health and safety needs that we are not reasonably satisfying or if it is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by federal regulations, or to manufacture products in the United States. Any exercise of such rights, including with respect to any such required sublicense of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize licensed products. While it is our policy to avoid engaging our university partners in projects in which there is a risk that federal funds may be commingled, we cannot be sure that any co-developed intellectual property will be free from government rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act. If, in the future, we co-own or license in technology which is critical to our business that is developed in whole or in part with federal funds subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, our ability to enforce or otherwise exploit patents covering such technology may be adversely affected.

If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical product candidates would be adversely affected.

The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation, resulting in court decisions, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions, that have increased uncertainties as to the ability to enforce patent rights in the future. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or vice versa.

Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our research programs and product candidates, or their intended uses, and as a result the potential impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the potential impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. While we are not aware of third-party patents and patent filings that would block commercialization of our product candidates, we have not conducted a freedom-to-operate search or analysis for any of our current product candidates, and we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing our product candidates. Thus, we cannot guarantee that our current product candidates, or our commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe any third party’s intellectual property. Because patent applications are maintained as confidential for a certain period of time (for example, patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases, not at all), until the relevant application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of any of our product candidates, and we cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or technology. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently-pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe is relevant to our business, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our products that may be approved in the future, or impair our competitive position. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. We have pending U.S. and foreign patent applications in our portfolio; however, we cannot predict:

Our patents or pending patent applications may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and other foreign jurisdictions. For example, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in PGR procedures, derivations, reexaminations, or inter parties review proceedings, in the United States or oppositions or similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, challenging our patent rights. The legal threshold for initiating such proceedings may be low, so that even proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. In addition, we may rely on more than one patent to provide multiple layers of patent protection for our product candidates. If the latest-expiring patent is invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, the overall protection for the product candidate may be adversely affected. For example, if the latest-expiring patent is invalidated, the overall patent term for our product candidate could be adversely affected.

As a result, only limited protection may be available, and our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates or their uses could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming, and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property rights or those of our licensors. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more patent of ours or any of our current licensors or future licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, in whole or in part, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, which may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products, and could put our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing. If we or any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at our products, the defendant could counterclaim that our or our licensors’ patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could also include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability of our or our licensors’ patents covering one of our product candidates, we could lose a part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection covering such candidate. Competing products may also be sold in other countries in which our patent coverage might not exist or be as strong. If we lose a foreign patent lawsuit, alleging our infringement of a competitor’s patents, we could be prevented from marketing our products in one or more foreign countries. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our potential licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our products to market.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may not be in a position to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders, or it may be otherwise impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technologies or other product candidates, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We employ reputable professionals and rely on such third parties to help us comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to the patents and patent applications that we own, and we may have to rely upon our licensors to comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to any patents and patent applications that we license. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to use our technologies and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Patent terms may be inadequate to establish our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time. If we do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Patent terms may be shortened or lengthened by, for example, terminal disclaimers, patent term adjustments, supplemental protection certificates and patent term extensions, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees, maintenance fees or annuities, delay in patent filings or delay in extension filings (including any patent term extension or adjustment filings), whether intentional or unintentional, may result in the loss of patent rights important to our business. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic versions. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents directed towards such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or at all.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our owned or licensed U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act) and similar legislation in the EU and certain other jurisdictions. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits, in certain cases, a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and the amount of available extension to any extension-eligible patent which claims a product, a method of using a product or a method of manufacturing a product, depends on a variety of factors, including the date on which the patent issues and certain dates related to the regulatory review period. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable product candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and non-clinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

We expect to receive five years of new chemical entity exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act; however, because the denatonium active moiety is off-patent, a third party could obtain NDA approval for a denatonium drug prior to our NDA approval. In this case, we would not receive five years of exclusivity.

Further, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing.

If one of our product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining, defending, maintaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents, and may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain, enforce and protect our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our future owned and licensed patents. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the AIA), could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our future issued patents. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, re-define prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, PGR, IPR and derivation proceedings.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our or our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents and patents that we or our licensors might obtain in the future. We cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Any similar adverse change in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could also adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary effect (the Unitary Patent). Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (the UPC). As the UPC is a relatively new court system, there is little precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the unitary patent system.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our current or future trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or descriptive, or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Moreover, any name we have proposed to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

We may enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing and prosecuting patent applications and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement rights are not as strong as that in the United States or Europe. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our future patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before they are granted. The examination of each national or regional patent application is an independent proceeding. As a result, patent applications in the same family may issue as patents in some jurisdictions, such as in the United States, but may issue as patents with claims of different scope or may even be refused in other jurisdictions. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

While we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets. If we encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished, and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws or rules and regulations in the United States and Europe, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property rights, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our future patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in other jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our future patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing as patents, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Some countries also have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patents. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, they could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Risks Related to Legal and Regulatory Compliance Matters

Our relationships with customers, physicians, and third-party payors may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, other healthcare laws and regulations and health data privacy and security laws and regulations, contractual obligations and self-regulatory schemes. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers can expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research and, if approved, sell, market and distribute our products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales, marketing and business arrangements of our product candidates, is subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices.

These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal, state and foreign enforcement bodies regularly scrutinize interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions, significant fines and penalties and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring that business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and may divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participating in federal and state funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, diminished profits and future earnings, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increase the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

Recently enacted legislation, future legislation and other healthcare reform measures may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval for and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system, including cost-containment measures that may reduce or limit coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. In particular, 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 and improve the quality of healthcare.

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, (collectively, the ACA), was enacted in the United States, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (the MDRP) are calculated for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the MDRP, extended manufacturer Medicaid rebate obligations to utilization by individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologics, and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Since its enactment, there have been judicial, congressional, and executive branch challenges to the ACA, which have resulted in delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress.

In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (the IRA) became law, which, among other things, extended enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminated the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. In addition, the IRA imposes new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, subject to certain exemptions applicable to orphan drugs. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or congressional challenges or legislative modifications in the future. It is unclear how such challenges or modifications, and the healthcare reform measures of the current administration, will impact the ACA and our business.

For example, on November 27, 2024, the Biden administration issued a proposed rule entitled Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Contract Year 2026 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Medicare Cost Plan Program, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed that anti-obesity medications (AOMs), when used for weight loss or chronic weight management for the treatment of obesity, would no longer be excluded from Part D coverage. The aforementioned proposal would also apply to the Medicaid program. The Trump Administration did not finalize the proposal; however, we cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, resulted in 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 remain in effect through 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In certain countries outside the United States, reimbursement for products that have not yet received marketing authorization may be provided through national managed access programs.

On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of march-in rights, which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain whether that will continue under the new framework. It is unclear whether or how much such rights may be exercised.

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. presidential executive orders, congressional inquiries, and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. The IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs and biologics under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs and biologics covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations. The prices of these ten drugs became effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, HHS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations by February 1, 2025. Weight loss drugs, including Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy, were chosen for the drug price negotiation. Negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

The Trump Administration has stated that lowering the cost of prescription drugs for Americans is a top priority and it will continue to pursue drug price negotiations. There may be a significant impact on reimbursement for particular Part D drugs, including AOMs. We cannot predict how this might change or how any changes might impact our business.

Several pharmaceutical companies, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have filed lawsuits against HHS and CMS, asserting that, among other things, the IRA’s drug price negotiation program for Medicare constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is otherwise unlawful. HHS has generally won the substantive disputes in these cases, and several federal district court judges have expressed skepticism regarding the merits of the legal arguments being pursued by the pharmaceutical industry. HHS has generally continued to win the substantive disputes in appeals, although certain cases continue to seek appellate review.

We expect that the ACA, the IRA, and any other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved.

The current Trump administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions and proposals may, for example, include directives: (1) reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, or CMNI, to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created under the IRA. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Furthermore, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, which reduced funding to federal healthcare programs and imposed additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs.

Further, changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may occur and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. In light of widely publicized events concerning the safety risk of certain drug products, regulatory authorities, members of Congress, the Governmental Accounting Office, medical professionals and the general public have raised concerns about potential drug safety issues. These events have resulted in the recall and withdrawal of drug products, revisions to drug labeling that further limit use of the drug products and establishment of risk management programs that may, for instance, restrict distribution of drug products or require safety surveillance or patient education. The increased attention to drug safety issues may result in a more cautious approach by the FDA to clinical trials and the drug approval process. Data from clinical trials may receive greater scrutiny with respect to safety, which may make the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities more likely to terminate or suspend clinical trials before completion or require longer or additional clinical trials that may result in substantial additional expense and a delay or failure in obtaining approval or approval for a more limited indication than originally sought.

Changing regulatory environments could negatively impact our business.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Many European Economic Area (EEA) Member States periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicinal products, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. We expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EEA Member States will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EEA Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EEA Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess the therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EEA Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States.

In December 2021, Regulation No. 2021/2282 on HTA, amending Directive 2011/24/EU, was adopted in the European Union. This Regulation, which entered into force in January 2022 and went into effect in January 2025, is intended to boost cooperation among EEA Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at European Union level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The Regulation permits EEA Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the European Union, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. Individual EEA Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EEA Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the European Union could be negatively affected.

Legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the European Union may continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures to keep healthcare costs down. These measures could include limitations on the prices we would be able to charge for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the level of reimbursement available for these products from governmental authorities or third-party payors. Further, an increasing number of European Union and other foreign countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as “reference prices” to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. Consequently, a downward trend in prices of medicinal products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere.

We are subject to certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations. We can face serious consequences for violations.

Among other matters, U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, which are collectively referred to as Trade Laws, prohibit companies and their employees, agents, clinical research organizations, legal counsel, accountants, consultants, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, providing, soliciting, or receiving, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. Violations of Trade Laws can result in substantial criminal fines and civil penalties, imprisonment, the loss of trade privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government authorities or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations.

We have engaged and will continue to engage third parties for clinical trials and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals, and we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents, or partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the FCPA), prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate and other related parties for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

If our procedures and controls to monitor anti-bribery compliance fail to protect us from reckless or criminal acts committed by our employees or agents or if we, or our employees, agents, contractors or other collaborators, fail to comply with applicable anti-bribery laws, our reputation could be harmed and we could incur criminal or civil penalties, other sanctions and/or significant expenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. Our products may be subject to U.S. and foreign export controls, trade sanctions and import laws and regulations. Governmental regulation of the import or export of our products, or our failure to obtain any required import or export authorization for our products, when applicable, could harm our international or domestic sales and adversely affect our revenue. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the export of our products may create delays in the introduction of our products in international markets or, in some cases, prevent the export of our products to some countries altogether. Furthermore, U.S. export control laws and economic sanctions prohibit the shipment of certain products and services to countries, governments and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. If we fail to comply with export and import regulations and such economic sanctions, penalties could be imposed, including fines and/or denial of certain export privileges. Moreover, any new export or import restrictions, new legislation or shifting approaches in the enforcement or scope of existing regulations, or in the countries, persons or products targeted by such regulations, could result in decreased use of our products by, or in our decreased ability to export our products to, existing or potential customers with international operations. Any decreased use of our products or limitation on our ability to export or sell our products would likely adversely affect our business. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our research and development costs.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We, and the third parties with whom we share our facilities, are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Each of our operations involves the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Each of our operations also produces hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. We could be held liable for any resulting damages in the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use of hazardous materials by us or the third parties with whom we share our facilities, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

We cannot guarantee that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers and CROs for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, nor can we eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research and product development efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from hazardous materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Even if we commercialize any product candidates, alone or with our partners, any such product may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could adversely affect our business.

In some countries, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after coverage and reimbursement have been obtained. Reference pricing used by various countries and parallel distribution or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced countries, can further reduce prices. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available products, which is time-consuming and costly. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay or limit our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenue we generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. If coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our business could be materially harmed.

Risks Related to the Operation of Our Business

We have previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which was subsequently remediated. If we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in the future, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

Prior to the completion of our IPO, we were a private company with limited accounting personnel to adequately execute our accounting processes and limited supervisory resources with which to address our internal control over financial reporting. In connection with the preparation of our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2024, a material weakness was identified in the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the annual or interim consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

As of December 31, 2025, we have remediated the previously identified material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. See Part II, Item 9A, “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures”, of this Annual Report for additional detail. However, our internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected. If we identify additional material weaknesses or deficiencies in internal controls in the future and we are unable to correct them in a timely manner, our ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information accurately and within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, will be adversely affected. Any such failure could negatively affect the market price and trading liquidity of our common stock, lead to delisting, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, subject us to civil and criminal investigations and penalties, and generally materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition.

If, in the future, we identify material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting or fail to meet the demands that are placed upon us as a public company, including the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we may be unable to accurately report our financial results or report them within the timeframes required by law or stock exchange regulations. Failure to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could also potentially subject us to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. If additional material weaknesses exist or are discovered in the future, and we are unable to remediate any such material weakness, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on our senior management team. The employment agreements we have with these officers do not prevent such persons from terminating their employment with us at any time. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives. In addition, we will need to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified additional medical, scientific, technical, commercial, business, regulatory and administrative personnel. If we are not able to retain our management and to attract, on terms acceptable to us, additional qualified personnel necessary for the continued development of our business, we may not be able to sustain our operations or grow.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. Many of the other pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer operating history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates and consultants than what we have to offer. If we are unable to attract, retain and motivate high-quality personnel and consultants to accomplish our business objectives, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be limited and we may experience constraints on our development objectives. Additionally, we do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees.

Our future performance will also depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate newly hired executive officers into our management team and our ability to develop an effective working relationship among senior management. Our failure to integrate these individuals and create effective working relationships among them and other members of management could result in inefficiencies in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, harming future marketing approvals, sales of our product candidates and our results of operations.

There is a scarcity of experienced professionals in our industry. If we are not able to retain and recruit personnel with the requisite technical skills, we may be unable to successfully execute our business strategy.

The specialized nature of our industry results in an inherent scarcity of experienced personnel in the field. Our future success depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly skilled personnel (including medical, scientific, technical, commercial, business, regulatory and administrative personnel) necessary to support our anticipated growth and develop our business. Given the scarcity of professionals with the scientific knowledge that we require and the competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology businesses, we may not succeed in attracting or retaining the personnel we require to continue and grow our operations. If we are not able to attract, integrate, retain and motivate necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

We have in the past acquired, and may in the future acquire other assets, businesses or form joint ventures or make investments in other companies or technologies that could harm our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expense.

As part of our business strategy, we may pursue acquisitions of assets or licenses of assets, including preclinical, clinical or commercial stage products or product candidates, businesses, strategic alliances, joint ventures and collaborations, to expand our existing technologies and operations.

Any potential acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

In the future, we may not be able to find suitable partners or acquisition candidates, and we may not be able to complete such transactions on favorable terms, if at all. If we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into our existing business, and we could assume unknown or contingent liabilities. Any future acquisitions also could result in the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or future write-offs of intangible assets or goodwill, any of which could have a negative impact on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Integration of an acquired company also may disrupt ongoing operations and require management resources that we would otherwise focus on developing our existing business. We may experience losses related to investments in other companies, which could harm our financial condition and results of operations. We may not identify or complete these transactions in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis or at all, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, license, strategic alliance or joint venture.

To finance such a transaction, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant amortization expense. If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies or fund a joint venture project using our stock as consideration. Alternatively, it may be necessary for us to raise additional funds for these activities through public or private financings or through the issuance of debt. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all, and any debt financing may involve covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions.

We expect to expand our clinical development and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of February 28, 2026, we had 40 employees and 39 full-time or part-time consultants. As our development progresses, we expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of clinical development, product development and manufacturing, regulatory affairs, quality assurance and, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must:

Our future financial performance and our ability to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, and our management may also have to divert financial and other resources, and a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities, to managing these growth activities. We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution capabilities. We intend to establish a sales and marketing organization, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize ARD-101 or any other potential future product candidates that may receive regulatory approval in key territories. These efforts will require substantial additional resources.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including contract manufacturers and companies focused on research and development and discovery activities. There can be no assurance that the services of independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality, accuracy or quantity of the services provided is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain, or may be substantially delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize ARD-101 or any other product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

We may acquire additional technology and complementary businesses in the future. Acquisitions involve many risks, any of which could materially harm our business, including the diversion of management’s attention from core business concerns, failure to effectively exploit acquired technologies, failure to successfully integrate the acquired business or realize expected synergies or the loss of key employees from either our business or the acquired businesses.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, suppliers and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates FDA regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, manufacturing standards, federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, and laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of individually identifiable information, including, without limitation, information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

We enter into various contracts in the normal course of our business in which we indemnify the other party to the contract. In the event we have to perform under these indemnification provisions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into commercial, service, collaboration, licensing, consulting and other agreements that contain indemnification provisions. For example, we have entered into agreements in which we agreed to indemnify an institution and related parties from any losses that may arise from claims relating to alleged infringement of intellectual property rights held by a third party and in which we agreed to indemnify a counterparty from third-party claims arising from the death of, injury to, or damage to property of any person resulting from the research, development or use of applicable rights or products under the agreement.

Should our obligation under an indemnification provision in any of our agreements exceed applicable insurance coverage or if we are denied insurance coverage, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Similarly, if we are relying on a collaborator to indemnify us and the collaborator is denied insurance coverage or the indemnification obligation exceeds the applicable insurance coverage, and if the collaborator does not have other assets available to indemnify us, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our ability to use our net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards and certain other tax attributes to offset taxable income or taxes may be limited.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. As of December 31, 2025, we had federal NOL carryforwards of $79.3 million and state NOL carryforwards of $96.5 million. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), our U.S. federal NOLs will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of U.S. federal NOLs is limited to no more than 80% of current year taxable income (with certain adjustments), and the state loss carryforwards begin expiring in 2037 unless previously utilized. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income or taxes may be limited. We have not completed a Section 382 study to assess whether an ownership change has occurred or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since our formation due to the complexity and cost associated with such a study; however, we have raised funds several times in recent years, increasing the likelihood there have been changes in ownership that would limit our ability to utilize tax attribute carryforwards. Furthermore, there may be additional ownership changes in the future or as a result of subsequent changes in our stock ownership, some of which may be outside of our control.

As a result, if we undergo an ownership change, and our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes is limited, such an ownership change would harm our future results of operations by effectively increasing our future tax obligations. In addition, there is a risk that due to changes under the tax law, regulatory changes or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs and other tax attributes could expire or otherwise be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows. We have recorded a full valuation allowance related to our NOLs and other deferred tax assets due to the uncertainty of the ultimate realization of the future benefits of those assets.

Our operations are concentrated in one location, and we or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by a wildfire and earthquake or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our current operations are predominantly located in California. Any unplanned event, such as a flood, wildfire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, epidemic or pandemic, power outage, telecommunications failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Any similar impacts of natural or manmade disasters on our third-party CMOs and CROs, could cause delays in our clinical trials and may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using our clinical sites, impacted clinical supply or the conduct of our clinical trials, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party CMOs, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we and our CMOs and CROs have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. In the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance we currently carry will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our CMOs or CROs, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

International expansion of our business will expose us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States.

Our business strategy contemplates international expansion, including partnering with distributors, and introducing our current products and other planned products outside the United States. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and consequently, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our current and future product candidates in clinical trials and may face an even greater risk if we commercialize any product candidate that we may develop. For example, we may be sued if any drug we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that any such product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Although we will maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies will also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts.

Significant disruptions of our information technology systems or data security incidents could result in significant financial, legal, regulatory, business and reputational harm to us.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure, including mobile and third-party, cloud-based technologies, to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we may collect, store, process and transmit large amounts of sensitive information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information, and other confidential information. It is important that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of such sensitive information. We have also outsourced elements of our operations (including elements of our information technology infrastructure) to third parties, and as a result, we manage a number of third-party vendors who may or could have access to our computer networks or our sensitive information. In addition, many of those third parties in turn subcontract or outsource some of their responsibilities to third parties. While all information technology operations are inherently vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional security breaches, incidents, attacks and exposures, the accessibility and distributed nature of our information technology systems, and the sensitive information stored on or transmitted between those systems, make such systems potentially vulnerable to unintentional or malicious, internal and external exploits of our technology environment. In addition, we may face increased risks of a security breach or disruption due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities.

Cyber incidents are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives (including, but not limited to, industrial espionage) and expertise, including organized criminal groups, “hacktivists,” nation states and others. In addition to the extraction of sensitive information, such attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, supply chain attacks, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. Data security incidents and other inappropriate access can also be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm. In addition, the prevalent use of mobile devices increases the risk of data security incidents.

Significant disruptions of, or cyber incidents directed at, our or our third-party vendors’ and/or business partners’ information technology systems could adversely affect our business operations and/or result in the loss, misappropriation, and/or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, sensitive information, which could result in a variety of adverse effects, including financial, legal, regulatory, business and reputational harm to us. In addition, information technology system disruptions, whether from attacks on our technology environment or from computer viruses, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Additionally, theft of our intellectual property or proprietary business information could require substantial expenditures to remedy. If we or our third-party collaborators, consultants, contractors, suppliers, vendors or service providers were to suffer an actual or likely attack or breach, for example, that involves the unauthorized access to or use or disclosure of personal or health information, we may have to notify consumers, partners, collaborators, government authorities, and the media, and may be subject to investigations, civil penalties, administrative and enforcement actions (including mandatory corrective action or requirements to verify the correctness of database contents), and consuming, distracting and expensive litigation, any of which could result in increased costs to us, and result in significant legal and financial exposure, or other harm to our business and reputation.

While we have no reason to believe that we have been subject to any material system failure, accident or security breach to date, we have experienced cybersecurity incidents in the past and expect that we will experience cybersecurity incidents in the future. In addition, attackers have become very sophisticated in the way they conceal access to systems, and many companies that have been attacked are not aware that they have been attacked. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence. While we have implemented security measures intended to protect our information technology systems and infrastructure, such measures may not successfully prevent service interruptions or security incidents.

Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or to mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

Failure to comply with data privacy and security laws, regulations and other obligations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, negative publicity, and/or other adverse consequences that could negatively affect our operating results and business.

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

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal data secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of the FTC Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of personal data it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. Additionally, the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule applies to health apps and other similar technologies and expanded breach notification requirements, which adds complexity to compliance obligations. Further, the SEC implemented rules around incident reporting, requiring cybersecurity incidents to be reported 4 business days after determining that an incident is material.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a final rule entitled, “Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons,” codified at 28 CFR part 202, or the Bulk Transfer Rule. The Bulk Transfer Rule prohibits and restricts bulk transfers of sensitive personal data (including genetic and health data) to countries of concern, such as China, Russia, and Iran to prevent access by foreign adversaries. It restricts our ability to engage in certain cross-border transactions involving genomic or biological samples and related data, which may increase compliance costs, lead to increased regulatory scrutiny or liability, and may require additional contractual negotiations, which may adversely impact our business, financial condition, and operating results.

Certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health-related and other personal information in certain circumstances, some of which may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information than HIPAA, many of which may differ from each other, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), revised and amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), created new individual privacy rights for California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their data, the right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information (including health information). The CCPA places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling certain personal data of California residents or households, limits data use and mandates audit requirements for higher risk data. The CCPA also creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data and some other health data under the CCPA, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and PHI. The CCPA is enforced by the California Privacy Protection Agency, a data protection authority, which has the power to issue substantive regulations resulting in increased privacy and information security enforcement. Additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required.

While California was the first among the states to adopt comprehensive data privacy legislation similar to the GDPR, many other states are following suit, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. More than 20 states have adopted statewide comprehensive privacy laws and many other states have privacy legislation that is pending. Many of these new state laws contain some type of exemption for information collected under HIPAA and some data processed in the context of clinical trials, either at the entity level or the data level, so the impact might be limited particularly as it relates to PHI. Some states also have laws that specifically focus on the processing of personal data related to individuals’ health, including California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Washington’s My Health My Data Act. Changes to federal and state privacy laws may add complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment of resources in compliance programs, impact strategies and the availability of previously useful data and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies. The existence of comprehensive privacy laws in different states in the country would make our compliance obligations more complex and costly and may increase the likelihood that we may be subject to enforcement actions or otherwise incur liability for non-compliance.

In addition, all 50 U.S. states and territories and international jurisdictions have varying breach notification laws that may require us to notify patients, employees or regulators in the event of unauthorized access to or disclosure of personal or confidential data experienced by us or our service providers. These laws are not consistent, and compliance in the event of a widespread data breach is difficult and may be costly. We also may be contractually required to notify patients or other counterparties of a security breach. In addition to government regulation, privacy advocates and industry groups have and may in the future propose self-regulatory standards from time to time. These and other industry standards may legally or contractually apply to us, or we may elect to comply with such standards.

Foreign data protection laws, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (the EU GDPR), and the United Kingdom’s equivalent of the same (the UK GDPR), may also apply to our processing of health-related and other personal data regardless of where the processing in question is carried out.

The GDPR in the EEA and the UK GDPR in the United Kingdom (together, the GDPR) impose stringent requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of individuals within the EEA or the United Kingdom. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA or United Kingdom as well as to those outside the EEA or United Kingdom if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA or United Kingdom or the monitoring of their behavior. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EEA Member States and the United Kingdom governing the processing of personal data, imposes strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. In particular, these obligations and restrictions concern the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the transfer of personal data out of the EEA or the United Kingdom, security breach notifications, security and confidentiality of the personal data and imposition of substantial potential fines for breaches of the data protection obligations. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for non-compliance of up to €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of the annual global revenues of the non-compliant company, whichever is greater. Such requirements may be subject to change in the near future as the European Commission announced proposed amendments to the GDPR in November 2025. In addition, on June 19, 2025, the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, or the DUAA, was granted Royal Assent, implementing various measures concerning data usage in the UK and reforming data protection laws. It remains too soon to tell how the DUAA will be implemented and what impact it will have on our international activities. Further, other EU and member state laws and regulations may impose further obligations or restrictions on processing health information in the EEA, such as the European Health Data Space Regulation.

In the EEA, the NIS 2 Directive, or NIS 2, is replacing the cybersecurity legal framework under the current NIS framework, aiming to ensure a high level of cybersecurity in the region. NIS 2 brings new medium and large organizations providing services in the EEA within scope of the legal framework. It extends to additional sectors and expands the list of in-scope healthcare organizations, including to certain providers engaged in research and development of medicinal products. The new regime imposes direct obligations on management in respect of an in-scope organization's compliance with NIS 2, requires covered organizations to put in place certain cyber risk management measures, strengthens incident reporting requirements and provides supervisory authorities with greater oversight. The majority of obligations will come into force when national legislation implementing NIS 2 becomes effective in the relevant EU Member State. EU Member States had until October 17, 2024 to transpose NIS 2 into national legislation, although many countries have still not completed the transposition. As such, the cybersecurity regulatory landscape in the EU is currently fragmented and uncertain. To the extent that we become subject to NIS 2 in the future, we may require additional investment of our resources in compliance programs. Under NIS 2, companies may be subject to administrative fines of up to the higher amount of €10 million or 2% of worldwide turnover.

Certain jurisdictions, including the EEA, have enacted laws and regulations governing cross-border personal information transfer and providing for data localization in certain cases. For example, absent appropriate safeguards or other circumstances, the GDPR and laws in Switzerland and the UK generally restrict the transfer of personal information to countries outside the EEA, Switzerland and the UK, such as the United States. Such safeguards include the use of standard contractual clauses approved by the European Commission and the UK and Swiss Data Protection Authorities as well as the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. If we are unable to implement a valid solution to transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States or other countries that have not been deemed to provide an essentially equivalent level of data protection, we may face increased exposure to regulatory action, substantial fines, or injunction orders to stop processing personal data from EEA, Swiss, or UK residents. Any inability to import personal data to the United States may also restrict our clinical trials activities in the EU; limit our ability to collaborate with CROs as well as other service providers, contractors and other companies subject to EU data privacy and security laws; and require us to increase our data processing capabilities in the EU and the UK at a significant expense. Additionally, other countries outside of the EU have enacted or are considering enacting similar cross-border data transfer restrictions and laws requiring local data residency, which could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services and operating our business. The types of challenges we face in the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK will likely also arise in other jurisdictions that adopt laws similar to the GDPR or regulatory frameworks of equivalent complexity.

Implementing mechanisms to endeavor to ensure compliance with the GDPR and relevant local legislation in EEA Member States and the United Kingdom may be onerous and may interrupt or delay our development activities, and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In addition to the foregoing, a breach of the GDPR or other applicable privacy and data protection laws and regulations could result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, and orders to cease/change our use of data, enforcement notices, or potential civil claims including class-action-type litigation. While we have taken steps to comply with the GDPR where applicable, including by reviewing our security procedures, engaging data protection personnel, and entering into data processing agreements with relevant contractors, our efforts to achieve and remain in compliance may not be fully successful.

Compliance with U.S. and foreign privacy and security laws, rules and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, require us to engage in costly compliance exercises, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or, in some cases, impact our or our partners’ or suppliers’ ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Each of these constantly evolving laws can be subject to varying interpretations. Failure to comply with U.S. and foreign data protection laws and regulations could result in government investigations and enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), fines, private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, patients about whom we or our partners obtain information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may contractually limit our ability to use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Risks Related to Artificial Intelligence

We may use certain artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, which presents risks and challenges that could adversely impact our business. As with many innovations, ineffective or inadequate AI development or deployment practices could result in unintended consequences. For example, AI algorithms we use in connection with our operations may be flawed or based on datasets that are biased or insufficient, potentially leading to errors in our business processes. Disruption or failure in AI functionality could adversely affect our business, cause delays or inaccuracies in our offerings, or harm our reputation. Conversely, if we are unable to adopt and deploy AI effectively as quickly as our competitors, it may cause us to be relatively less productive or innovative, adversely impacting our competitiveness and requiring additional investments that increase our costs. AI technologies may increase cybersecurity, privacy and data protection risks, including the risk that employees, contractors or vendors inadvertently input, expose, or enable access to confidential, proprietary, or regulated information through AI tools or related integrations. In addition, AI systems may be vulnerable to novel attacks (such as prompt injection or data poisoning) and, if we deploy AI-enabled automation or systems that can take actions based on AI outputs, those systems could execute unintended, unauthorized, or harmful actions due to inaccurate, manipulated, or improperly reviewed outputs. Laws and regulations regarding AI technologies are rapidly evolving as well, including in the areas of intellectual property, cybersecurity, privacy and data protection. Compliance with new or changing laws, regulations, or industry standards relating to AI may impose significant operational and financial burdens and may limit our ability to develop, deploy, or use AI technologies in our business.

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Even if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant revenue and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our product candidates. Because we expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of our product candidates, if approved, to find market acceptance, could adversely affect our business and could require us to seek additional financing.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for our product candidates that may receive regulatory approval, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We have no internal sales, marketing or distribution capabilities, nor have we as a company commercialized a product. If any of our product candidates ultimately receives marketing approval, we will be required to build a marketing and sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product in the markets that we target, which will be expensive and time-consuming, or collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of establishing our own sales force and distribution systems. We have no prior experience as a company in the marketing, sale and distribution of biopharmaceutical products and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these product candidates. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to market our products on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and are forced to enter into arrangements with, and rely on, third parties to perform these services, our revenue and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we had developed such capabilities ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

We face substantial competition, which may result in a smaller than expected commercial opportunity and/or others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition and strong defense of intellectual property. We face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others.

If any of our product candidates are approved for the indications for which we expect to conduct clinical trials, we anticipate they will compete with the foregoing therapies and currently marketed drugs, as well as any drugs potentially in development. It is also possible that we will face competition from other pharmaceutical approaches as well as other types of therapies. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all our programs, if approved, are likely to be their potency, tolerability, convenience, price, level of generic competition, and availability of reimbursement.

With respect to ARD-101, Soleno Therapeutics’ VYKAT XR is the only approved treatment for PWS-associated hyperphagia. We are also aware of therapeutic candidates in development programs with reported hyperphagia reducing activity in patients with PWS, including those from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Relmada Therapeutics and Bright Minds Biosciences Inc.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Mergers and acquisitions in the biopharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that have fewer or less severe side effects, are more potent, are more convenient, are less expensive or are sold more effectively than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other applicable regulatory authority approval for their product candidates more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. There are generic products currently on the market for certain of the indications that we are pursuing and additional products are expected to become available on a generic basis over the coming years. If our product candidates are approved, we expect that they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic products. Competitive products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates. If we are unable to compete effectively, our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of any product candidates we develop, if approved, could be adversely affected.

The success of our product candidates will depend significantly on coverage and adequate reimbursement or the willingness of patients to pay for these products.

The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as our product candidates, assuming FDA approval. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for products by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for our product candidates by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the EEA or elsewhere will be available for our product candidates or any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated.

An increasing number of third-party payors are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive product is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive drug. Even if we show more favorable efficacy or a more favorable convenience of administration with our product candidates, pricing of existing third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in our product candidates. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because higher prices are often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our product candidates.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries have and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially-reasonable revenue and profits. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures within the United States, could further limit our net revenue and results. The IRA, for example, includes provisions that impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs under Medicare Part D, allowing the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition. Orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but as described in CMS guidance, this exemption will apply only to products that have no more than one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our drug product candidate or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our drug product candidate could reduce physician usage of the drug product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

There can be no assurance that our product candidates, if approved for sale in the United States or in other countries, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary, that it will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that reimbursement policies and practices in the United States and in other countries where our products are sold will not adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably, if they are approved for sale.

If the market opportunities for any of our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, even assuming approval of a product candidate, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer.

The precise incidence and prevalence for all the conditions we aim to address with our product candidates are unknown. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new information may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. For example, PWS is a rare disease, and as such, our projections of both the number of people who have this disease, as well as the subset of people with PWS who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidate, are based on estimates. Currently, most reported estimates of the prevalence of PWS are based on studies of small subsets of the population of specific geographic areas, which are then extrapolated to estimate the prevalence of the disease in the broader world population. There can be no assurance that the prevalence of PWS in the study populations, particularly in these newer studies, accurately reflects the prevalence of this disease in the broader world population. If our estimates of the prevalence of PWS or of the number of patients who may benefit from treatment with our product candidates prove to be incorrect, the market opportunities for our product candidate may be smaller than we believe it is, our prospects for generating revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

The total addressable market across our product candidates will ultimately depend upon, among other things, the diagnosis criteria included in the final label for each of our product candidates approved for sale for these indications, the availability of alternative treatments and the safety, convenience, cost and efficacy of our product candidates relative to such alternative treatments, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, drug pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients in the United States and other major markets and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our product candidates, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because some of our potential target populations are very small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs and the diseases our therapeutics are being developed to treat, and we intend to utilize appropriate social media in connection with our commercialization efforts following approval of our product candidates, if any. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations and regulatory guidance relating to such use are evolving and not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us, along with the potential for litigation related to off-label marketing or other prohibited activities. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical trial or to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that trial enrollment may be adversely impacted, that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or that we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our product candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions or incur other harm to our business.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock and Our Status as a Public Company

An active and liquid trading market for our common stock may not develop and you may not be able to resell your shares of common stock at or above the public offering price, if at all.

Our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “AARD" on February 13, 2025. We can provide no assurance that a more active or liquid trading market for our common stock will develop or be sustained. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other businesses or technologies using our shares as consideration, which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business.

Our stock price may be volatile, which could result in substantial losses for investors purchasing shares of our common stock.

The market price of our common stock is volatile and could fluctuate widely in response to many factors, including but not limited to:

In recent years, the stock market in general, and the market for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in the operating performance of the companies whose stock is experiencing those price and volume fluctuations. Broad market and industry factors may seriously affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

Since our IPO, we have experienced volatility in our stock price. For example, from February 13, 2025 (the date our common stock commenced trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market) to March 6, 2026, our closing stock price ranged from $4.90 to $17.41 per share. In particular, following our announcement in February 2026 that we have voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the Phase 3 HERO trial, the open label extension trial for ARD-101, and the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201 based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study of ARD-101, the trading price of our common stock declined significantly, closing at $12.49 per share prior to the announcement on February 27, 2026 and then closing at $5.47 per share on March 2, 2026, the next trading day thereafter. When the market price of a stock has been volatile, as our stock price has been, holders of that stock have occasionally brought securities class action litigation claims against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit of this type against us, even if the lawsuit were without merit, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. The lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management.

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts or any guidance we may publicly provide, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly and annual fluctuations which may, in turn, cause the price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

If our quarterly or annual operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts or any forecasts or guidance we may provide to the market, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide. We believe that quarterly or annual comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

Because we do not anticipate paying any dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be your sole source of gain.

We have never declared nor paid dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development, operation and expansion of our business and we do not anticipate declaring or paying any dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation of our common stock, which may never occur, will be your sole source of gain on your investment for the foreseeable future.

Our board of directors is authorized to issue and designate shares of our preferred stock without stockholder approval.

Our Fourth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as may be amended from time to time (Certificate of Incorporation), authorizes our board of directors, without the approval of our stockholders, to issue shares of preferred stock, subject to limitations prescribed by applicable law, rules and regulations and the provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation, and to establish from time to time the number of shares of preferred stock to be included in each such series and to fix the designation, powers, preferences and rights of the shares of each such series and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions thereof. The powers, preferences and rights of these additional series of convertible preferred stock may be senior to or on parity with our common stock, which may reduce our common stock’s value.

Conflicts of interest may arise because some members of our board of directors are representatives of our principal stockholders.

Certain of our principal stockholders or their affiliates are venture capital funds or other investment vehicles that could invest in entities that directly or indirectly compete with us. As a result of these relationships, when conflicts arise between the interests of the principal stockholders or their affiliates and the interests of other stockholders, members of our board of directors that are representatives of the principal stockholders may not be disinterested.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our common stock and are able to control matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of February 28, 2026, our executive officers, directors and holders of 5% or more of our capital stock beneficially owned approximately 51.6% of the outstanding shares of our common stock.

As a result, such stockholders, acting together, have the ability to significantly influence all matters submitted to our board of directors or stockholders for approval, including the appointment of our management, amendments of our organizational documents, the election and removal of directors and approval of any major corporate transactions, as well as our management and business affairs. The interests of these stockholders may not be the same as or may even conflict with your interests. For example, these stockholders could delay, defer or prevent a change of control of our company, impede a merger, consolidation, takeover or other business combination involving us, or discouraging a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempt to obtain control of our business, even if such a transaction would benefit our other stockholders. This could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company or our assets and might affect the prevailing market price of our common stock. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors’ perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could prevent or delay an acquisition of us that may be beneficial to our stockholders, and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws (Bylaws) contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it difficult for stockholders to elect directors who are not nominated by current members of our board of directors or take other corporate actions, including effecting changes in our management. These provisions:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by Section 203 of General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the DGCL), which may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company. Section 203 imposes certain restrictions on mergers, business combinations and other transactions between us and holders of 15% or more of our common stock, unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other exceptions, our board of directors has approved the transaction. Any of the foregoing provisions could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, and they could deter potential acquirers of our company, thereby reducing the likelihood the holders of our common stock would receive a premium for their shares of our common stock in an acquisition.

The Certificate of Incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our Certificate of Incorporation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or another state court or the federal court located within the State of Delaware if the Court of Chancery does not have or declines to accept jurisdiction) shall be the sole and exclusive forum, in all cases subject to the court’s having jurisdiction over indispensable parties named as defendants, for: (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (ii) any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty owed to us or our stockholders by any director, officer or other employee; (iii) any action asserting a claim against us or any director, officer or other employee arising pursuant to the DGCL; (iv) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of the Certificate of Incorporation or the Bylaws; or (v) any other action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine.

In addition, the Certificate of Incorporation provides that the federal district courts of the United States are the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act but that the exclusive forum provision does not apply to claims brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act.

Although we believe these provisions benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law for the specified types of actions and proceedings, the provisions may result in increased costs to stockholders to bring a claim for any such dispute and may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us or our directors and officers. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in the Certificate of Incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition. For example, under the Securities Act, federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act, and investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to this exclusive forum provision, but will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

General Risk Factors

Recent and future changes to tax laws could materially adversely affect our company.

The tax regimes we are subject to or operate under, including with respect to income and non-income taxes, are unsettled and may be subject to significant change. Changes in tax laws, regulations, or rulings, or changes in interpretations of existing laws and regulations, could materially adversely affect our company. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the IRA enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to such legislation may affect us, and certain aspects thereof could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the IRA includes provisions that will impact the U.S. federal income taxation of certain corporations, including imposing a 15% minimum tax on the book income of certain large corporations and a 1% excise tax on certain corporate stock repurchases that would be imposed on the corporation repurchasing such stock. On July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law and extended many of the tax law provisions that were set to expire in 2025. Further changes to the tax laws or changes to the administrative or judicial interpretations of such laws are possible and may apply with retroactive effect. In addition, many countries in Europe, as well as a number of other countries and organizations (including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission), have proposed, recommended, or (in the case of countries) enacted or otherwise become subject to changes to existing tax laws or new tax laws that could significantly increase our tax obligations in the countries where we do business or require us to change the manner in which we operate our business.

We or our directors or officers may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.

We may be the target of securities litigation in the future, including based on volatility in the market price of our stock. The stock market in general, and Nasdaq and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. The market price of our common stock is volatile. For example, following our announcement in February 2026 that we have voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the Phase 3 HERO trial, the open label extension trial for ARD-101, and the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201 based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study of ARD-101, the trading price of our common stock declined significantly, closing at $12.49 per share prior to the announcement on February 27, 2026 and then closing at $5.47 per share on March 2, 2026, the next trading day thereafter. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility and/or declines in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. Securities litigation (including the cost to defend against, and any potential adverse outcome resulting from any such proceeding) can be expensive, time-consuming, damage our reputation and divert our management’s and board of directors’ attention from other business concerns, which could adversely affect our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

We will continue to incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time and resources to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Nasdaq listing requirements, and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Complying with these rules and regulations has increased and will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act currently requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal control and procedures on a quarterly basis. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We may plan to hire additional support for financial reporting and internal controls and other finance personnel or consultants in order to improve and implement appropriate internal controls and reporting procedures, which will increase our costs and expenses.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time-consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be significantly harmed.

The future issuance of equity or of debt securities that are convertible into equity would dilute our share capital.

We may choose to raise additional capital in the future, depending on market conditions, strategic considerations and operational requirements. To the extent that additional capital is raised through the issuance of shares or other securities convertible into shares, our stockholders will be diluted. Future issuances of our common stock or other equity securities, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through future offerings of shares or equity securities. No prediction can be made as to the effect, if any, that future sales of common stock or other equity securities or the availability of common stock for future sales will have on the trading price of our common stock.

Pursuant to our 2025 Equity Incentive Plan (2025 Plan), our management is authorized to grant equity awards to our employees, directors and consultants. Initially, the aggregate number of shares of our common stock that may be issued pursuant to equity awards under the 2025 Plan was 2,150,000 shares, which was automatically increased by 1,090,767 shares effective January 1, 2026. Additionally, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the 2025 Plan will automatically increase on January 1st of each year, continuing through and including January 1, 2035, by 5% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or a lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors. Unless our board of directors elects not to increase the number of shares available for future grant each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall.

Further, in May 2025, the Compensation Committee of the board of directors (the Compensation Committee) approved the Company's 2025 Inducement Equity Incentive Plan (the 2025 Inducement Plan) and reserved 900,000 shares of common stock for issuance thereby. If the board of directors or Compensation Committee approves issuances under the 2025 Inducement Plan, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur could significantly reduce the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise adequate capital through the sale of additional equity or equity-linked securities.

The 777,912 shares of our common stock that are subject to outstanding options under the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (2017 Plan) as of December 31, 2025 became eligible for sale in the public market after our IPO, to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act. If these additional shares of our common stock are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

The holders of 11,439,838 shares of our outstanding common stock, or approximately 52.4% of our total outstanding common stock as of February 28, 2026, are entitled to rights with respect to the registration of their shares under the Securities Act. Registration of these shares under the Securities Act would result in the shares becoming freely tradable without restriction under the Securities Act, except for shares held by affiliates, as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act.

Any sales of securities by these stockholders could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

Techniques employed by short sellers may drive down the market price of our common stock.

Short selling is the practice of selling securities that the seller does not own, but rather has borrowed from a third-party with the intention of buying identical securities back at a later date to return to the lender. The short seller hopes to profit from a decline in the value of the securities between the sale of the borrowed securities and the purchase of the replacement shares, as the short seller expects to pay less in that purchase than it received in the sale. As it is in the short seller’s best interests for the price of the stock to decline, many short sellers publish, or arrange for the publication of, negative opinions regarding the relevant issuer and its business prospects in order to create negative market momentum and generate profits for themselves after selling a stock short. These short attacks have, in the past, led to selling of shares in the market. While we would strongly defend against any such short seller attacks, we may be constrained in the manner in which we can proceed against the relevant short seller by applicable state law or issues of commercial confidentiality. Such a situation could be costly and time-consuming, and could be distracting for our management team. Additionally, such allegations against us could negatively impact our business operations and stockholders' equity, and the value of any investment in our stock could be reduced.

We are an “emerging growth company” and a “smaller reporting company” and our election of reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In addition, as an emerging growth company, we are only required to provide two years of audited financial statements. We have taken advantage of these reduced reporting burdens in our periodic reports. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years following the completion of our IPO, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer,” which occurs when the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30, or if we have total annual gross revenue of $1.235 billion or more during any fiscal year before that time, in which cases we would no longer be an emerging growth company as of the following December 31, or if we issue more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during any three-year period before that time, in which case we would no longer be an emerging growth company immediately. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we could still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our share price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards, and therefore we are not subject to the same requirements to adopt new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and are able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures for so long as our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock may be influenced in part by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over the industry or securities analysts, or the content and opinions included in their reports and may never obtain research coverage by securities and industry analysts. If no or few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, or if analysts cease coverage of us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, and the trading price for our common stock could be impacted negatively.

If any of the analysts who cover us publish inaccurate or unfavorable research or opinions regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our preclinical studies and clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline.

Our failure to meet Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements could result in a delisting of our common stock.

If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq, such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to delist our common stock. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of our common stock and would impair your ability to sell or purchase our common stock when you wish to do so. In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow our common stock to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our common stock, prevent our common stock from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with the listing requirements of Nasdaq.

Unfavorable global economic or political conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our business is susceptible to general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. A global financial crisis or a global or regional political disruption could cause extreme volatility in the capital and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, including a recession or depression resulting from the political disruption, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including weakened demand for our current or future product candidates, if approved, and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy or political disruption could also strain our manufacturers or suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption, or cause our customers to delay making payments for our potential drugs, if approved. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and sanctions against Russia are causing disruptions to global economic conditions. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and instability in Venezuela could also cause disruptions to global economic conditions. Further, in recent years the global equity markets in general have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations, including as a result of economic uncertainty and increased interest rates, inflation, the government closure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, and liquidity concerns at other financial institutions that may be unrelated to our operating performance. Any of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the political or economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

Furthermore, the current U.S. administration has substantially departed from prior U.S. government international trade policy and has commenced activities to renegotiate, or potentially terminate, certain existing bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements and treaties with foreign countries. In addition, the current U.S. administration has initiated and is considering imposing additional tariffs on certain foreign goods. Related to this action, certain foreign governments, including China, have instituted or are considering imposing reciprocal tariffs on certain U.S. goods. It remains unclear what the current U.S. administration or foreign governments will or will not do with respect to tariffs or other international trade agreements and policies. A trade war or other governmental action related to tariffs or international trade agreements or policies has the potential to disrupt our research activities, affect our suppliers, increase the cost of materials purchased to manufacture our product candidates and negatively impact the United States or global economy or certain sectors thereof and, thus, could adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

We currently lease approximately 8,000 square feet of space as our primary headquarters in San Diego, California. The lease expires in December 2026. We believe that our existing facility is adequate to meet our current needs, although we may seek to negotiate new leases or evaluate additional or alternate spaces for our operations. We believe suitable additional alternative spaces will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of management, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity, reputational harm and other factors.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock has traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market since February 13, 2025 under the symbol “AARD”. Prior to February 13, 2025, there was no public market for our common stock.

Holders of Record

As of February 28, 2026, there were approximately 26 stockholders of record of our common stock. Certain shares are held in “street” name and accordingly, the number of beneficial owners of such shares is not known or included in the foregoing number.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We do not currently anticipate declaring or paying, in the foreseeable future, any cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to finance the operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors or any authorized committee thereof, subject to applicable laws, after considering our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors or such committee may deem relevant.

Stock Performance Graph

We are a smaller reporting company, as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, and are not required to provide a performance graph.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities.

None.

Use of Proceeds

On February 12, 2025, our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-284440) was declared effective by the SEC for our IPO. We sold an aggregate of 6,120,661 shares of common stock in the IPO, which included the partial exercise by the underwriters to purchase 232,661 additional shares, at an initial public offering price of $16.00 per share for gross proceeds of $97.9 million. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and RBC Capital Markets, LLC acted as joint book-running managers of our IPO, which has now terminated. After deducting underwriting discounts, commissions and offering costs paid by us totaling $10.4 million, the net proceeds from the offering were approximately $87.5 million. As of December 31, 2025, we estimate that we have used approximately $46.5 million of the proceeds from our IPO for general corporate purposes, including to fund the clinical development of ARD-101 and our other clinical and preclinical activities, as well as operating expenses. No offering expenses were paid or are payable, directly or indirectly, to our directors or officers, to persons owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities, or to any of our affiliates.

There has been no material change in the expected use of the net proceeds from our initial public offering as described in our final prospectus filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b) on February 13, 2025.

Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities

None.

Item 6. [Reserved]

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report. This discussion and other parts of this Annual Report contain forward-looking statements that involve risk, assumptions and uncertainties, such as statements of our plans, objectives, expectations, intentions, forecasts and projections. Our actual results and the timing of selected events could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements as a result of several factors, including those set forth under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors”, of this Annual Report and elsewhere in this Annual Report. You should carefully read Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors”, of this Annual Report to gain an understanding of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements. Please also see the section titled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel, small-molecule therapeutics to activate innate homeostatic pathways for the treatment of metabolic diseases. We target biological pathways associated with alleviating hunger that we believe have the potential to deliver transformative outcomes for patients. We have focused our efforts on developing selective compounds, targeting Bitter Taste Receptors (TAS2Rs) for hunger-associated conditions. Our initial compounds target TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen, which normally respond to the chemicals in food and participate in the gut-brain axis. Our research has shown that activating these receptors can induce the secretion of endogenous signaling molecules, including cholecystokinin (CCK), peptide YY (PYY) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1).

TAS2Rs are a family of 26 different nutrient-sensing G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are broadly expressed among vertebrates. TAS2Rs are present in the oral cavity to convey bitter taste and are highly expressed in many other tissues throughout the body where they are key in regulating metabolic and inflammatory pathways. CCK has long been recognized as a promising pharmaceutical target because its release is triggered with food and it helps suppress hunger, which is the feeling of discomfort that comes from a perception of not having eaten recently. We believe suppression of hunger could be complementary to the suppression of appetite reported from patients on GLP-1 receptor targeted treatments, which reduce the desirability of food. Previous approaches to directly agonize CCK receptors through exogenous molecules have been limited by safety concerns driven by systemic exposure, resulting in on-target, off-tissue toxicity, and in turn leading to adverse effects, such as pancreatitis. Our wholly-owned lead product candidate, ARD-101, is an oral, largely gut-restricted small-molecule agonist of certain TAS2Rs expressed in the gut lumen. ARD-101, in contrast to previous approaches to directly agonize CCK receptors, elicits the endogenous release of CCK by leveraging the body’s natural response to TAS2R agonism. Besides our product candidates, we are not aware of any approved or other clinical-stage candidates targeting certain TAS2Rs.

ARD-101 has limited systemic absorption, which we believe reduces the potential for systemic toxicity and has contributed to ARD-101 being well-tolerated in our Phase 1 and 2 trials. We have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of ARD-101 in healthy volunteers and a Phase 2 clinical trial in subjects with hyperphagia associated with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). The Phase 2 clinical trial in hyperphagia associated with PWS evaluated two dosing regimens over 28 days followed by a 14-day withdrawal period. In Part 1 of the trial, 12 subjects completed the treatment period at a fixed dose of 200 mg delivered orally twice daily (BID). These 12 subjects that completed treatment had no significant treatment-related adverse events and, of these subjects, eight completed the Hyperphagia for Clinical Trial Questionnaire-9 (HQ-CT 9), with seven having complete post–database lock datasets. In this subgroup of seven, the mean decline at day 28 was approximately 9 points. In Part 2 of the trial, four subjects were dosed under a revised protocol: 400 mg BID for seven days, followed by 600 mg BID for seven days and ending with 800 mg BID for 14 days. The four subjects that completed the trial per protocol had only grade 1 treatment-related adverse events and showed a decrease in HQ-CT 9 of approximately eight points at 28 days. In our completed Phase 2 clinical trial in subjects with hyperphagia associated with PWS, ARD-101 was shown to be well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity through a reduction in Hyperphagia Questionnaire for Clinical Trials (HQ-CT) scores.

In the second quarter of 2025, we initiated dosing for a Phase 3 clinical trial for hyperphagia associated with PWS, which we refer to as the HERO (Hunger Elimination or Reduction Objective) trial. We previously reached alignment with the FDA on a protocol for a Phase 3 clinical trial, which we initiated in December 2024. In August 2025, we submitted a protocol amendment to remove the use of anti-psychotics and insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes as exclusion criteria for the clinical trial. In October 2025, we reached alignment with the FDA on a protocol amendment to lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial from 13 to 10 years of age. This change broadened the eligible trial population and expanded the potential addressable opportunity within PWS. In December 2025, we submitted an additional protocol amendment seeking to further lower the minimum age of eligibility to participate in the trial to 7 years of age. During the third quarter of 2025, we commenced enrollment for the HERO Open Label Extension (OLE) trial, which was available to patients completing the HERO trial and we initiated our first clinical sites in Australia. In January 2026, we announced over 50% completion of the target enrollment of 90 patients in the HERO trial and within the first quarter of 2026, we initiated clinical sites in the UK, South Korea and Canada.

On February 27, 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the HERO and OLE trials following reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study and are currently reviewing the data and collaborating with the FDA to determine next steps.

As a result, aspects of the trial design, development timeline and future clinical plans may change. Following the voluntary pause, we are reviewing the trial designs and protocols in collaboration with the FDA and the previously agreed protocol elements may be revisited.

Our second TAS2R program, ARD-201, was planned to be a fixed-dose combination of ARD-101 and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor for the treatment of obesity and obesity-related conditions. We previously initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial, which we referred to as the POWER (Prevention Of WEight Regain) trial, in December 2025, to explore the efficacy of ARD-201 in the prevention of weight regain among patients who have successfully lost over 15% of body weight on GLP-1RA therapy. In addition, we previously planned to initiate a second Phase 2 trial for ARD-201 in the first half of 2026, which we referred to as the STRENGTH (Sitagliptin and TAS2R for weight Reduction with Exercise, Nutrition, and GLP-1RA Trial and Hunger assessment) trial. Because ARD-201 contains ARD-101 as a component of the planned combination therapy, we are assessing the potential implications of the voluntary pause of the HERO trial on the ARD-201 program. Following this assessment, we have voluntarily paused the STRENGTH and POWER clinical trials while we complete our ongoing evaluation of the safety observations identified in the healthy volunteer study of ARD-101 and continue discussions with the FDA regarding next steps for the ARD-101 program. We expect to provide further guidance in the second quarter of 2026.

In preparation for these trials, we expanded our clinical management and regulatory capabilities, including hiring clinical, regulatory and quality personnel, and we expect to continue to need to expand our clinical management and regulatory capabilities and to rely on third parties to conduct our later stage or pivotal clinical trials in the future. However, the timing of additional staffing and operational expansion may be delayed as we evaluate next steps following the voluntary pause of the HERO trial and related clinical programs.

Below is a summary of our portfolio of wholly-owned novel and proprietary small-molecule programs that we believe can induce satiety in patients with hunger-associated indications. As discussed above, certain clinical programs, including the HERO trial for ARD-101 and the POWER and STRENGTH trials for ARD-201, are currently paused while we evaluate safety observations and continue discussions with the FDA regarding next steps.

Our Hunger Associated TAS2R Pipeline

Beyond our lead product candidate, ARD-101, we are also developing other programs for the potential treatment of indications with high unmet need, including other indications mediated by TAS2R signaling.

Since we commenced operations in 2017, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, discovering ARD-101, establishing and maintaining our intellectual property portfolio, conducting research, preclinical studies, and clinical trials, manufacturing of ARD-101 and related raw materials, and providing general and administrative support for these operations.

We have incurred significant net losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception and, as of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $115.9 million. Our net losses for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 were $57.6 million and $20.6 million, respectively. We expect our expenses and operating losses will increase substantially for the foreseeable future as we:

If we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year, depending on the timing of and level of expense related to our clinical trials and preclinical studies and our other research and development activities and capital expenditures and the timing and amount of any milestone or royalty payments due under our existing or future license or collaboration agreements.

From inception and up to the date of our IPO in February 2025, we had raised a total of $129.1 million in gross proceeds to fund our operations from the sale and issuance of shares of our convertible preferred stock. In February 2025, we completed our IPO with the sale of 6,120,661 shares of common stock, which included the partial exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase 232,661 additional shares, at a price of $16.00 per share and received net proceeds of approximately $87.5 million. As of December 31, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $110.0 million. Based upon our current operating plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our projected operations into the second quarter of 2027. However, our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement that involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially. In February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in the Phase 3 HERO trial, the open label extension trial for ARD-101, and the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201 based on reversible cardiac observations in a healthy volunteer study of ARD-101. The voluntary pause of these clinical trials may affect the timing and amount of our future expenditures and our need for additional capital, depending on the outcome of our ongoing data review and discussions with the FDA regarding next steps for our clinical programs.

We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue to date. We do not expect to generate any revenue from product sales until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates, which we expect will take a number of years and may never occur. We will need substantial additional funding in addition to the net proceeds of our IPO to support our continuing operations and pursue our long-term business plan, including to complete the development and commercialization of ARD-101 and our other product candidates, if approved. Accordingly, until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of ARD-101 or our other product candidates, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through equity offerings, debt financings, or other capital sources, including potential collaborations, licenses, and other similar arrangements. However, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed on favorable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such other arrangements when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and could force us to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our research and development programs or other operations, or grant rights to develop and market our product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our ARD-101 and our other product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if ARD-101 or any of our other product candidates obtain marketing approval. We are working with our current manufacturers to ensure that we will be able to scale up our manufacturing capabilities to support our clinical plans. In addition, we rely on third parties to package, label, store, and distribute ARD-101, and we intend to rely on third parties for our commercial products if marketing approval is obtained. We believe that this strategy allows us to maintain a more efficient infrastructure by eliminating the need for us to invest in our own manufacturing facilities, equipment, and personnel while also enabling us to focus our expertise and resources on the discovery and development of ARD-101 and our other product candidates.

Given our stage of development, we do not yet have a marketing or sales organization or commercial infrastructure; however, we intend to build the necessary sales, marketing and commercialization capabilities and infrastructure over time as our product candidates advance through clinical development if and when our product candidates advance through clinical development and receive regulatory approval.

We expect to spend a significant amount in commercial development and marketing costs prior to obtaining regulatory and marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

Macroeconomic Trends

We may be affected by unfavorable economic conditions and challenges in the United States and abroad, such as the effects of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, the instability in Venezuela, disruptions in the banking industry and inflationary trends. The fiscal years 2025 and 2024 were marked by significant market uncertainty and increasing inflationary pressures. These market dynamics are expected to continue into 2026, and these and similar adverse market conditions may negatively impact our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects. For further discussion of the potential impacts of macroeconomic events on us, refer to Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors”, of this Annual Report.

Components of Our Results of Operations

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from the sale of products. We do not expect to generate any such revenue unless and until such time as ARD-101 and our other product candidates have advanced through clinical development and regulatory approval, if ever. If we fail to complete preclinical and clinical development of any product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for them, our ability to generate future revenues, and our results of operations and financial position would be adversely affected.

Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses consist of (i) research and development expenses, (ii) general and administrative expenses and (iii) credit losses recorded on related party convertible promissory note and accounts receivable.

Research and Development

Our research and development (R&D) expenses consist primarily of external and internal costs incurred in performing preclinical and clinical development activities. Research and development expenses are recognized as incurred and payments made prior to the receipt of goods or services to be used in research and development are capitalized until the goods or services are received.

Our research and development expenses consist principally of:

We do not track our research and development expenses on a program-specific basis or allocate our internal costs associated with our discovery and development efforts because these costs are deployed across multiple programs and, as such, are not separately classified. Since our inception and through December 31, 2025, substantially all of our external costs have been related to the research and development of ARD-101.

Although R&D activities are central to our business model, the successful development of ARD-101 and our other product candidates is highly uncertain. We cannot determine with certainty the timing of initiation, the duration or the completion costs of current or future preclinical studies and clinical trials of ARD-101 or any other current or future product candidates due to the inherently unpredictable nature of preclinical and clinical development. There are numerous factors associated with the successful development of a product candidate, including future trial design and various regulatory requirements, many of which cannot be determined with accuracy at this time based on our stage of development. In addition, future regulatory factors beyond our control may impact our clinical development programs. Product candidates in later stages of development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of development. As a result, we expect that our R&D expenses will increase substantially for the foreseeable future as we continue to conduct our ongoing R&D activities, advance preclinical research programs toward clinical development, conduct clinical trials, hire additional personnel, and maintain, expand, protect, and enforce our intellectual property portfolio.

At this time, we cannot accurately estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the preclinical and clinical development of any of our product candidates. Our future R&D expenses may vary significantly based on a wide variety of factors such as:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to development of any of our product candidates could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate.

The process of conducting the necessary preclinical and clinical research to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming. The actual probability of success for ARD-101 or any other current or future product candidates may be affected by a variety of factors. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. Preclinical and clinical development timelines, the probability of success, and total development costs can differ materially from expectations. We anticipate that we will make determinations as to which product candidates to pursue and how much funding to direct to each product candidate on an ongoing basis in response to the results of ongoing and future preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory developments, and our ongoing assessments as to each product candidates’ commercial potential. We will need to raise substantial additional capital in the future. In addition, we cannot forecast which product candidate may be subject to future collaborations, when such arrangements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements.

General and Administrative

Our general and administrative (G&A) expenses consist primarily of personnel-related costs such as salaries, bonuses, payroll taxes, employee benefits, travel, and stock-based compensation expense for employees involved in executive, accounting and finance, legal, and other administrative functions. Other significant costs include allocated facility-related costs, legal fees relating to intellectual property and corporate matters, professional fees for accounting and consulting services, insurance costs, and business development expenses.

We expect that our G&A expenses will increase substantially for the foreseeable future as we continue to increase our general and administrative headcount to support our continued R&D activities and, if ARD-101 or our other product candidates receive marketing approval, commercialization activities, as well as to support our operations generally, although the timing of additional hiring may depend on the outcome of our evaluation of the voluntary pause of the HERO trial and related clinical programs. We also expect to incur increased expenses related to audit, legal, regulatory, and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with exchange listing and SEC requirements, director and officer insurance premiums, and investor relations costs associated with operating as a public company.

Credit Loss – Related Party Accounts Receivable

In connection with a Transition Services Agreement (the Transition Services Agreement) entered into with Aardwolf Therapeutics, Inc. (Aardwolf), which was effective through May 31, 2024, we performed certain services and billed Aardwolf monthly. As Aardwolf currently does not have the ability to repay the related party receivables, these amounts are deemed uncollectible and have been written off until such time as Aardwolf has the ability to repay.

In addition, in August 2022, we loaned Aardwolf $1.0 million in the form of a convertible promissory note, which, based on its current inability to repay, we also have written off as uncollectible. We will reassess the estimated recovery on previous written off balances at each reporting period.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net consists primarily of interest income earned on our invested cash and cash equivalents, dividend income and changes in the fair value of equity securities held as investments.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Year Ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

The following table summarizes our results of operations for each of the periods indicated:

Research and Development Expenses

The following table summarizes our R&D expenses for each of the periods indicated:

R&D expenses were $48.9 million and $17.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The $31.6 million increase for the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2024 resulted primarily from an increase of $23.4 million for external expenses incurred for chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC), clinical and toxicology studies primarily related to the development of ARD-101 and a $7.7 million increase in personnel-related costs due to increased headcount and bonuses.

General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses

G&A expenses were $13.8 million and $5.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The $8.5 million increase for the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2024 resulted from a $4.5 million increase in personnel-related costs, a $2.4 million increase in legal, accounting and other professional services costs, a $0.7 million increase in facilities and other costs, a $0.6 million increase in insurance costs and a $0.2 million increase for fees paid to members of our board of directors.

Credit Loss – Related Party Accounts Receivable

Amounts written off as uncollectible related to the Transition Services Agreement with Aardwolf were zero and $0.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The $0.1 million decrease for the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2024 was due to the expiration of the Transition Services Agreement in May 2024.

Other Income, Net

Other income, net was $5.1 million and $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The $2.9 million increase for the year ended December 31, 2025 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2024 resulted from higher interest income generated by our invested cash and lower unrealized losses recorded on the change in the fair value of our short-term investments, offset by lower dividend income.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Sources of Liquidity

We have not generated any revenue from product sales and have incurred net losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception and anticipate we will continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future. From inception and up to the date of our IPO in February 2025, we had raised a total of $129.1 million in gross proceeds to fund our operations from the sale and issuance of shares of our convertible preferred stock. In February 2025, we completed our IPO with the sale of 6,120,661 shares of common stock, which included the partial exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase 232,661 additional shares, at an initial public offering price of $16.00 per share and received net proceeds of $87.5 million.

Future Funding Requirements

As of December 31, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $110.0 million. Based upon our current operating plans, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our projected operations into the second quarter of 2027. However, our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement that involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we expect. Additionally, the process of conducting preclinical studies, manufacturing and testing product candidates in clinical trials is costly, and the timing of progress and expenses in these studies and trials is uncertain. In February 2026, we voluntarily paused enrollment and dosing in our Phase 3 HERO trial, the open label extension trial for ARD-101, and the POWER and STRENGTH clinical trials for ARD-201. The voluntary pause of these clinical trials may affect the timing and amount of our future expenditures and our need for additional capital, depending on the outcome of our ongoing data review and discussions with the FDA regarding next steps for our clinical programs.

We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and, as of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $115.9 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase substantially for the reasons described above.

Our future capital requirements are difficult to predict and depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

We have no other committed sources of capital. Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, if ever, we expect to finance our future cash needs primarily through equity offerings, debt financings, or other capital sources, including potential collaborations, licenses, and other similar arrangements. However, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed on favorable terms or at all. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be or could be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through other collaborations or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our future revenue streams, product candidates, research programs, intellectual property or proprietary technology, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings or other arrangements when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our R&D programs or other operations, or grant rights to develop and market our product candidates to third parties that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves, or on less favorable terms than we would otherwise choose.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our cash flows for each of the periods indicated:

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $54.2 million and $18.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The net cash used in operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2025 was primarily due to our reported net loss of $57.6 million, net of non-cash items (including unrealized losses on short-term investments, credit losses, stock-based compensation expense and right-of-use asset amortization) totaling $3.1 million and a $0.4 million net increase of our net operating assets. The net cash used in operating activities during the year ended December 31, 2024 was primarily due to our reported net loss of $20.6 million, net of non-cash items (including unrealized losses on short-term investments, credit losses, stock-based compensation expense and right-of-use asset amortization) totaling $0.9 million and a $1.6 million net increase of our net operating assets. The increase in cash used in operations during the year ended December 31, 2025 in comparison to the year ended December 31, 2024 was primarily attributable to increased research and development activities.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $49.7 million and $12.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, primarily as a result of the purchases of short-term investments offset by maturities/sales of short-term investments during the periods.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $89.2 million and $82.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2025 is primarily as a result of proceeds from the sale and issuance of shares of our common stock in our IPO in February 2025 for proceeds of $91.1 million, net of underwriting discounts, offset by payments for IPO costs of $2.4 million, and proceeds totaling $0.6 million from the issuance of shares of common stock under our equity plans. Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2024 is primarily as a result of proceeds from the sale and issuance of shares of our Series C convertible preferred stock in May 2024 for net proceeds of $82.9 million, offset by payments for deferred IPO costs of $1.2 million.

Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments

We entered into a lease for office space commencing on August 1, 2024 and expiring on December 31, 2026. Total future aggregate operating lease commitments under the lease agreement is $0.4 million.

In August 2023, we acquired the rights to certain intellectual property, in connection with which we have payment obligations up to an aggregate of $118.5 million that are contingent upon our achievement of specified regulatory and commercial milestones. In addition, in October 2024, we acquired the rights to certain assets in exchange for an upfront cash payment of $0.6 million, in connection with which we have payment obligations up to an aggregate of $62.0 million that are contingent upon our achievement of specified regulatory and commercial milestones. As of December 31, 2025, we were unable to estimate the timing or likelihood of achieving the milestones or making future product sales. For additional information regarding this agreement, including our payment obligations thereunder, see Note 10 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

During the normal course of our business, we enter into contracts for research and professional services, and for the purchase of lab supplies used in our research activities. These contracts generally provide for termination after a notice period, and, therefore, are cancelable contracts and not separately presented.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Since our inception, we have not had, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined under the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Critical Accounting Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our consolidated financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, including those related to accrued expenses and stock-based compensation expense. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report, we believe the following accounting estimates to be most critical to the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Accrued R&D Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued R&D expenses as of each balance sheet date. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf, and estimating the level of service performed and the associated cost incurred for the service when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual cost. We make estimates of our accrued R&D expenses as of each balance sheet date based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. The significant estimates in our accrued R&D expenses include the costs incurred for services performed by our vendors in connection with services for which we have not yet been invoiced.

We base our expenses related to R&D activities on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to quotes and contracts with vendors that conduct R&D on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract, and may result in uneven payment flows.

There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the R&D expense. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we adjust the accrual or prepaid expense accordingly. Advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future R&D activities are expensed when the activity has been performed or when the goods have been received rather than when the payment is made.

Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, if our estimates of the status and timing of services performed differ from the actual status and timing of services performed, it could result in us reporting amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. To date, there have been no material differences between our estimates of such expenses and the amounts actually incurred.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report for recently adopted accounting pronouncements.

Emerging Growth Company and Smaller Reporting Company Status

We qualify as an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. As an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of specified reduced disclosure and other requirements that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include: (i) being permitted to present only two years of audited financial statements, in addition to any required unaudited condensed financial statements, with correspondingly reduced “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” disclosure in this Annual Report; (ii) reduced disclosure about our executive compensation arrangements; (iii) not being required to hold advisory votes on executive compensation or to obtain stockholder approval of any golden parachute arrangements not previously approved; (iv) an exemption from the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and (v) an exemption from compliance with the requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the communication of critical audit matters in the auditor’s report on the financial statements.

We may take advantage of these exemptions for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company on the date that is the earliest of:

(i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenues of $1.235 billion or more;

(ii) December 31, 2030 (the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the completion of our IPO);

(iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; or

(iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC.

We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these exemptions. We have elected to avail ourselves of this exemption and, therefore, while we are an emerging growth company we will not be subject to new or revised accounting standards at the same time that they become applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to those of other public companies that comply with new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates. We may choose to early adopt any new or revised accounting standards whenever such early adoption is permitted for private companies.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company even after we are no longer an emerging growth company. We may take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies and will be able to take advantage of these scaled disclosures for so long as the market value of our shares of common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, or our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our shares of common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700.0 million measured on the last business day of our second fiscal quarter.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Interest Rate Risk

Our cash and cash equivalents consist of cash held in readily available checking and money market accounts, as well as short-term debt securities. We are exposed to market risk related to fluctuations in interest rates and market prices.

Our primary exposure to market risk is interest rate sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of U.S. interest rates. However, because of the short-term nature of the instruments in our portfolio, we do not believe a hypothetical 100 basis point increase or decrease in interest rates during any of the periods presented would have had a material impact on our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Foreign Currency

Net realized and unrealized gains and losses from foreign currency transactions are reported in other income (expense), net, in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. All of our employees and our operations are currently located in the United States and our expenses are generally denominated in U.S. dollars. However, we have contracted with and may continue to contract with non-U.S. vendors who we may pay in local currency. To date, the impact of foreign currency costs on our operations has been negligible for all periods presented and we have not had a formal hedging program with respect to foreign currency. Therefore, we do not believe a hypothetical 100 basis point increase or decrease in exchange rates during any of the periods presented would have had a material impact on our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Inflation Risk

Inflation generally affects us by increasing our cost of labor and clinical trial costs. We do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on our results of operations during the periods presented.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc.

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Stockholders and Board of Directors

Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc.

San Diego, California

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ BDO USA, P.C.

We have served as the Company's auditor since 2021.

San Diego, California

March 23, 2026

AARDVARK THERAPEUTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share and par value data)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

AARDVARK THERAPEUTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

AARDVARK THERAPEUTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK

AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)

(in thousands, except share data)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

AARDVARK THERAPEUTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

AARDVARK THERAPEUTICS, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS