​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

​

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024

OR

​

For the Transition Period from to

Commission File Number: 001-38501

SCHOLAR ROCK HOLDING CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

301 Binney Street, 3rd Floor

Cambridge, MA 02142

(857) 259-3860

(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices)

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, a 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 ☒

As of June 30, 2024, the last day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $394.7 million based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2024. The calculation excludes shares of the registrant’s common stock held by current executive officers, directors and stockholders that the registrant has concluded are affiliates of the registrant. This determination of affiliate status is not a determination for other purposes.

As of February 24, 2025, there were 94,676,763 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which the registrant intends to file pursuant to Regulation 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

​

​

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”), including the documents incorporated by reference, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). We intend these forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are including this statement for purposes of complying with those safe harbor provisions. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Some of the risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, among others, the following:

The risks set forth above are not exhaustive. Other sections of this report may include additional factors that could adversely affect our business and financial performance. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all risk factors 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. Given these risks and uncertainties, investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements as a prediction of actual results. Investors should also refer to our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for future periods and Current Reports on Form 8-K as we file them with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and to other materials we may furnish to the public from time to time through Current Reports on Form 8-K or otherwise, for a discussion of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. We expressly disclaim any responsibility to update any forward-looking statements to reflect changes in underlying assumptions or factors, new information, future events, or otherwise, and you should not rely upon these forward-looking statements after the date of this report.

We may from time to time provide estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, the general business environment, and the markets for certain diseases, including estimates regarding the potential size of those markets and the estimated incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties, and actual events, circumstances or numbers, including actual disease prevalence rates and market size, may differ materially from the information reflected in this Annual Report. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry data, business information, market data, prevalence information and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data, and similar sources, in some cases applying our own assumptions and analysis that may, in the future, prove not to have been accurate.

​

​

PART I

Item 1. Business

We are a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and delivery of innovative medicines for the treatment of serious diseases in which signaling by protein growth factors plays a fundamental role. As a global leader in transforming growth factor beta (“TGFβ”) superfamily biology, our novel understanding of the molecular mechanisms of growth factor activation enabled us to develop a proprietary platform for the discovery and development of monoclonal antibodies that locally and selectively target the precursor, or latent, forms of growth factors. By targeting the signaling proteins at the cellular level and acting in the disease microenvironment, we believe we may avoid the historical dose-limiting safety challenges associated with inhibiting growth factors for therapeutic effect. We believe our focus on biologically validated growth factors may facilitate a more efficient development path.

Based on this proprietary and scalable technology platform, we are building a growing portfolio of novel product candidates with the aim of transforming the lives of patients suffering from a wide range of serious diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, cancer, fibrosis and iron-restricted anemia. We have discovered and progressed the development of:

Our first product candidate, apitegromab, is a highly selective, fully human, monoclonal antibody, with a unique mechanism of action that results in inhibition of the activation of the growth factor, myostatin, in skeletal muscle. Apitegromab is being developed as a potential first muscle-targeted therapy for the treatment of SMA. We completed SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with nonambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA (which is estimated to represent the majority of the current prevalent SMA patient population in the U.S. and Europe) and announced positive top-line results in October 2024. The study achieved its primary endpoint (see “Phase 3 SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial” below). We submitted a U.S. Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA in January 2025 and are planning to submit a European Union marketing authorization application to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in the first quarter of 2025. If apitegromab is approved, we expect to initiate a commercial product launch in the fourth quarter of 2025 in the United States, with a commercial launch of apitegromab in Europe to follow.

​

Apitegromab was evaluated in our Phase 2 TOPAZ proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA. Positive 12-month top-line results were initially announced in April 2021. We have subsequently presented data from the TOPAZ trial over 24-months (2022), 36-months (2023) and 48-months (2024). At 48-months over 90% of TOPAZ patients with nonambulatory Type 2 and 3 SMA receiving a survival motor neuron (“SMN”) therapy remained on apitegromab treatment and showed sustained clinical benefit, a continued favorable safety profile with no new safety findings (see “Phase 2 TOPAZ Proof-of-Concept Trial” below). Additionally, we are conducting a long-term extension study, ONYX, for patients from both the TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE studies, who were receiving apitegromab in conjunction with an approved SMN therapy. The FDA granted Fast Track designation, Rare Pediatric Disease designation and Orphan Drug designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA in May 2021, August 2020 and March 2018, respectively. The EMA granted Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) designation in March 2021 and the EC granted orphan medicinal product designation in December 2018 to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA.

​

In October 2023, we announced an expansion of our therapeutic focus into cardiometabolic disorders by advancing our anti-myostatin program with SRK-439, a novel, fully human anti-myostatin monoclonal antibody, for evaluation in cardiometabolic disorders, including obesity. We are developing SRK-439 towards a potential investigational new drug application (“IND”) submission in the third quarter of 2025. In 2024, we presented preclinical data at scientific conferences which support the potential of SRK-439 to increase lean mass and contribute to a favorable body composition in conjunction with a GLP-1 receptor agonist (“GLP-1 RA”) treatment. To inform the development of SRK-439, in May 2024 we initiated the Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial, designed to assess the safety and efficacy of apitegromab to preserve muscle mass in individuals living with obesity and on background therapy of a GLP-1 RA. In September 2024, we announced that we completed enrollment in the Phase 2 EMRAZE proof-of-concept trial. Top-line results from this trial are expected in the second quarter of 2025.

We believe that apitegromab has the potential to be the first muscle-targeted therapy that is aimed at improving motor function in patients with SMA who are receiving an SMN therapy. We have identified multiple other diseases for which the selective inhibition of the activation of myostatin may offer therapeutic benefit, including additional patient populations in SMA (such as patients with SMA under 2 years of age) and indications for other neuromuscular disorders beyond SMA.

Our second product candidate, SRK-181, a highly selective inhibitor of the activation of latent TGFβ1, is being developed for the treatment of cancers that are resistant to checkpoint inhibitor therapies (“CPI therapies”), such as anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody therapies (referred to together as anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapies). SRK-181 is being evaluated in our Phase 1 DRAGON proof-of-concept clinical trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that exhibit resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapies. We completed enrollment of the DRAGON trial in December 2023 and continue to treat patients who remain on study. This two-part clinical trial consists of a dose escalation portion (Part A) and a dose expansion portion evaluating SRK-181 in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy (Part B). Part B commenced in 2021 and includes the following active cohorts: urothelial carcinoma, cutaneous melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (“ccRCC”) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (“HNSCC”). Safety, efficacy and biomarker data were presented in June 2024 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) annual meeting and in November 2024 at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (“SITC”) 39th Annual Meeting. The data showed encouraging responses in heavily pretreated and anti-PD-(L)1 resistant patients across multiple tumor types. We believe that the DRAGON trial achieved its study objectives by showing objective, durable clinical responses in patients with ccRCC resistant to PD-1 therapy above what is expected from continuing PD-1 alone. We anticipate that emerging data from the DRAGON trial will be presented at medical meetings in the future.

Beyond these programs, we continue to discover and develop highly specific monoclonal antibodies to selectively modulate growth factor signaling. Growth factors are naturally occurring proteins that typically act as signaling molecules between cells and play a fundamental role in regulating a variety of normal cellular processes, including cell growth and differentiation. Current therapeutic approaches to treating diseases in which growth factors play a fundamental role involve directly targeting the active form of the growth factor or its receptor systemically throughout the body.

These approaches have suffered from a variety of shortcomings, including lack of pathway selectivity, lack of target selectivity, and non-localized target inhibition.

Our innovative approach is rooted in our structural biology insights into the mechanism by which certain growth factors are activated in close proximity to the cell surface. We integrate these insights with sophisticated protein expression, monoclonal antibody discovery capabilities, and assay development to test the characteristics of our monoclonal antibodies. We believe our proprietary platform can address the challenges of treating diseases in which growth factors play a fundamental role by:

Our structural insights and unique antibody discovery capabilities can be applied to other protein classes beyond growth factors, with an aim of generating differentiated candidates targeting cell surface receptors such as immune cell receptors or G-protein coupled receptors, where selectivity remains challenging.

Our innovative approach is rooted in our novel understanding of the molecular mechanisms of growth factor activation and signaling and is designed to discover and develop monoclonal antibody product candidates that can inhibit the activation of a growth factor with an unprecedented degree of selectivity. Our proprietary platform is designed to generate highly selective antibodies that target the growth factor’s latent precursor form prior to its activation within the disease microenvironment, or tissue where it is localized.

Growth factors are naturally occurring proteins that typically act as signaling molecules between cells and play a fundamental role in regulating a variety of normal cellular processes. Members of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors, for example, can mediate diverse biological functions, including cell growth and differentiation, tissue homeostasis, immune modulation and extracellular matrix remodeling. Growth factors have also been shown to play a fundamental role in a variety of disease processes. Because of the importance of growth factors in multiple diseases, the pharmaceutical industry has made many attempts to inhibit growth factors in a variety of therapeutic settings. However, products utilizing conventional approaches have seen only limited success. Current therapeutic approaches to treating diseases in which growth factors play a fundamental role involve directly targeting an activated growth factor or its receptor systemically throughout the body and have suffered from a variety of shortcomings:

Our approach to the discovery and development of growth factor targeted drugs is new and different from traditional approaches. Our approach of targeting the precursor, or latent forms of growth factors is based on the breakthrough discovery by the laboratory of our cofounder, Timothy A. Springer, Ph.D. of Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital.

Unlike many other proteins that are produced and secreted by cells in a mature, or active, form, many growth factors are expressed by cells in a latent form. For example, TGFβ1 is produced by cells as a single protein which is then enzymatically processed by the cells into two distinct and physically separated domains — the mature growth factor and the remaining portion of the original protein, referred to as the prodomain — which remain associated as part of a complex. This secreted complex is latent, or inactive, and must first be activated to carry out its normal function in a highly localized tissue or disease microenvironment. In a seminal peer-reviewed publication in 2011, Dr. Springer elucidated a new understanding of the mechanism of activation of the latent growth factor complex among members of the TGFβ superfamily by solving a high-resolution x-ray crystal structure of this latent form of TGFβ1 (as illustrated in the graphic below).

​

Structural representation of the latent form of TGFβ1 wherein the prodomain wraps around the active growth factor

​

This research explained at a molecular level why the secreted form of TGFβ1 is inactive. The prodomain, though physically separated from the mature growth factor domain, forms a “cage” around the active form of TGFβ1, blocking the growth factor from signaling through its receptor. Only when the cage is “unlocked” by a precursor activation event can the growth factor be released and mediate its effects in the local microenvironment. Dr. Springer further hypothesized that this phenomenon likely holds true for most members of the TGFβ superfamily, though the exact nature of the activation event, such as integrin binding or enzymatic cleavage, may differ among members of the superfamily. Importantly, while many growth factors are structurally very similar, their cages are structurally diverse, and this provides the basis for our approach to improved selectivity.

We believe that there are several important advantages to our approach of targeting the precursor, or latent, forms of growth factors over conventional therapeutic approaches, which inhibit mature growth factors or their receptors systemically throughout the body:

To enable our novel approach, we have built a proprietary platform that is rooted in our structural biology insights into activation of latent growth factor precursors. We integrate these insights with sophisticated protein expression, monoclonal antibody discovery capabilities, and assay development to test the characteristics of our monoclonal antibodies. In addition to this know-how, our proprietary platform is covered by patents projected to expire well into the 2030s, excluding any patent term adjustments or extensions. The key elements of our proprietary platform include the following:

Using our innovative approach and proprietary platform, we are creating a pipeline of novel product candidates that selectively modulate the activation of growth factors implicated in a variety of serious diseases. Our structural insights and unique antibody discovery capabilities can also be applied to other protein classes beyond growth factors, with an aim of generating differentiated candidates targeting cell surface receptors such as immune cell receptors or G-protein coupled receptors, where selectivity remains challenging.

We have assembled an experienced management team, board of directors, and scientific founders who bring extensive industry experience to our company. The members of our team have deep experience in discovering, developing and commercializing therapeutics, having worked at companies such as: Acceleron Pharma, Inc.; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Celgene Corporation; Foundation Medicine, Inc.; and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

We were founded by internationally respected scientists, Drs. Timothy A. Springer and Leonard I. Zon of Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital.

Using our proprietary platform to unlock the therapeutic potential of targeting growth factor signaling in the disease microenvironment, our goal is to deliver novel therapies to underserved patients suffering from a wide range of serious diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, cancer, fibrosis and iron-restricted anemia. To achieve this goal, we plan to:

​

​

We believe that additional product candidates in the TGFβ portfolio have the potential to address other disorders associated with increased TGFβ signaling, including tissue and organ fibrosis. To advance the discovery and development of selected inhibitors originating from our TGFβ program that we believe have the potential to address unmet medical needs in non-oncology indications, we entered into a three-year fibrosis-focused collaboration with Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”) in 2018. At the conclusion of the agreement in January 2022, the rights to the respective antibodies reverted to us. We have identified a suite of anti-fibrotic antibodies with novel selectivity profiles that were discovered over the course of the collaboration including those which may have therapeutic potential for the treatment of organ fibrosis by inhibiting TGFβ1 function in connective tissue while having no impact on the activation or signaling of TGFβ1 in the immune system. We plan to continue the advancement of these assets as part of our growing preclinical pipeline.

​

In addition, using our structural insight, we have identified modulators of BMP6 (a TGFβ superfamily growth factor) by selectively inhibiting its co-receptor RGMc or hemojuvelin which is required for activation. BMP6 functions as a critical control point in iron modulation via regulation of hepcidin. Traditional approaches to inhibiting the signaling of BMP6 systemically would likely perturb the numerous different physiological processes in which BMP6 is involved. Our approach could provide the potential for tissue specific modulation of BMP signaling and iron regulation.

​

​

Using our innovative approach and proprietary platform, we are creating a differentiated pipeline of novel product candidates that selectively inhibit the activation of latent growth factors believed to be important drivers in a variety of diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, cancer, fibrosis, and iron-restricted anemia. Our proprietary platform includes (i) our know-how enabling expression and purification of latent protein growth factor complexes in quantity and quality sufficient to enable antibody discovery; (ii) strategies to identify rare antibodies that selectively bind targeted latent protein growth factor complexes; and (iii) assays developed by us to test the highly selective antibodies’ ability to modulate the activation of specific latent growth factors. We have worldwide rights to our proprietary platform and all of our product candidates.

The following summarizes our pipeline programs:

Utilizing our proprietary platform, we targeted the precursor form of myostatin and generated two novel antibodies, each with a design tailored for specific patient populations: apitegromab for SMA and SRK-439 for obesity. Both antibodies are novel, highly selective inhibitors of the activation of myostatin from its inactive precursor in skeletal muscle, where myostatin resides and signals upon activation. While mature myostatin is 90% identical in the growth factor domain to its most closely related TGFβ superfamily member, GDF11, the prodomain that cages mature myostatin and keeps it in its latent precursor form is only 52% identical to the GDF11 prodomain.

In preclinical studies, we have shown that apitegromab selectively avoids interaction with other closely related growth factors that play distinct physiological roles. We observed multi-fold increases in serum latent myostatin levels in mouse models of both early and late SMN restoration and that apitegromab promoted increased strength (as measured by torque generation) in SMN-deficient mice. In a Phase 1 clinical trial designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic (“PK”) /pharmacodynamic (“PD”) profile of apitegromab in adult healthy volunteers, there were no dose-limiting toxicities and we observed robust and sustained target engagement following administration of apitegromab.

SRK-439 has also shown robust preclinical efficacy, as detailed in “Cardiometabolic Disorders – SRK-439 (inhibitor of latent myostatin)” section below. We believe that these results, from two diet-induced obesity (“DIO”) mice models provide the scientific rationale and support the hypothesis that inhibition of myostatin in combination with GLP-1 RA-driven weight loss may lead to retention of lean muscle.

i. Role of Myostatin

​

Myostatin, also known as growth differentiation factor 8 (“GDF8”), is a member of the TGFβ superfamily and is produced by skeletal muscle cells. As with other tissues and organs in the human body, healthy muscle homeostasis is maintained by a proper balance of growth signals, or anabolic stimuli, and breakdown signals, or catabolic stimuli. In humans, the anabolic stimuli that drive muscle growth are proteins, such as the human growth hormone and the insulin like growth factor 1.

In contrast, myostatin is a catabolic agent that functions as a negative regulator of muscle mass. Animals lacking functional myostatin genes, or its receptor, have larger muscles and increased strength compared to normal animals. Such animals are otherwise healthy and live a normal lifespan.

ii. Traditional Approaches and Challenges

​

Because of its role in regulating muscle mass, myostatin has been a popular target for a variety of drug development programs. There have been two general approaches to trying to inhibit the signaling of myostatin in humans. The first is to develop an antibody, or an antibody-like molecule, that binds to mature myostatin in circulation and prevents its ability to signal through its receptor, the ActRIIb receptor. The second is to develop an antibody to the ActRIIb receptor itself, or a soluble decoy of the ActRIIb receptor, with a goal of preventing myostatin signaling through its receptor. Both of these approaches, however, have significant limitations.

As a member of the TGFβ superfamily, mature myostatin shares considerable structural similarity with other family members. For example, the active form of myostatin and its most closely related family member, GDF11, are 90% identical in the growth factor domains, making it extremely challenging to identify antibodies that are truly specific for myostatin and do not interfere with other targets. Moreover, attempts to interrupt myostatin signaling through its receptor are complicated by the fact that the ActRIIb receptor, in addition to being the receptor for myostatin, is also the receptor for a number of related family members, including GDF11, activins and other growth factors. Attempts to block the signaling of myostatin by targeting its receptor therefore inevitably interfere with the signaling of these other growth factors, many of which are involved in normal biological processes unrelated to muscle.

There are multiple examples of clinical trials demonstrating the risk of non-selective inhibition of myostatin. For example, in a Phase 2 clinical trial in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy reported in 2017, a soluble decoy of the ActRIIb receptor resulted in bleeding side effects believed by the sponsor to be unrelated to inhibition of myostatin signaling, but instead related to the inhibition of signaling by certain other members of the TGFβ superfamily known to be important in the maintenance of vascular integrity. These side effects resulted in termination of the clinical program. More recently, results from a clinical trial were reported showing that treatment of patients with an antibody to the ActRIIb receptor resulted in suppression of the levels of follicle stimulating hormone, an important reproductive hormone. In this clinical trial, the sponsor believed that these effects were likely related to inhibition of signaling through the ActRIIb receptor.

iii. Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Apitegromab (inhibitor of latent myostatin activation)

​

We believe that the therapeutic potential for apitegromab in improving motor function is more optimal when a given disease bears certain features, including neuromuscular disorders with muscle atrophy as a key component of disease pathogenesis, presence of intact or partially intact muscle innervations, absence of significant muscle structural abnormalities, and where validated clinical outcome measures are available to assess muscle function in a clinical trial. SMA is a genetic disorder with onset commonly in childhood and where there is a significant but incomplete loss of motor neurons, ensuring at least some intact signaling between skeletal muscle and nerve. In addition, generally, there are also no apparent structural abnormalities in the skeletal muscle. The partial loss of motor neurons causes substantial muscle atrophy that in turn leads to many of the motor function impairments. Validated outcome measures, such as the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (“HFMSE”), are available for SMA clinical trials that are relevant to muscle function. These endpoints therefore measure an outcome that may be more likely to be directly affected by apitegromab.

​

Key disease features of SMA are aligned with Scholar Rock’s guiding principles for neuromuscular indication selection for apitegromab

We are developing apitegromab as a selective muscle-targeted therapy for the treatment of SMA. Myostatin, a member of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors, is expressed primarily in skeletal muscle cells and the absence of its gene is associated with an increase in muscle mass and strength in multiple animal species. We believe that inhibition of the activation of myostatin may promote a clinically meaningful increase in motor function.

Apitegromab was evaluated in our Phase 2 TOPAZ proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA and positive 12-month top-line results were announced in April 2021. We have subsequently presented data from the TOPAZ trial over 24-months (2022), 36-months (2023) and 48-months (2024). See “Phase 2 TOPAZ Proof-of-Concept Trial” below. In October 2024, we announced positive top-line results from SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with nonambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA receiving SMN therapy. We reported that the study achieved its primary endpoint. See “Phase 3 SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial” below. We submitted a BLA to the FDA in January 2025 and requested priority review, and we plan to submit a marketing authorization application to the EMA in the first quarter of 2025. Assuming marketing approval is obtained, we plan to commercially launch apitegromab in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2025 with a commercial launch of apitegromab in Europe to follow.

We believe that apitegromab has the potential to be the first muscle-targeted therapy that is aimed at improving motor function in patients with SMA who are receiving an SMN therapy. We have identified multiple other diseases for which the selective inhibition of the activation of myostatin may offer therapeutic benefit, including additional patient populations in SMA (such as patients under the age of two with SMA and ambulatory patients with SMA) and indications for other neuromuscular disorders beyond SMA.

1. Background on SMA

SMA is a rare, and often fatal, genetic disorder that typically manifests in young children. It is characterized by the loss of motor neurons, atrophy of the voluntary muscles of the limbs and trunk and progressive muscle weakness. Disease severity in SMA can range from patients who die soon after birth to patients who live into adulthood with varying degrees of morbidity. The underlying pathology of SMA is caused by insufficient production of a protein known as “survival of motor neuron,” or SMN. The SMN protein, essential for the survival of motor neurons, is encoded by two genes, SMN1 and SMN2.

2. SMA Natural History and Epidemiology

SMA, the most common monogenic cause of death in infants, is a rare neuromuscular disorder. An estimated 20,000 patients suffer from SMA in the U.S. and Europe alone. Patients with SMA can be categorized as one of four types, Type 1 through Type 4. The majority of SMA patients currently living in the U.S. and Europe are estimated as having Type 2 or Type 3 disease, although it should be noted that this percentage may evolve over time and the definitions of traditional SMA types are themselves evolving. Nonambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA, as they have traditionally been defined, is the initial focus of investigation in our SMA development program.

3. Unmet Medical Need in SMA

We view the emerging landscape for the development of novel medicines for SMA as being classified into two distinct but complementary therapeutic strategies: 1) SMN therapy (also known as SMN corrector therapy or SMN-directed therapy) and 2) muscle-targeted therapy. Despite progress in the development of SMN therapies, a high unmet medical need to improve motor function remains. We believe that the advancement of muscle-targeted therapy will be necessary to address this important gap.

SMN therapies are aimed at addressing the SMN deficiency to prevent further motor neuron deterioration thus modifying the course of disease. This category includes antisense oligonucleotide and small molecule approaches to increase SMN2 expression as well as gene therapy to deliver the SMN1 gene. Early intervention at a very young age is therefore thought to be essential to prevent significant motor functional deterioration. However, for the vast majority of SMA patients living today, this early intervention window has been missed, and such individuals suffer from severe functional impairment.

Thus, regardless of the precise nature or mechanism of action for any given SMN therapy, we believe that most SMA patients will continue to experience clinically significant functional deficits.

To address this need, apitegromab is being developed as a potential first muscle-targeted therapy for SMA. We envision the potential for apitegromab to be standard use with any SMN therapy in patients with Type 2 and 3 SMA in order to drive absolute increases in functional performance over baseline.

4. Clinical Development Overview

We completed SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with nonambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA being treated with SMN therapy. In October 2024, the Company announced positive top-line results that showed the study achieved its primary endpoint.

Beyond Type 2 and Type 3 SMA, we believe that apitegromab has the potential for therapeutic benefit in patients with either more or less severe forms of SMA, as well as pre-symptomatic patients receiving early intervention with a SMN therapy.

Our aim is to develop apitegromab for the broadest group of patients suffering from SMA. The FDA granted Fast Track designation, Rare Pediatric Disease designation and Orphan Drug designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA in May 2021, August 2020 and March 2018, respectively. The EMA granted PRIME designation in March 2021 and the EC granted orphan medicinal product designation in December 2018 to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA.

5. Phase 3 SAPPHIRE Pivotal Trial

On October 7, 2024, we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 3 SAPPHIRE clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of apitegromab, an investigational muscle-targeted therapy, in patients with SMA.

SAPPHIRE was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of apitegromab in nonambulatory patients with Types 2 and 3 SMA who are receiving current standard of care therapies (either nusinersen or risdiplam). SAPPHIRE enrolled 156 patients ages 2–12 years old in the main efficacy population. These patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either apitegromab 10 mg/kg, apitegromab 20 mg/kg, or placebo by intravenous infusion every 4 weeks. An exploratory population that enrolled 32 patients ages 13–21 years old was also evaluated. These patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either apitegromab 20 mg/kg or placebo.

The study achieved its primary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement for apitegromab compared to placebo in motor function as measured by the HFMSE in SMA patients on chronic dosing of standard of care therapies (either nusinersen or risdiplam). Based upon the similar pharmacological profiles of the 20 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses of apitegromab, the statistical analysis plan was prespecified to analyze both the combined dose (10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg) and the 20 mg/kg dose, each compared to placebo, as the primary analysis. Statistical significance was achieved per the prespecified statistical analysis plan (Hochberg multiplicity adjustment) for the primary analysis where the p-value needs to be ≤0.025 if only one prespecified analysis crosses the statistical significance boundary of ≤ 0.05.

​Motor function outcomes were meaningful and consistent across the main efficacy population and in the ages 13–21 exploratory population, and favored apitegromab (n=22) compared to placebo (n=10).

The table below summarizes the changes from baseline in HFMSE total score at month 12 across the various dose and age groups studied in SAPPHIRE.

Change from Baseline in HFMSE Total Score at Month 12*

Abbreviations: CI, Confidence Interval; LS, Least Squares.

*n values at 12-month endpoint

30.4% of patients receiving apitegromab in the main efficacy population (ages 2-12) had ≥3 point improvement in HFMSE at Month 12 versus 12.5% of patients on placebo, as shown below.

​

​

​

​

Proportion of Patients With ≥3 Point Improvement at Month 12 in HFMSE

Proportion of patients achieving ≥3 Point Improvement in HFMSE was higher for apitegromab vs. placebo in combined dose (odds ratio 3.0, p=0.0256)

Abbreviation: SOC = standard of care.

Patients receiving apitegromab in the main efficacy population (ages 2–12) demonstrated early motor function improvement compared to placebo from the first measured time point at 8 weeks, and clinical benefit expanded at 52 weeks as measured by HFMSE, as shown below.

​

​

HFMSE Improvement vs. Placebo in SAPPHIRE

​

Abbreviations: CI=Confidence Interval; HFMSE=Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded; LS=Least Squares; SOC=standard of care.

Treatment with apitegromab was well-tolerated across all age groups. There were no clinically relevant differences in the adverse event profile by dose, 10 mg/kg versus 20 mg/kg. No new safety findings were observed in the SAPPHIRE clinical trial; the profile was consistent with that observed in the Phase 2 TOPAZ clinical trial, including an extension study which had over four years of treatment as of the cut-off date. Serious adverse events (“SAEs”) were consistent with the underlying disease and the current standard of care received by patients; no SAEs were assessed as related to apitegromab. There were no study drug discontinuations due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were pyrexia, nasopharyngitis and cough, observed in 29.2%, 24.5% and 24.5% of patients in the main efficacy population (10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg combined), respectively. The table below summarizes the adverse events observed in the trial.

​

​

​

​

​

​

Summary of Adverse Events in SAPPHIRE

​

We are also continuing our long-term extension study, ONYX, for patients from both the TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE studies, who are receiving apitegromab in conjunction with current standard of care. Following trial completion, 98% of SAPPHIRE patients (185/188) enrolled in the ONYX open-label expansion study.

6. Phase 2 TOPAZ Proof-of-Concept Trial

We completed enrollment in our Phase 2 TOPAZ proof-of-concept trial of apitegromab in SMA in January 2020. TOPAZ was a Phase 2 active treatment study evaluating the safety, efficacy, PK, and PD of apitegromab 2 and 20 mg/kg in 58 patients ages 2 to 21 years old with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA (nonambulatory and ambulatory). One patient discontinued from the 12-month treatment period for reasons that were determined to be unrelated to apitegromab treatment. All remaining patients completed the 12-month treatment period and opted into the extension period.

The clinical trial consisted of three distinct cohorts of patients with Type 2 or Type 3 SMA and evaluated the safety and efficacy of apitegromab over a 12-month treatment period. All patients in the clinical trial received apitegromab dosed every four weeks (Q4W) either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with an approved SMN therapy. The primary efficacy objectives evaluated in the TOPAZ trial, HFMSE and Revised Hammersmith Scale (“RHS”), are clinically meaningful outcome measures validated for SMA. The HFMSE is a validated measure for the assessment of gross motor function in SMA, while the RHS is a revised version and used for ambulatory patients in TOPAZ.

Results of the primary analysis showed that improvement in motor function, as measured by RHS or HFMSE, was observed at Month 12 in the majority of patients, regardless of age, SMA type, or time of SMN therapy initiation (Crawford Neurology 2024). Ambulatory patients ages 5 to 21 years old showed stabilization in RHS scores over the 12 months of treatment, while nonambulatory patients showed overall improvement. Substantial improvement in motor function, a mean improvement of 6.2 points for HFMSE total score at Month 12, was observed in Cohort 3, with dose response between those randomized to 20 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg (7.1 points and 5.3 points, respectively).

Treatment with apitegromab was well tolerated. Incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with the underlying patient population and SMN therapy. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events included headache (24%), pyrexia (22%), upper respiratory tract infection (22%), cough (22%), and nasopharyngitis (21%). Five patients experienced a serious treatment-emergent adverse event, all assessed by the respective trial investigator as unrelated to apitegromab.

In August 2024, the Company reported that long-term apitegromab data continued to show sustained motor function benefit over 48 months (Crawford WMS 2024). Over 90 percent of nonambulatory patients remained on treatment in the extension study over 48 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were consistent with previous reports at 12 months, with no new findings.

7. Phase 1 Healthy Volunteer Clinical Trial Results

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, first-in-human, Phase 1 clinical trial was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability, immunogenicity, PK, and PD of IV administered apitegromab in adult healthy volunteers. A total of 66 subjects were enrolled, including 40 subjects in the single ascending dose (“SAD”) and 26 subjects in the multiple ascending dose portions of the study. Full results from the Phase 1 clinical trial were presented at the Cure SMA Annual Conference in June 2019.

Safety and immunogenicity results. Apitegromab was shown to be well-tolerated with no apparent safety signals. There were no dose-limiting toxicities identified up to the highest tested dose of 30 mg/kg, treatment-related serious adverse events or hypersensitivity reactions. Immunogenicity was assessed by anti-drug antibody testing, and all subjects tested negative.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics results. Apitegromab displayed a PK profile generally consistent with that commonly observed with monoclonal antibodies. Drug exposure was dose proportional, and the serum half-life was approximately 23 to 33 days across the apitegromab dose groups. The findings supported the investigation of a once every 4-week dosing regimen in the Phase 2 TOPAZ clinical trial.

Mean serum concentrations of latent myostatin in the SAD were < 20 ng/ml in the pre-treatment baselines for apitegromab treated subjects as well as in placebo subjects throughout the study. Following placebo treatment, there was no meaningful change in the latent myostatin biomarker concentrations. Following single doses of apitegromab at dose levels of 3 mg/kg or greater, marked increases in latent myostatin biomarker concentrations in the serum, by at least an order of magnitude, were observed following apitegromab treatment. This finding demonstrates successful target engagement and provides initial proof-of-mechanism in humans of our therapeutic approach of targeting the latent form of growth factors. The observation also corroborates our biological understanding that the vast majority of drug target (pro and latent forms of myostatin) resides within skeletal muscle rather than within the systemic circulation.

Apitegromab engages latent myostatin in Phase 1 clinical trial subjects

​

8. Apitegromab in Other Disorders Where the Inhibition of Myostatin May Be Beneficial

We see potential for apitegromab broadly across SMA (such as patients under the age of two with SMA and ambulatory patients with SMA) and our intention is to further investigate this potential. We also believe that the role of apitegromab as a muscle-targeted therapy has broad potential beyond SMA, spanning a number of muscle disorders where muscle atrophy is a key component of disease pathogenesis. In some settings, we believe that disease-stabilizing therapy may be necessary to address the underlying defect, which can then be complemented by the potential motor function-building benefit of apitegromab. In settings in which the defect may be less severe and/or the disease may have a slower rate of progression, apitegromab may have the potential to serve as a monotherapy.

Based on this evidence, we believe a wide range of potential therapeutic applications may be envisioned for apitegromab. We are considering the investigation of apitegromab in multiple indications beyond SMA and have efforts underway to evaluate these opportunities (including preclinical and translational research, clinical development and regulatory path assessments, and commercial assessments).

iv. Cardiometabolic Disorders – SRK-439 (inhibitor of latent myostatin)

​

1. The Current State of Obesity and Obesity Treatment

Obesity is now recognized as a top global public health issue, representing a large market with growing numbers: By the year 2030, it’s estimated that obesity will affect over 1 billion adults and over 250 million children and adolescents. This is a costly chronic disease, associated with more than $170 billion in excess costs annually in the US given serious comorbidities associated with obesity primarily cardiometabolic including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

The GLP-1 RAs, and other incretin therapies, have been highly effective in reducing overall weight, but that weight loss includes a significant amount—an estimated 25-40%—of lean muscle mass loss as well. Importantly, there is rebound weight gain upon discontinuation of treatment that is primarily fat with lean muscle mass lagging behind. In addition to the weight gain rebound, patients taking GLP-1 RA therapies have experienced issues with tolerability that influence the duration of treatment and can lead to high rates of discontinuation for these therapies.

2. The Role of Muscle and The Opportunity for Myostatin Inhibition

Muscle plays a key role in metabolic functions and energy homeostasis, and given that important role, we believe that maintaining lean muscle mass is essential for healthy and sustainable weight loss management. The preservation of lean mass has many benefits for overall health above and beyond maintaining strength, especially in the setting of obesity with associated co-morbidities. Specifically, muscle is a metabolic organ and increases basal metabolic rate, enhances glucose uptake, enhances insulin sensitivity, and given the cross talk between adipose tissue and muscle, reduces visceral body fat. All of these functions are important for healthy weight loss management.

The increasing recognition of the important role of skeletal muscle in modulating metabolic physiology highlights a potential therapeutic opportunity for myostatin blockade. For example, data emerging from our preclinical experiments support the hypothesis that blockade of the myostatin pathway has the potential to reduce the mass of visceral fat, a significant driver of cardiometabolic pathophysiology. Excessive fat mass and metabolic abnormalities have been observed in many muscle atrophy states, such as SMA and spinal cord injury. More broadly, reducing visceral fat mass, or improving body compositions (e.g., enhanced muscle-to-fat ratios), may be a potential therapeutic strategy to address a wide range of disorders, such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (“NASH”), diabetes, and obesity.

3. SRK-439: A Novel Anti-myostatin Antibody for the Treatment of Obesity

In addition to our work to advance apitegromab in SMA, we have leveraged our expertise in anti-myostatin and its effect on increasing muscle mass to develop myostatin-selective inhibitors for cardiometabolic disorders, including obesity.

SRK-439, a novel anti-myostatin antibody developed by Scholar Rock, has attractive properties that we believe make it specifically suited for the patient population with obesity. These properties include high in vitro affinity for pro- and latent myostatin, maintenance of myostatin specificity (i.e., no GDF11 or Activin-A binding), and a developability profile, including suitability for subcutaneous dosing and a low dosing volume. We believe the selectivity of these antibodies enables a favorable risk-benefit profile for patients with cardiometabolic disorders.

In addition to these properties, SRK-439 has shown robust preclinical efficacy. In two models of DIO mice, SRK-439 maintained lean mass when combined with a GLP-1 RA therapy, either semaglutide or liraglutide. In both cases, adding SRK-439 to semaglutide or liraglutide alone demonstrated dose dependent increase and reversal of lean muscle mass loss with improvement in fat mass loss as well compared to a GLP-1 RA alone (results for SRK-439 used in combination with semaglutide shown below). These results provide the scientific rationale and support the hypothesis that inhibition of myostatin in combination with GLP-1 RA-driven weight loss may lead to retention of lean muscle.

We are advancing this preclinical program and plan to submit an IND in the third quarter of 2025.

SRK-439 Reversed Lean Mass Loss and Enhanced Fat Mass Loss Induced by Semaglutide Treatment. Shown in the plot on the left is the percent change in lean mass from baseline in diet-induced obesity mice as measured by quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance, and on the right, percent change in fat mass in DIO mice.

4. Apitegromab in Obesity: Proof-of-Concept

We see potential for apitegromab as a muscle-targeted therapy broadly across disorders in which the role of muscle is critical for function. To inform the development of SRK-439, in May 2024 we initiated the Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial, designed to assess the safety and efficacy of apitegromab to preserve muscle mass in individuals living with obesity and on background therapy of a GLP-1 RA. In September 2024, we announced that we completed enrollment and top-line results from this trial are expected in the second quarter of 2025.

We have been a pioneer in developing a differentiated approach to harnessing the therapeutic potential of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors. The foundation of our industry-leading platform is targeting the TGF superfamily of growth factors with the desired selectivity for both the target (i.e., latent- or pro- form) and disease-specific context. While we are building our experience from this approach with our anti-myostatin pipeline, we have also observed promising preclinical and early clinical data that supports targeting other forms of TGFβ, including for oncology and fibrosis.

The TGFβ superfamily plays a central role in a wide range of cellular processes including growth and differentiation, immune regulation and fibrosis. TGFβ1 is produced by cells as a single protein chain and is then enzymatically processed by the cells into two distinct and physically separated domains — the mature, active growth factor and the remaining portion of the original protein, referred to as the prodomain, or latency associated peptide (“LAP”) — which remains associated with and keeps the growth factor in an inactive state. This complex is further associated with one of a number of “presenting molecules” which when secreted serve to tether the latent precursor in specific locations in the body. TGFβ1 is produced by a variety of cell types, including fibroblasts, which deposit latent TGFβ1 in connective tissue, as well as regulatory T cells, cancer cells and macrophages, which display latent TGFβ1 on their cell surfaces.

In a seminal peer-reviewed publication in 2011, by solving a high-resolution x-ray crystal structure of the latent form of TGFβ1, our founder, Dr. Springer elucidated a new understanding of the mechanism that underlies the activation of latent precursor forms of members of the TGFβ superfamily of protein growth factors. This research explained at a molecular level why the secreted form of TGFβ1 is inactive. The prodomain, though physically separated from the mature growth factor domain, forms a “cage” around the active form of TGFβ1, blocking the ability of the growth factor to signal through its receptor. Integrin proteins are able to unlock the “cage” by binding to the prodomain of the latent TGFβ1 complex and applying force to pull the complex open, allowing the mature growth factor to be released and signal in its microenvironment.

While mature TGFβ1 shares a high degree of structural similarity with its closely related family members, TGFβ2 and TGFβ3, their respective cages are structurally diverse. By taking advantage of the differences among the prodomains, together with our understanding of the activation mechanism and ability to recapitulate the activation mechanism in vitro, we were able to identify multiple highly selective inhibitors of the activation of latent TGFβ1. By specifically targeting the TGFβ1 isoform, we believe we have the key to unlock the power of checkpoint inhibitors and meaningfully increase response rates across multiple solid tumor types. In March 2019, we selected SRK-181 as a product candidate in our TGFβ1 cancer immunotherapy program based on the strength of preclinical data and human translational insights. In vitro and in vivo studies of SRK-181 showed that it binds to latent TGFβ1 with high affinity and high selectivity, which is evidenced by minimal or no binding to latent TGFβ2 or latent TGFβ3 isoforms. Integrins, such as αVβ6 and αVβ8, can trigger the activation of TGFβ1 and TGFβ3. In addition, biochemical evidence suggests that certain proteases (e.g., Plasmin and Kallikreins) may also induce TGFβ activation. Notably, these integrins and proteases have been implicated in tumor biology in a number of human cancers. SRK-181 is capable of inhibiting both integrin-dependent- and protease-induced activation of TGFβ1.

​

SRK-181 selectively binds to proTGFβ1complexes with minimal or no binding to proTGFβ2 or proTGFβ3 complexes.

i. TGFβ1 in Cancer Therapy

​

We believe that specific inhibition of TGFβ1 may have a significant impact on the treatment of patients in certain oncology settings.

Immune checkpoints are cellular mechanisms that act as a brake on the immune system, and expression of these proteins in the tumor microenvironment creates an immunosuppressive environment that allows tumor cells to evade being killed by the immune system. Immune checkpoint proteins, such as PD-1/PD-L1, have therefore become key therapeutic targets in the tumor microenvironment. By inhibiting these proteins, the brakes on the immune system are released, allowing the T cells to kill the cancer cells. There are currently multiple approved checkpoint inhibitor therapies that target the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway.

A significant proportion of patients, in many cases the majority, fail to respond to these checkpoint inhibitor therapies, because they have what appears to be a pre-existing, or primary, resistance to immunotherapy. Other patients’ cancers appear to initially respond but subsequently progress (e.g., acquired resistance). In many human cancers, TGFβ signaling is associated with lack of response to PD(L)-1 blockade, particularly in patients with tumors harboring an immune excluded phenotype (i.e., CD8+ T cells present in nearby stroma but excluded from the tumor parenchyma). Gene expression analysis of pre-treatment melanoma tumors identified multiple TGFβ-related signaling signatures associated with pre-existing or primary resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy.

Similarly, it has also been reported that retrospective pathway analysis of tumor samples from an atezolizumab bladder cancer trial identified the TGFβ pathway as a major determinant of primary resistance to atezolizumab.

Our analysis of publicly available human tumor data has identified TGFβ1 as the predominant TGFβ isoform expressed in many human solid tumors.

National Cancer Institute - Cancer Genome Atlas Program RNAseq analysis of >10,000 samples spanning 33 tumor types show high expression of the TGFβ1 isoform in many tumor types

ii. SRK-181 in Cancer Immunotherapy - Inhibitor of Latent TGFβ1 Activation

​

Our second product candidate, SRK-181, a highly selective inhibitor of the activation of latent TGFβ1, is in clinical development for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapies. We estimate at least 750,000 cancer patients in the U.S. are eligible for treatment with checkpoint inhibitor therapies every year, of which the majority of patients will develop progression to the treatment.

Increased signaling by TGFβ1 is a key driver of a number of disease-relevant processes, including immune system evasion by cancer cells, bone marrow fibrosis associated with hematological disorders, and tissue and organ fibrosis. Historically, selectively targeting TGFβ1 signaling has been challenging due to the inability of either small molecule inhibitors or antibodies to avoid off-target inhibition of other, closely related growth factors, TGFβ2 and TGFβ3. Treatment of animals with these non-selective TGFβ inhibitors has been associated with a range of toxicities, most notably cardiac toxicity. Furthermore, since each of these growth factors signals through the same TGFβ receptor, ALK5, inhibitors of the TGFβ receptor kinase suffer from similar dose-limiting toxicities. In preclinical studies of our antibodies, we have observed selective inhibition of TGFβ1 activation in vitro and immunomodulatory and antifibrotic activity in multiple disease models in vivo. A 28-day pilot nonclinical toxicology study in rats of our leading antibody did not observe any drug-related toxicity up to the highest dose (100 mg/kg weekly) tested in the study. In the same study, we tested non-selective TGFβ inhibitors and observed the published toxicities, including cardiac toxicity as well as death. We have also completed four-week GLP toxicology studies in rats and non-human primates and no SRK-181 related adverse effects were observed up to the highest evaluated dose of 200 mg/kg per week and 300 mg/kg per week, respectively.

In many human cancers, TGFβ signaling is associated with lack of response to PD-(L)1 blockade, particularly in patients with tumors harboring an immune excluded phenotype (i.e., CD8+ T cells present in nearby stroma but excluded from the tumor parenchyma). We have observed multiple mouse models that recapitulate the immune-excluded phenotype and are resistant to PD-1 blockade become responsive to the combination of SRK-181-mIgG1, the murine analog of SRK-181, and an anti- PD-1 antibody. These models, including the MBT-2 bladder cancer model, the Cloudman S91 melanoma model and the EMT6 breast cancer model, were poorly responsive or unresponsive to single agent treatment with either anti-PD-1 or SRK-181-mIgG1, with little or no effect on tumor growth. However, in representative experiments, the combination of SRK-181-mIgG1 and anti-PD-1 resulted in tumor regressions of 72%, 57% and 70% in these three mouse models, respectively.

Furthermore, the combination treatment led to statistically significant survival benefit in all three models.

Our Phase 1 DRAGON clinical trial is intended to initially evaluate our therapeutic hypothesis that SRK-181 in combination with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy may overcome resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy and lead to anti-tumor responses. This clinical trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors is ongoing and investigates the safety, PK and efficacy of SRK-181. The DRAGON trial consists of two parts: Part A (dose escalation of SRK-181 as a single-agent or in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 therapy) and Part B (dose expansion evaluating SRK-181 in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy). Part B encompasses five active cohorts, including urothelial carcinoma, cutaneous melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and commenced in 2021 and completed enrollment in December 2023. We continue to treat patients who remain on study. Safety, efficacy and biomarker data were presented in June 2024 at the ASCO annual meeting and in November 2024 at the SITC 39th Annual Meeting. The data showed encouraging responses in heavily pretreated and anti-PD-(L)1 resistant patients across multiple tumor types. Data presented continues to support proof-of-concept for SRK-181 in 30 heavily pretreated patients with ccRCC resistant to anti-PD-1. SRK-181 was generally well tolerated and showed promising anti-tumor activity in this patient population. Of 30 patients in the ccRCC cohort, seven patients treated with SRK-181 in combination with pembrolizumab had documented response, achieving a best tumor reduction of 40% to 100%, with an objective response rate of 23.3%. In the biomarker analysis, SRK-181 combined with pembrolizumab established proof of mechanism in patients by creating a proinflammatory tumor microenvironment across multiple tumor types. Safety data from ccRCC cohort continue to show SRK-181 is generally well tolerated. In ccRCC patients, responders had higher basal levels of activated CD8+ T cells, higher T-regs, as well as higher TGFβ1 expression. The data cutoff for all analyses was September 9, 2024.

We believe that the DRAGON trial achieved its study objectives by showing objective, durable clinical responses in patients with ccRCC resistant to PD-1 therapy beyond what is expected from continuing PD-1 alone. We anticipate that emerging data from the DRAGON trial will be presented at medical meetings in the future.

1. Potential Applications of SRK-181 in Additional Oncology Settings

In addition to cancer immunotherapy, we believe SRK-181 has the potential for use in other oncology settings, such as in immunotherapy-naïve patients, in combination with other therapies beyond checkpoint inhibitors and in myelofibrosis.

iii. Fibrosis: LTBP-49247

Fibrosis is a pathological feature of many diseases and can occur in virtually all organs. It is characterized by excessive accumulation of extracellular matrix in the affected tissue and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality. TGFβ signaling pathway is a well-established central driver in the pathogenesis of fibrotic diseases and inhibition of this pathway has been shown to improve outcomes in relevant animal models of hepatic, renal, pulmonary, and other fibrotic diseases. In addition, a non-selective inhibitor of TGFβ signaling that inhibits all 3 isoforms (isoform 1, 2, and 3) of TGFβ showed clinical improvement in patients with systemic sclerosis, a fibrotic connective tissue disease. However, non-selective inhibition of all TGFβ isoforms is known to be associated with serious safety findings, most notably bleeding episodes, and cardiac toxicities. Based on knock out animal models (a model where researchers have inactivated, or "knocked out," an existing gene by replacing it or disrupting it with an artificial piece of DNA), these safety findings are believed to be associated with inhibition of the TGFβ2, and TGFβ3 isoforms. These data suggest that novel approaches to targeting TGFβ signaling may have broad applicability to the treatment of fibrotic disease, where more selective approaches may offer an improved safety profile. In addition, given that immune cell activation may play a key role in fibrotic disease development, selective targeting of only matrix associated TGFβ1, at the primary site of fibrosis manifestation, while avoiding immune cell associated TGFβ1 is key to maintaining efficacy while avoiding potential long-term liabilities of immune cell activation.

Based on this scientific rationale, we utilized our platform to discover and develop antibodies that selectively inhibit the activation of latent TGFβ1 in the context of fibrotic extracellular matrix and that avoid perturbing TGFβ1 presented by cells of the immune system. We selected SRK-373, a highly potent, anti-latent TGFβ1 antibody that selectively inhibits TGFβ1 activation within the extracellular matrix by targeting latent TGFβ1 associated with latent TGFβ-binding proteins (LTBPs), thus enabling specific inhibition of TGFβ1 in fibrotic tissue.

This antibody demonstrated significant antifibrotic activity in a variety of preclinical rodent models. It also demonstrated robust therapeutic index at all doses tested in a non-GLP mouse safety study. We plan to advance this program to IND-enabling studies.

When latent TGFβ1 is secreted from cells (top center), it is further associated with another protein, referred to as a presenting molecule (examples of which are shown in each image). The presenting molecules are covalently bound to the prodomain and serve to tether the latent TGFβ1 complex in a particular microenvironment. Unlike TGFβ1, a given presenting molecule's expression pattern is restricted to particular cellular and tissue environments. For example, the presenting molecule GARP (right) is found primarily on regulatory T cells, the presenting molecules LTBP1 and LTBP3 (bottom center) are localized to the connective tissue in the extracellular matrix, and the presenting molecule LRRC33 (left) is found primarily on certain myeloid lineage cells such as macrophages.

A number of disease states as well as rare genetic mutations can cause disruptions in iron homeostasis and can result in either iron deficiency or overload. These imbalances in iron levels can lead to detrimental complications and are the basis of mortalities and morbidities in many diseases. Hepcidin is a peptide hormone that is produced in the liver and plays a major role in regulating systemic iron homeostasis. Aberrantly increased hepcidin expression is a hallmark of several chronic and devastating diseases where it causes iron-restricted anemia, contributing to the morbidity and mortality of these diseases. Hepcidin expression is controlled via the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling pathway, with BMP2/6 being the predominant ligands signaling through a large protein receptor complex containing BMP receptors (BMPR) and a BMP co-receptor, repulsive guidance molecule c/ hemojuvelin (RGMc/HJV). The RGM family consists of three members, RGMa, RGMb and RGMc/HJV, and owing to their role as BMP co-receptors, has been shown to be involved in the development and maintenance of many tissues and organs throughout the body. Human mutations as well as knockout animal studies have demonstrated the predominant role of RGMc/HJV to be in the regulation of iron homeostasis.

These data suggest that novel approaches to specifically target the BMP pathway in the liver may have a broad applicability to the treatment of anemia, especially in chronic diseases where hepcidin is upregulated.

In contrast to the far-reaching roles of BMP-BMPRs throughout the body, the specific role of RGMc/HJV isoform in iron homeostasis, provided an opportunity to utilize our platform to discover and develop antibodies that selectively bind to and inhibit RGMc. We selected SRK-256, a highly potent and selective RGMc/HJV inhibitor that has demonstrated significant suppression of hepcidin expression and resultant mobilization of stored iron in vivo in mice, rats, and non-human primates. SRK-256 may provide a novel approach to treating iron-restricted anemia in patients with chronic diseases driven by hepcidin overexpression. We plan to advance this program to IND-enabling studies.

d. Additional Potential Areas of Exploration

Additional therapeutic areas and targets in which we could potentially apply our scientific platform and expertise include:

We continue to enhance our internal biologics discovery capabilities including the acquisition and development of our own proprietary single-domain antibody libraries. These new capabilities allow us to more efficiently discover antibodies and furthers our commitment to building a differentiated portfolio of product candidates.

a. Gilead Collaboration

On December 19, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), we entered into a three-year collaboration with Gilead to discover and develop therapeutics that target TGFβ-driven signaling, a central regulator of fibrosis (“the Collaboration Agreement”). In connection with the Collaboration Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $50 million and an equity investment of $30 million.

In December 2019, we achieved a $25 million preclinical milestone under the Gilead Collaboration Agreement for the successful demonstration of efficacy in preclinical in vivo proof-of-concept studies.

On January 6, 2022, we entered into a letter agreement with Gilead which (i) confirmed that the collaboration period under the Collaboration Agreement had expired as of December 19, 2021, and (ii) agreed the option exercise period for all programs under the Collaboration Agreement had been terminated as of January 6, 2022.

b. Adimab Agreement

On March 12, 2019, we entered into an amended and restated collaboration agreement (“Adimab Agreement”) with Adimab, LLC (“Adimab”). Under the Adimab Agreement, as amended, we selected a number of biological targets against which Adimab used its proprietary platform technology to discover and/or optimize antibodies based upon mutually agreed upon research plans, and we have the ability to select a specified number of additional biological targets against which Adimab will provide additional antibody discovery and optimization services.

During the research term and evaluation term for a given research program with Adimab (“Research Program”), we have a non-exclusive worldwide license under Adimab’s technology to perform certain research activities and to evaluate the program antibodies to determine whether we want to exercise our option to obtain an exclusive license to exploit such antibodies (a “Development and Commercialization Option”).

Pursuant to the Adimab Agreement, we previously paid Adimab a one-time, non-creditable, non-refundable technology access fee. We are also obligated to make certain technical milestone payments to Adimab on a Research Program-by-Research Program basis. Upon exercise of a Development and Commercialization Option, we are obligated to pay to Adimab a non-creditable, nonrefundable option exercise fee of either (i) a low seven-digit dollar amount or (ii) a mid- six-digit dollar amount, based on the antibodies in the given Research Program, plus, in either case, an amount equal to any technical milestone payment which was not previously paid with respect to such Research Program and less, in either case, any option extension fees paid with respect to such Research Program. On a Product (as defined in the Adimab Agreement)-by-Product basis, we will pay Adimab upon the achievement of various clinical and regulatory milestone events with total milestone payments not to exceed mid-teen millions in the aggregate for a given Product. For any Product that is commercialized, on a country-by-country and Product-by-Product basis, we are obligated to pay to Adimab a low-to-mid single-digit percentage of annual worldwide net sales of such Product during the applicable royalty period in each country.

SRK-181 is subject to the terms of the Adimab Agreement, and in March 2019, we exercised our Development and Commercialization Option for the Research Program from which SRK-181 was generated. In January 2020 and December 2020, we exercised our Development and Commercialization Option for additional Research Programs.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to protect intellectual property for our product candidates, including apitegromab and SRK-181, and related methods, as well as our novel approach and proprietary platform for generating monoclonal antibodies; to secure freedom-to-operate to enable commercialization of our product candidates, if approved; and to prevent others from infringing upon our patent rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our intellectual property position by filing patent applications in key jurisdictions, including the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia, covering our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to innovate, develop, sustain and implement our business.

We file patent applications directed to compositions comprising our antibodies, classes of antibodies covering our product candidates, use of such antibodies for treating diseases, as well as related manufacturing methods. As of December 31, 2024, we have 30 pending patent families across multiple programs. Among the pending families, 24 have been nationalized, from which 24 applications have matured into U.S. issued patents with additional issued patents in multiple jurisdictions globally. Collectively, there are 337 national or direct utility applications pending or issued. In addition, there are four patent family filings which are in the priority year. We continue to review and harvest new inventions for new patent filings.

As of December 31, 2024, three granted patents, EP2981822, EP2981822 and EP3368069, are the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (“EPO”). We have no other contested proceedings relating to any patents as of that date, but we cannot provide any assurances that we will not have such proceedings at a later date. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

a. Platform

Our novel approach to generating selective modulators of supracellular activation of growth factors is broadly embodied in our earliest “platform” patent family, PCT/US2014/036933 (published as WO 2014/182676). This patent family is directed to methods for modulating the activation of the TGFβ superfamily of growth factors and methods for screening for a monoclonal antibody that specifically targets an inactive form of the growth factor, thereby preventing activation (e.g., release) of mature growth factor. The TGFβ superfamily is a group of more than 30 related growth factors/cytokines that mediate diverse biological processes and includes TGFβ1 and myostatin (also known as GDF-8).

Issued U.S. patents in the platform family include: U.S. Patents Nos. 9,573,995 (issued 02/21/2017); 9,758,576 (issued 09/12/2017); 9,580,500 (issued 02/28/2017); 9,399,676 (issued 07/26/2016); 9,758,577 (issued 09/12/2017); 10,597,443 (issued 03/24/2020); 10,981,981 (issued 04/20/2021); and 11,827,698 (issued 11/28/2023). There is also a granted European (“EP”) platform patent: EP2981822 (granted on 09/02/2020). These U.S. and EP patents are projected to expire in 2034.

Specifically, EP2981822 originally granted with composition of matter claims directed to an antibody capable of binding a recombinant antigen comprising pro-TGFβ1 or a growth factor-prodomain complex which comprises the TGFβ1 LAP complex, in addition to claims directed to methods of making such antibodies. EP2981822 is the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO. It was revoked by the opposition division in November 2024, but the revocation decision is subject to appeal.

U.S. Patent No. 9,573,995 has issued composition of matter claims directed to an antibody that specifically binds to GARP associated with a human TGFβ1 LAP complex.

U.S. Patent No. 9,758,576 has issued composition of matter claims directed to an isolated monoclonal antibody, or a fragment thereof, that specifically binds the prodomain of a pro/latent GDF-8/myostatin complex, thereby preventing proteolytic cleavage between residues Arg 75 and Asp 76 of GDF-8/myostatin prodomain, so as to inhibit the release of mature GDF-8/myostatin growth factor from the complex.

U.S. Patent No. 9,580,500 has issued claims directed to phage display library-based antibody production methods for identifying an antibody that binds a GARP/proTGFβ1 complex.

U.S. Patent No. 9,399,676 has issued claims directed to phage display library-based antibody production methods for identifying an antibody that binds a pro/latent GDF-8 complex that has been subjected to enzymatic cleavage. Related product-by-process claims are included in issued U.S. Patent No. 9,758,577.

U.S. Patent No. 10,597,443 has issued claims that broadly cover manufacturing methods for a pharmaceutical composition containing an antibody that binds a large latent complex of TGFβ, thereby modulating TGFβ signaling.

U.S. Patent No. 10,981,981 has issued claims that broadly cover manufacturing methods for a pharmaceutical composition containing an antibody that binds pro/latent GDF-8, but does not bind to mature GDF-8, and inhibits GDF-8 signaling.

In addition, U.S. Patent No. 11,827,698 has issued claims that broadly cover manufacturing methods for a pharmaceutical composition containing an antibody that binds pro/latent GDF-8, and inhibits release of mature GDF8 from the pro/latent GDF8 complex.

b. Myostatin Activation Inhibitors

Thirteen patent families have been filed to date to cover proprietary myostatin inhibitors and their use in the treatment of various muscle and metabolic diseases. Patent prosecution of these pending patent families is ongoing but relatively early.

Three families are directed to composition of matter claims that cover our proprietary antibodies. PCT/US2015/059468 (published as WO 2016/073853) broadly covers a class of monoclonal antibodies that specifically bind inactive precursors thereby preventing activation of myostatin. This patent family is projected to expire in November 2035. U.S. Patents 10,307,480, 11,135,291, and 11,925,683 issued in June 2019, October 2021, and March 2024, respectively, with claims directed to Scholar Rock proprietary antibodies that specifically bind pro/latent myostatin, including 29H4, the parental clone of apitegromab, and variants, as well as host cells and methods of making antibodies with pH sensitive binding to pro/latent myostatin.

A second family, PCT/US2016/052014 (published as WO 2017/049011), discloses the specific amino acid sequence of apitegromab and is projected to expire in September 2036. U.S. Patent 10,751,413 issued in August 2020, with claims directed to antibodies and pharmaceutical compositions comprising the heavy and light chain sequences of apitegromab, while U.S. Patent 11,439,704 issued in September 2022, with claims directed to a method of preventing muscle loss and/or reducing muscle atrophy or treating SMA by administering an antibody having the heavy and light chain sequences of apitegromab. The European counterpart also granted as EP 3350220 B1 in May 2021. The granted claims relate to antibodies comprising the heavy and light chain variable region and full chain sequences of apitegromab, and pharmaceutical compositions of the antibodies.

A third family, PCT/US2023/085574 (published as WO2024138076), was filed with claims directed to specific amino acid sequences of additional antibodies in our proprietary myostatin inhibitor portfolio. If granted, this family is projected to expire in December 2043.

The following patent families are directed to therapeutic uses/methods:

PCT/US2017/012606 (published as WO 2017/120523) broadly covers treatment methods for a number of muscle and neuromuscular disease and disorders using an antibody that specifically blocks the activation step of myostatin. This family is projected to expire in September 2036. The first U.S. application issued in May 2019 as U.S. Patent 10,287,345 with claims drawn to methods for inhibiting myostatin activation using our proprietary activation inhibitors (such as apitegromab) to cause specified pharmacological effects to treat a variety of conditions including, muscle and metabolic disorders. A second U.S. application issued as U.S. Patent 10,882,904 in January 2021. The issued claims recite methods for inhibiting myostatin activation using an antibody comprising the heavy and light chain sequences of apitegromab for various indications. A third U.S. application issued as U.S. Patent 12,006,359 in June 2024. The issued claims are directed to a method of improving body composition by administering an antibody comprising heavy and light chain sequences of our proprietary activation inhibitors (such as apitegromab) or variants thereof.

PCT/US2017/037332 (published as WO 2017/218592) is directed to methods for treating neuromuscular diseases and selecting patient populations that are likely to respond to myostatin inhibition. This filing includes the treatment of SMA in patients who are on SMN therapies (e.g., SMN correctors/upregulators). This patent family is projected to expire in June 2037. The PCT application was nationalized in 11 jurisdictions, and applications in the three key jurisdictions (i.e., U.S., Europe and Japan) have granted, as well as in other countries. Specifically, the U.S. application granted in March of 2021 as U.S. Patent 10,946,036. The granted claims are directed to add-on or combination therapy for treating spinal muscular atrophy with a myostatin inhibitor and a neuronal corrector (such as smn upregulator therapy). Similar claims have also granted in other countries including Japan (JP Patent No. 6823167, JP Patent No. 7161554, and JP Patent No. 7344337). Likewise, the European counterpart granted as EP 3368069B1 and has been validated in 37 states. The originally granted European claims are directed to add-on therapy and combination therapy for the treatment of SMA using a myostatin-selective inhibitor, in conjunction with an SMN corrector therapy. EP 3368069B1 is currently the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO. It was revoked by the opposition division in April 2024, but the revocation decision is being appealed.

PCT/US2018/012686 (published as WO 2018/129395) relates to the treatment of metabolic diseases with a myostatin activation inhibitor and is projected to expire in January 2038. The PCT was nationalized in 2019 and is in the early stages of prosecution. A U.S. patent issued in October of 2021 as U.S. 11,155,611, with claims directed to methods of making a pharmaceutical composition comprising a myostatin-selective inhibitor, comprising screening for an antibody that is capable of decreasing expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 4 (PDK4) and increasing expression of pyruvate dehydrogenase phosphatase 1 (PDP1). A Japanese patent (JP 7198757) issued in December 2022 with claims directed to a pro/latent myostatin-specific inhibitor for use in treating or preventing obesity or metabolic disorder in a subject on a calorie restriction diet. Similar claims have issued in Europe in 2023 (EP 3565592).

In addition to the five pending patent families listed above, there are also two PCT applications related to the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials of apitegromab in SMA. PCT/US2021/056517 (published as WO2022/093724) is directed to inventions deriving from the phase 2 clinical trial of apitegromab. This PCT was nationalized broadly. If granted, patents deriving from this PCT would expire in 2041. Another PCT application was filed in 2023, PCT/US2023/020843 (published as WO 2023/215384) with claims directed to therapeutic methods for treating SMA deriving from the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials of apitegromab.

If granted, patents from this family would expire in 2043. Both of these families are in early stages of prosecution.

A further PCT application PCT/US2022/034588 (published as WO2022/2271867) was filed with claims directed to a myostatin pathway inhibitor for use in treating metabolic disorders. If granted, patents deriving from this PCT would expire in 2042.

Finally, five other myostatin-related patent families have been filed and are in the priority year.

c. TGFβ1 Activation Inhibitors

In addition to the patent families discussed above in the “Intellectual Property-Platform” section that generically cover certain aspects of the TGFβ1 program, fifteen patent families have been filed to date, covering various specific aspects of our TGFβ1 programs.

Isoform-specific inhibitors of TGFβ1 which confer improved safety profile and related methods are described in PCT/US2017/021972 (published as WO 2017/156500). A U.S. patent (11,643,459) issued in May 2023, with claims directed to methods for identifying TGFβ1-specific inhibitors. A European patent granted in May of 2023 as EP3365368, with claims to the use of isoform-selective and context-independent anti-TGFβ1 antibodies, defined by CDR sequences or by cross-competition, in the treatment of cancer or myelofibrosis. EP3365368 is the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO. Additional patents in this family have been granted in other jurisdictions. This family is projected to expire in March 2037.

Among TGFβ1 inhibitors, one of our context-independent antibodies is separately claimed and related preclinical data are described in PCT/US2018/012601 (published as WO 2018/129329). This patent application is projected to expire in January 2038. For this latter family, a Japanese patent (JP Patent No. 7157744) issued in October 2022 with claims covering certain isoform-selective, context-independent antibodies and their use in the treatment of fibrotic diseases.

In addition, high-affinity, isoform-selective TGFβ1 inhibitors are disclosed in PCT/2019/041373 (published as WO US2020/014460, and patents have issued in April 2024 in Columbia, June 2024 in the Gulf Cooperation Council, and August of 2024 in Japan). Patents of this family are projected to expire in 2039. Separately, direct national/regional applications covering related subject matter have been filed, in the U.S., Europe and Hong Kong, and are projected to expire in 2039. Two U.S. patents issued in September of 2021 as U.S. 11,130,803 and in October of 2024 as U.S. 12,122,823, with claims which cover the SRK-181 clinical candidate and pharmaceutical compositions thereof; and a European patent issued in November of 2021 as EP3677278; and the corresponding Hong Kong patent issued in June of 2022, with claims that cover the SRK-181 clinical candidate, pharmaceutical compositions, use for treating cancer and myelofibrosis, and methods for manufacturing. Additionally, PCT/US2021/012969 (published as WO 2021/142448) discloses data related to biomarkers for the high-affinity, isoform-selective TGFβ1 inhibitors and, if granted, patents deriving from this PCT application are projected to expire in 2041. Additional biomarkers are disclosed in PCT/US2022/022063 (published as WO2022/204581). If granted, patents deriving from these PCT applications would expire in 2042. Another PCT application, PCT/US2024/018970 (published as WO 2024/187051) discloses methods of treating certain cancers and identification of patient populations using biomarkers. If granted, patents derived from this PCT is expected to expire in 2044. One additional patent family to our TGFβ1 inhibitor program is currently in the priority year. Antibodies claimed in these patent families protect our SRK-181 clinical candidate.

Separately, other improved isoform-selective, context-independent inhibitors of TGFβ1 are disclosed in PCT/US2019/041390 (published as WO 2020/014473). This family is projected to expire in 2039. PCT/US2021/12930 (published as WO 2021/142427) is directed to optimized isoform-selective, context-independent inhibitors of TGFβ1. This family is projected to expire in 2041.

LTBP complex-specific inhibitors of TGFβ1 are described in four patent families: PCT/US2018/44216 (published as WO 2019/023661) which is expected to expire in July of 2038; and PCT/US2020/15915 (published as WO2020/160291), which is expected to expire in 2040; PCT/US2022/73740 (published as WO 2023/288277), which is expected to expire in 2042. Three U.S. patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 11,214,614, 11,365,245 and 12,173,059) and one Columbian patent have been issued in the second patent family with claims directed to antibodies and pharmaceutical compositions.

LRRC33-specific inhibitors are described in a further patent family: PCT/US2018/031759 (published as WO 2018/208888) which is expected to expire in May of 2038. EP3621694 granted in July 2023, with claims directed to therapeutic use of LRRC33 inhibitors for the treatment of various indications. PCT/US2017/042162 (published as WO 2018/013939) was exclusively licensed to Janssen but, as explained below, the license agreement was terminated in July 2022. Scholar Rock is now in control of prosecution. This patent family covers antibodies that specifically inhibit GARP-associated TGFβ, and is projected to expire in July 2037. A Japanese patent (JP Patent No. 7128801) issued in August 2022 with claims directed to antibodies and antigen-binding fragments which specifically bind human pro-TGFβ1-GARP complex, a process for their production and related compositions. Additional patents have also granted in other jurisdictions including in Australia (AU 2017294772).

d. RGMc-Selective Inhibitors

PCT/US2019/057687 (published as WO2020/086736) is directed to RGMc-selective inhibitors and is projected to expire in 2039. A Japanese patent application was allowed in December 2024 and will grant in early 2025. The Japanese patent will have claims which cover a pharmaceutical composition comprising the SRK-256 clinical candidate and the use thereof for treating anemia, including anemia of chronic disease and anemia in subjects diagnosed with cancer, such as myelofibrosis. Also, a Chinese patent application was allowed in December 2024, with similar claims. Applications are pending in other jurisdictions, including U.S. and EP.

e. Intellectual Property Protection

We cannot predict whether the patent applications we pursue will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide any proprietary protection from competitors. Even if our pending patent applications are granted as issued patents, those patents, as well as any patents we license from third parties, may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. As mentioned above, three granted patents, EP2981822, EP3365368 and EP3368069, are the subject of ongoing opposition proceedings before the EPO, as of December 31, 2024. While there are no contested proceedings or third-party claims relating to any of the other patents described above, as of that date, we cannot provide any assurances that we will not have such proceedings or third-party claims at a later date.

Additionally, the Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court system in Europe became fully operational in June 2023. As such, European patents which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) face limited precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the U.S., the patent term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug or biologic may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug or biologic 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 applicable to an approved drug or biologic may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug or biologic or provide an additional period of protection for the approved pharmaceutical product following expiry of the patent. In the future, if our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products.

We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the U.S. and the national patent offices in Europe, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to our reliance on patent protection for our inventions, product candidates and research programs, we also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information. For example, certain elements of our proprietary platform may be based on unpatented trade secrets that are not publicly disclosed. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. 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. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party's relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets.

We do not own or operate facilities for clinical drug manufacturing, storage, distribution or quality testing. Currently, all of our clinical manufacturing is outsourced to third-party manufacturers. Certain third party manufacturers may require us to enter in manufacturing agreements with them that include substantial milestone payments and royalties. As our development programs expand and we build new process efficiencies, we expect to continually evaluate our strategy of utilizing third party manufacturers with the objective of satisfying demand for our registration trials and, if approved, the manufacture, sale and distribution of commercial products.

We have internal antibody display and discovery capabilities; however, at times we may continue to rely on third parties to conduct antibody discovery and optimization services for us based on criteria and specifications provided by us. Certain antibody discovery and optimization vendors require us to enter into a license with them for the right to use antibodies discovered by them in human use or for commercial purposes. Such license could include substantial milestone payments and royalties to the extent we choose to use an antibody discovered by such vendor. On March 12, 2019, we exercised an option to receive such a license from Adimab pursuant to our Adimab Agreement. Please see the description above in “License Agreements – Adimab Agreement” for more details on the terms of this agreement.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapid evolution of technologies, fierce competition, and strong defense of intellectual property. Although we believe that our product candidates, discovery programs, technology, 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.

Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, and commercialization of approved products. These competitors compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and may compete with us in establishing clinical trial sites and patient recruitment for clinical trials.

The availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors will also significantly affect the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

a. Competition for Apitegromab

In the SMA market, there are three approved SMN targeted treatments and no approved muscle-targeted treatments for SMA to date. The SMA drug development pipeline reflects a focus on addressing the significant remaining unmet needs of individuals living with SMA as well as the life cycle management of the existing approved SMN targeted treatments. To address the remaining unmet needs to further improve and sustain muscle function by contributing to the impact on the overall disease progression in SMA, we are pioneering a novel approach by developing the first muscle-targeted treatment in SMA.

We are developing apitegromab, an investigational fully human monoclonal antibody designed to inhibit myostatin activation by selectively binding the pro- and latent forms of myostatin in the skeletal muscle, for the treatment of patients with SMA. If apitegromab receives marketing approval, we may face competition from other companies conducting clinical trials to develop anti-myostatin molecules or other treatments for SMA, including Roche, Biogen, and NMD Pharma. Moreover, we may also compete with smaller or earlier-stage companies, and other research institutions that have developed, are developing or may be developing current and future anti-myostatin inhibitors or other treatments for SMA.

In addition, Novartis, Roche and Biogen are in late-stage development of alternate formulations or dosing regimen of their respective approved SMN treatments, including an additional formulation of Novartis’ onasemnogene abeparvovec, an oral tablet for Roche’s risdiplam, as well as a high dose formulation of Biogen’s antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), nusinersen. Apitegromab is being developed with the intention to be used in individuals living with SMA who are currently on an approved SMN targeted treatment.

b. Competition for SRK-181

Our competitors for SRK-181 may include other companies developing inhibitors of the TGFβ signaling pathway, such as antifibrotic therapies and cancer immunotherapies to be used in combination with CPI therapy.

For the latter, many companies, including AbbVie Inc, Roche, Bicara Therapeutics, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb (acquired Forbius) and Merck KGaA, Merck (acquired Tilos Therapeutics) are developing therapies for cancer immunotherapy in combination with CPI therapy, that are intended to work, at least in part, through inhibition of the TGFβ signaling pathway.

Our competitors may also include companies that are or will be developing therapies for the same therapeutic areas that we are targeting within our early pipeline, including other neuromuscular disorders, cancer, fibrosis and iron-restricted anemia.

Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, such as apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and any future product candidates. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

a. U.S. Biological Product Development

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and its implementing regulations and biologics under the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”), and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations requires 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 post-market may 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, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Apitegromab, SRK-181, and any future product candidates regulated as biologics must be approved by the FDA through a BLA process before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. The process generally involves the following:

i. Preclinical Studies and IND

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies.

An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted.

An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

ii. Clinical Trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all patients 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. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that 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. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may be combined or overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (“SUSARs”), findings from other studies or 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.

The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the 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 or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board (“DSMB”) or committee. The DSMB provides recommendations for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic 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 product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

iii. FDA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. Chemistry, manufacturing and controls ("CMC") information, preclinical studies and clinical trials results, and proposed labeling are submitted to the FDA as part of the BLA. The BLA is a request for approval to market the biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies 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 product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the U.S.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting a BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file (“RTF”) by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will conduct a preapproval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. 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. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products 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, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will issue an Approval Letter or a Complete Response Letter. An Approval Letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. The Approval Letter may also include post-marketing requirements or commitments, such as the conduct of additional clinical trials or CMC studies.

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 usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the BLA 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.

iv. Orphan Drug Designation

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 U.S., or more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the U.S. for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

After the FDA grants Orphan Drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan 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 designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. 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 a product designated as an orphan drug receives marketing approval for an indication broader than that which is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union (“EU”) has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

v. Rare Pediatric Disease Designation

The FDA grants Rare Pediatric Disease designation for serious and life-threatening diseases that primarily affect children ages 18 years or younger and fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Eligibility for a priority review voucher may be issued upon approval of a BLA or New Drug Application for therapies developed to treat such rare pediatric diseases. Priority review vouchers may be redeemed to obtain priority review for any subsequent marketing application or be sold or transferred. Under current statutory provisions, FDA may award a priority review voucher for an approved rare pediatric disease product application only if the sponsor has received rare pediatric disease designation for the drug by December 20, 2024, and after September 30, 2026, the FDA may not award any rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers. Congress may vote to reauthorize this program, but its future remains uncertain.

vi. Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biologics are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for Fast Track status any time before receiving BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-BLA meeting.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval, if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. Accelerated approval may also be granted in the case that there are no alternative treatments available. In addition, it must demonstrate 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 may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials with due diligence and, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”), the FDA is now permitted to require that such trials be underway prior to approval or within a specific time period after, the date accelerated approval is granted. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA currently requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period. If the FDA concludes that a drug or biologic shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it will require such post-marketing restrictions, as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product. Under FDORA, the FDA has increased authority for expedited procedures to withdraw approval of a product or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.

Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The benefits of breakthrough therapy designation include the same benefits as Fast Track designation, plus intensive guidance from the FDA to ensure an efficient drug development program.

Fast Track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process.

vii. Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), as amended, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug 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 FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submits an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”) within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. 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 an 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 preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

viii. Post-marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities.

Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. Prescription drug and biologic promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a drug’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures, including a REMS or the conduct of post-marketing studies to assess a newly discovered safety issue. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the 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 drugs or biologics 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 requirements and other laws, as well as applicable tracking and tracing requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including recall.

ix. Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Department of Justice, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

x. Other Healthcare and Privacy Laws

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 future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable 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 particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. In the U.S., these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

Similar comprehensive privacy laws have been passed in numerous other states and other states have proposed similar new privacy laws. Such proposed legislation, if enacted, may add additional 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 noncompliance. There are also states that are specifically regulating health information. For example, Washington state recently passed a health privacy law that will regulate the collection and sharing of health information, and the law also has a private right of action, which further increases the relevant compliance risk. Connecticut and Nevada have also passed similar laws regulating consumer health data. In addition, other states have proposed and/or passed legislation that regulates the privacy and/or security of certain specific types of information. For example, a small number of states have passed laws that regulate biometric data specifically. These various privacy and security laws may impact our business activities, including our identification of research subjects, relationships with business partners and ultimately the marketing and distribution of our products. State laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in the U.S. Congress of a new comprehensive federal data privacy law to which we may likely become subject, if enacted.

All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs, such as costs related to organizational changes, implementing additional protection technologies, training employees and engaging consultants and legal advisors, which are likely to increase over time. In addition, such requirements may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, utilize management’s time and/or divert resources from other initiatives and projects.

Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with any applicable federal, state or foreign laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security could result in damage to our reputation, as well as proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or other third parties, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant fines, sanctions, awards, injunctions, penalties or judgments. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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 have recently increased their scrutiny of 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 do 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 related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion of drugs from participation in state and federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. 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 similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time and resource consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

xi. Current and Future Healthcare Reform Legislation

In the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

In the U.S., for example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted. The ACA included provisions that address pharmaceutical pricing. Among other things, for example, the FDA:

Some of the provisions of the ACA have been subject to judicial challenges as well as efforts to repeal, replace or otherwise modify them or to alter their interpretation or implementation. For example:

Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Trump administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Trump administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including by imposing price or patient assistance constraints, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation of pharmaceutical products from other countries and bulk purchasing.

xii. Packaging and Distribution in the U.S.

If our products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are 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 any of these laws or 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, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, 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.

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.

xiii. Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations

We may be 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. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

xiv. U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our current product candidates and any future 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 restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. Patent term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA 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 the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. PTO, 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 BLA.

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCI Act”). This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the U.S. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. The first biological product determined to be interchangeable with a reference product for any condition of use is also eligible for a period of exclusivity during which time the FDA may not determine that another product is interchangeable with the same reference product for any condition of use. The FDA may approve multiple “first” interchangeable products so long as they are all approved on the same first day of marketing.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of regulatory market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing regulatory exclusivity periods for all formulations, dosage forms, and indications of the biologic. This six-month exclusivity may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial that fairly responds to an FDA issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

b. European Union Drug Development

In the EU, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the U.S., medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the U.S., the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

In April 2014, the EU adopted the Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014, which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022. The main characteristics of the Clinical Trials Regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point through the Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”); a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided into two parts (Part I contains scientific and medicinal product documentation and Part II contains the national and patient-level documentation). Part I is assessed by a coordinated review by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned) of a draft report prepared by a Reference Member State. Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. The transitory provisions of the Clinical Trial Regulation provide that, by January 31, 2025, all ongoing clinical trials must have transitioned to the Clinical Trials Regulation.

In the EU the Paediatric Committee (“PDCO”) of the EMA must approve a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”) prior to an applicant filing a marketing authorization application (“MAA”), unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver or a class waiver. The PIP outlines the pharmaceutical company’s strategy for investigation of the new medicinal product in the pediatric population. Before an MAA can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines whether companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP. If an applicant obtains a marketing authorization in all EU Member States, or a marketing authorization granted in the centralized procedure by the EC, and the study results for the pediatric population are included in the product information, even when negative, the medicine is then eligible for an additional six-month period of qualifying patent protection through extension of the term of any supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”), provided an application for such extension is made at the same time as filing the SPC application for the product, or at any point up to 2 years before the SPC expires. The incentive in the case of orphan medicinal products is that a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

i. European Union Expedited Review and Development

PRIME is a scheme provided by the EMA to enhance support for the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation where the MAA will be made through the centralized procedure. To qualify for PRIME, product candidates require early clinical evidence that the therapy has the potential to offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments or benefits patients without treatment options. Products from small-and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Among the benefits of PRIME are the appointment of a rapporteur to provide continuous support and help build knowledge ahead of an MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process. The receipt of PRIME designation does not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process. Where, during the course of development, a product no longer meets the eligibility criteria, support under the PRIME scheme may be withdrawn.

ii. European Union Drug Marketing

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the U.S., the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or reward improper performance generally is typically governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the UK despite its departure from the EU.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

iii. European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). There are two types of MAs.

Centralized MAs, which are issued by the EC through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the EMA, are valid throughout the EU, and in the additional Member States of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as medicinal products produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (i.e., gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the EU Member States and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in an EU Member State, this national MA can be recognized in another EU Member State through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any EU Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various EU Member States through the decentralized procedure.

Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the EU Member States in which the MA is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the reference Member State (“RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS prepares a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics (“SmPC”), and a draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Member States Concerned) for their approval. If the Member States Concerned raise no objections, based on a potential serious risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging proposed by the RMS, the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States involved (i.e., in the RMS and the Member States Concerned).

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the EU Member States make an assessment of the risk benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

iv. European Union Data and Market Exclusivity

In the EU, innovative products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents applicants for authorization of generics or biosimilars of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar medicinal product can be placed on the EU market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall 10-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained an MA based on an MAA with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

v. European Union Orphan Designation and Exclusivity

In the EU, after a recommendation from the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (“COMP”), the European Commission may grant orphan designation to a product if (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) it is unlikely that the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU or, if a method exists, the product would be a significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

In the EU, orphan designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and 10 years of market exclusivity is granted following medicinal product approval during which time no “similar medicinal product” may be placed on the market. A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This period may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is determined that the orphan designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable so as not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an application for an MA. We will be required to apply for the maintenance of the orphan designation granted to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA at the time of applying for an MA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the EEA.

vi. Reform of the Regulatory Framework in the European Union

The European Commission introduced legislative proposals in April 2023 that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework in the EU for all medicines (including those for rare diseases and for children). The European Commission has provided the legislative proposals to the European Parliament and the European Council for their review and approval, and in April 2024, the European Parliament proposed amendments to the legislative proposals. Once the European Commission’s legislative proposals are approved (with or without amendment), they will be adopted into EU law.

vii. European General Data Protection Regulation

Since we conduct clinical trials in the EEA, we are subject to additional European data privacy laws. The General Data Protection Regulation, (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”), became effective on May 25, 2018, and deals with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The GDPR imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases for processing personal data (such as health and other sensitive data,) relating to identifiable individuals and transferring such information outside the EEA, including to the U.S., providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, appointing data protection officers, conducting data protection impact assessments, and record-keeping. The GDPR increases substantially the penalties to which we could be subject in the event of any non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. The GDPR may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Given the limited enforcement of the GDPR to date, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements on our trials and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities.

National laws of member states of the EU are in the process of being adapted to the requirements under the GDPR, thereby implementing national laws which may partially deviate from the GDPR and impose different obligations from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EEA. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic data, the GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty. In addition, further to the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of January 1, 2021, the UK’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. The UK has announced plans to reform the country’s data protection legal framework in its Data Reform Bill, but these have been put on hold. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the EC has now issued a decision recognizing the UK as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Like the EU GDPR, the UK GDPR restricts personal data transfers outside the UK to countries not regarded by the UK as providing adequate protection. The UK government has confirmed that personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing.

In the event we continue to conduct clinical trials in the EEA, we must also ensure that we maintain adequate safeguards to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA, in particular to the U.S., in compliance with European data protection laws. In the past, companies in the U.S. were able to rely upon the EU-U.S.

Privacy Shield framework to legitimize data transfers from the EU the U.S. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Case C-311/18 (Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems [“Schrems II”]) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield on the grounds that the Privacy Shield failed to offer adequate protections to EU personal data transferred to the U.S. The CJEU, in the same decision, deemed that the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) published by the EC are valid. However, the CJEU ruled that transfers made pursuant to the SCCs need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the law in the recipient country provides “essentially equivalent” protections to safeguard the transferred personal data as the EU, and required businesses to adopt supplementary measures if such standard is not met. Subsequent guidance published by the European Data Protection Board in June 2021 described what such supplementary measures must be, and stated that businesses should avoid or cease transfers of personal data if, in the absence of supplementary measures, equivalent protections cannot be afforded. On June 4, 2021, the EC issued new forms of standard contractual clauses for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EU/EEA (or otherwise subject to the GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EU/EEA (and not subject to the GDPR). The new standard contractual clauses replace the standard contractual clauses that were adopted previously under the EU Data Protection Directive. The UK is not subject to the EC’s new standard contractual clauses but has published a draft version of a UK-specific transfer mechanism, which, once finalized, will enable transfers from the UK. We will be required to implement these new safeguards when conducting restricted data transfers under the EU and UK GDPR and doing so will require significant effort and cost. On March 25, 2022, the EC and the U.S. announced to have reached a political agreement on a new “Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework”, which will replace the invalidated Privacy Shield and on December 13, 2022, the EC published a draft adequacy decision on the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework.

c. Regulation in the United Kingdom

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. The EU and the UK have concluded a trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”), which was provisionally applicable since January 1, 2021 and has been formally applicable since May 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. At present, the UK has implemented EU legislation on the marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended). The regulatory regime in the UK therefore currently aligns in many respects with EU medicines regulations, however it is possible that these regimes will diverge in the future now that the UK’s regulatory system is independent from the EU and the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation. Notwithstanding that there is no wholesale recognition of EU pharmaceutical legislation under the TCA, under a new international recognition procedure which was put in place by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”), the UK medicines regulator, on January 1, 2024, the MHRA may take into account decisions on the approval of an MA from the EMA (and certain other regulators) when considering an application for a UK MA.

On February 27, 2023, the UK government and the European Commission announced a political agreement in principle to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol with a new set of arrangements, known as the “Windsor Framework”. The Windsor Framework was approved by the EU-UK Joint Committee on March 24, 2023, and the medicines aspects of the Windsor Framework have applied since January 1, 2025. This new framework fundamentally changes the previous system under the Northern Ireland Protocol, including with respect to the regulation of medicinal products in the UK. In particular, the MHRA is now responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the UK market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and the EMA no longer has any role in approving medicinal products destined for Northern Ireland under the EU centralized procedure. A single UK-wide MA will be granted by the MHRA for all novel medicinal products to be sold in the UK, enabling products to be sold in a single pack and under a single authorization throughout the UK. In addition, the new arrangements require all medicines placed on the UK market to be labelled “UK only”, indicating they are not for sale in the EU.

i. Clinical Trials

The UK has implemented the now repealed Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC into national law through the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (as amended). However, on December 12, 2024, the UK government introduced a legislative proposal—the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024—that, if implemented, will replace the current regulatory framework for clinical trials in the UK.

The legislative proposal aims to provide a more flexible regime to make it easier to conduct clinical trials in the UK and increase the transparency of clinical trials conducted in the UK. This includes a notification scheme to enable lower-risk clinical trials to be automatically approved by the MHRA, where the risk is similar to that of standard medical care (although such trials would still require ethics committee approval). Such Regulations are expected to come into force in early 2026.

ii. Orphan Designation

A separate process for orphan designation to the EU process now applies in the UK. There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation (as there is in the EU) in the UK and the application for orphan designation will be reviewed by the MHRA at the time of an application for a UK MA. The criteria for orphan designation remain the same as in the EU, except that they apply to the UK only (e.g., there must be no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in the UK, as opposed to the EU).

d. Rest of the World Regulation

For other countries outside of the UK, the EU and the U.S., such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

e. Additional Laws and Regulations Governing International Operations

If we further expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“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 U.S. to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the 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.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree.

Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is (i) a covered benefit under its health plan; (ii) safe, effective and medically necessary; (iii) appropriate for the specific patient; (iv) cost-effective; and (v) neither experimental nor investigational.

In the U.S. no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drugs or biological products exists, and one payor’s determination to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for a product does not assure that other payors will make a similar determination. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of our products candidates, if approved, will be made on a payor by payor basis. The level of coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. The coverage determination process may be a time consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Additionally, companies may also need to provide discounts to purchasers, private health plans or government healthcare programs.

A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and payors, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products.

Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future, which could affect physician usage and patient demand.

Additional federal programs apply to pharmaceutical companies that affect coverage and reimbursement for drug products. For example, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the HHS as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. Pricing and rebate programs must also comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the “MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that prescription drug coverage. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. Although Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class must be included. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates.

Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the AMP and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although, under the current state of the law, with the exception of children’s hospitals, these newly eligible entities will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. In addition, as 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

In addition, in most foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low priced and high priced member states, can further reduce prices. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries.

Our employees are relentlessly focused on the discovery and development of innovative medicines in which signaling by protein growth factors plays a fundamental role. We believe that passion for science is what guides us to excellence. Our commitment to changing the lives of people with serious disease is what motivates us to show up each and every day. Our people are our most important asset who help us achieve extraordinary results and create new possibilities for patients. They embody our values and bring them to life in everything we do. We are inspired and guided by these values of focusing on the patient, cultivating curiosity, collaborating with purpose, upholding high standards and accelerating breakthroughs in making a difference in the lives of patients, families and communities.

a. Employees

As of February 21, 2025, we had 196 full-time employees, of which 128 employees are engaged in research and development activities and 68 are engaged in general and administrative activities. All of our employees are based in the U.S. and a majority are based in Massachusetts. During 2024, we continued to make targeted hires to enhance our capabilities. The new employees were hired to support a variety of functions and key initiatives, including strengthening our clinical development and starting to build our commercial function, with hires in various areas of clinical development, operations and commercial leadership. We anticipate continuing to add depth and new capabilities in key areas of our business in 2025, as well as hiring to support our infrastructure and overall anticipated growth. None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good.

b. Career Development and Growth

We emphasize employee development and training. To empower employees to unleash their potential individually and as a team, we invest in our employees by providing development opportunities, and the necessary resources to support their success, including mentorship guidelines, professional coaching, management and leadership training, online learning subscriptions and access to industry events and conferences. The diversity of our employees and their skillsets also offers a unique opportunity for us to learn from each other’s experiences.

c. Compensation and Benefits

Our competitive compensation programs are designed to align the compensation of our employees with our performance and to provide the proper incentives to attract, retain and motivate employees to achieve superior results. The structure of our compensation programs balances earnings for both short-term and long-term performance. We provide employee salaries that are competitive within our industry based on position, skill level, experience and knowledge. Additionally, we offer both new hire equity and annual equity grants to our employees to align the interests of our employees with the company’s mission.

We are committed to providing comprehensive benefit options and it is our intention to offer benefits that will allow our employees and their families to live healthier and more secure lives. Some examples of the benefits we offer are: medical insurance including prescription drug benefits, dental insurance, vision insurance, accident insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, wellness programs, access to mental health support and benefits, identity theft insurance and pet insurance.

In addition to ensuring our compensation programs are equitable, we also strive to provide employees with valuable recognition for their contributions to our success. We have a multi-tier reward & recognition program that aligns with our company values at all levels. Our rewards & recognition program begins with peer-to-peer recognition via an internal community board, followed by quarterly awards for outstanding achievements, and ends with an annual award for each one of our values.

d. Employee Engagement

We routinely conduct confidential employee engagement surveys to obtain feedback on a variety of topics, including culture, values, diversity, equity and inclusion, career development, employee satisfaction and tenure, and execution of our company strategy. These survey results are reviewed by our people managers so that we can continue to increase employee satisfaction and improve the well-being of our employees. We value and encourage fostering mechanisms and opportunities for two-way dialogue. We actively strive to operationalize feedback provided by employees in ways that align with our business and culture. We are also committed to communication and transparency, using multiple forums and channels to allow for the sharing of appropriate, timely information to all employees.

​

e. Health & Safety

Ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our employees and communities is of the utmost importance to us, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. What we have seen as a result of the pandemic is that flexibility is top of mind and a key consideration. We continue to offer access to COVID tests and masks at no cost to our employees and visitors.

​

The need to provide the flexibility to work from home has refocused our work model. We’ve helped employees set up home offices, provided them access to tools to perform their jobs remotely, provided ergonomic assessments of their working environments, and helped them address IT connectivity. We’ve also found ways to continue to foster collaboration and community through events like virtual trivia nights, scavenger hunts, coffee chats, charitable giving and lunch-n-learns, that we would normally do in person.

f. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (“DE&I”)

We believe that fostering diversity, equity and inclusion is a business imperative which supports and encourages individuals to show up as their whole selves. Investing in meaningful DE&I work enhances culture and employee experience. We are committed to creating and maintaining a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and safe work environment. As we grow and mature, we will continue to infuse DE&I within the business including: identifying barriers that impact recruitment, development, and retention of underrepresented employees, identifying educational content, communicating the value and impact of DE&I on goals and objectives, all while continuing to focus on hiring diverse talent at all levels of the company. Our ability to innovate and meet people’s needs is strongest when all voices are heard and valued.

​

Our corporate headquarters and operations are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In November 2019, we entered into a lease of laboratory and office space at 301 Binney Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts and in 2021 we relocated our corporate headquarters to this location. The expiration date was originally in August 2025 and included an option to extend the term by two years. In May 2024, we entered into the First Amendment to the Lease to extend the term for approximately two years, commencing on August 19, 2025 with an option to extend the term by five years.

We believe that our facility at 301 Binney Street is adequate to meet our current needs, and that suitable additional space will be available as and when needed.

XVL. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations. We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

XVIL. Website Access to Reports

We are subject to the informational requirements of the Exchange Act and are required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. You can read our SEC filings, including the registration statement, at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We also maintain a website at http://www.scholarrock.com. You may access, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The information that is posted on or is accessible through our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered part of this or any other report that we file with or furnish to the SEC.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Careful consideration should be given to the following risk factors, together with all other information set forth in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes, and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and in other documents that we file with the SEC, in evaluating Scholar Rock Holding Corporation and our subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”, “we”, or “our”) and our business, before investing in our common stock. Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. If any of the following risks and uncertainties actually occurs, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The market price of our common stock could decline if one or more of these risks or uncertainties were to occur, which may cause you to lose all or part of the money you paid to buy our common stock. The risk factors described below disclose both material and other risks, and are not intended to be exhaustive and are not the only risks facing the Company. New risk factors can emerge from time to time, and it is not possible to predict the impact that any factor or combination of factors may have on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Certain statements below are forward-looking statements. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” in this Annual Report.

Summary of the Material Risks Associated with Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of before making an investment decision, including those highlighted in the section entitled “Risk Factors.” These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

Risks Related to Product Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

Risks Related to Our Business and Operations

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Risks Related to Product Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

The regulatory approval process for our product candidates in the U.S., EU and other jurisdictions will be lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable and we may fail to receive or be delayed in receiving regulatory approval of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and future product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, sale, import, export, marketing, promotion and distribution of drug products, including biologics, are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the U.S. and other regulatory authorities outside the U.S. We are not permitted to market any biological product in the U.S. until we receive a biologics license from the FDA. Prior to filing the Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the U.S. FDA for apitegromab as a treatment for patients with SMA in January 2025, we have not submitted a BLA to the FDA or similar marketing application to comparable foreign authorities. A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the product candidate is safe, pure and potent for each desired indication. FDA approval of a new biologic or drug generally requires dispositive data from two (and in some cases, one) adequate and well-controlled pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials of the biologic or drug in the relevant patient population. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials or our analysis or interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials, the results of our clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance or amount of data required for approval, regulatory authorities may not agree with the statistical methods we used to evaluate our clinical data, or we may be unable to demonstrate that our product candidates’ clinical and other benefits outweigh their safety risks. A BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls for the product, and the manufacturing facilities must complete a successful pre-license inspection as well as certain key clinical sites conducting our clinical trials. The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies.

The FDA may seek independent advice from a panel of experts, referred to as an Advisory Committee, on complex or novel issues that may be presented in an application, including issues related to the adequacy of the safety and efficacy data to support approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee, although not binding, may have a significant impact on our ability to receive approval of any product candidates that we develop based on the completed clinical trials.

Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs for the institutions at which such trials are being conducted, or the FDA, the competent authorities and/or ethics committees of the EU Member States or other regulatory authorities, or recommended for suspension or termination by the DSMB for such 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, EMA, competent authorities of the EU Member States or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the prospects for regulatory approval and commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing any clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

We have never commercialized a product and are in the process of building and scaling our business for potential commercialization of apitegromab in the United States and Europe, including building our compliance, medical affairs and commercial organizations, which, if we are not able to do so successfully could negatively impact our business, including the potential for a successful commercialization of apitegromab.

Although we are preparing our commercialization capabilities in anticipation of a potential approval and commercial launch of apitegromab, we have no prior sales or distribution experience and limited capabilities for marketing and market access. We expect to invest significant financial and management resources over time to establish compliance, medical affairs and commercial organizations for the marketing, sales and distribution of apitegromab in the United States as well as Europe, if approved in each jurisdiction, and other capabilities and infrastructure to support commercial operations. If we are unable to establish these commercial capabilities and infrastructure in a timely manner or to enter into agreements with third parties to market, sell, and/or distribute apitegromab if approved, we may be unable to complete a successful commercial launch.

To the extent we enter into agreements with third parties, the revenue we receive may depend upon the efforts of such third parties, over which we may have limited or no control, and our revenue from product sales may be lower than if we had commercialized the products ourselves. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the distribution, sales and marketing of our products.

Furthermore, we intend to commercialize apitegromab globally, if approved. In order to do so, we must build, on a territory-by-territory basis, marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so.

Changes or disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding cuts, government shutdowns, personnel reductions, substantial changes in leadership and policy, or other changes or disruptions to these agencies’ operations could prevent these agencies from performing functions on which the operation of our business relies, including the timely review and potential approval of our BLA application, and any such disruptions and changes could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to review and or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, staffing levels, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s and foreign regulatory authorities' ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, including substantial leadership, personnel, 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, over the last few months, the U.S. government has issued executive orders that could adversely impact FDA staffing and resources. Such changes could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and take action on our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns or substantial leadership, personnel, and policy changes could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

In addition, changes in the requirements and policies of the FDA and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over our products, including pricing and reimbursement framework under federal healthcare programs could affect the commercial viability of our products, create revenue uncertainty, and impact our ability to achieve profitability. Additionally, regulatory changes may introduce new challenges in obtaining FDA approval or navigating commercialization, and any delay in securing applicable regulatory approvals would adversely affect our business and prospects. These uncertainties could also present new challenges and/or opportunities as we navigate the submission of our BLA to the FDA and make other preparations for potential commercialization. Any delay in obtaining, or our inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would delay or prevent commercialization of apitegromab and could materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

We are seeking priority review for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA, which we requested at the time of submission of our marketing application to the FDA, and may seek accelerated assessments for apitegromab at the time of submitting a marketing application to the EMA. Even if received, priority review designation may not result in a shorter timeline to approval, and such designation may be rescinded if a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria. An application for accelerated assessment may not be accepted by the EMA and, even if it is, there is no guarantee that a product will be granted a marketing authorization.

As appropriate, we may seek priority review at the time of submitting a marketing application for certain of our product candidates. For apitegromab for the treatment SMA, we have requested Priority Review which, if granted, would shorten the FDA’s review time to six months from the date of filing acceptance. The FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting adverse reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act (“PDUFA”) goal date for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months from FDA’s acceptance of the application for review.

However, priority review does not guarantee a faster review or approval process or assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, priority review designation may be rescinded if the FDA determines that a product no longer meets the qualifying criteria.

In addition, as appropriate, we may seek accelerated assessment of a marketing authorization application by the EMA for certain of our product candidates. The EMA may accept an application for accelerated assessment if the applicant can show that its product is of major interest for public health, particularly from the perspective of therapeutic innovation. Accelerated assessment reduces the timeframe for the EMA to review a marketing authorization application under the centralized procedure from 210 days (excluding “clock stops”, when applicants are required to provide additional information in response to questions from the EMA) to 150 days (excluding clock stops). There is no single definition of what constitutes major public health interest and the EMA may not accept an application for accelerated assessment. Even if an application for accelerated assessment is accepted, the evaluation of the marketing authorization application is subject to the same evidence requirements as evaluation under a standard timetable and there is no guarantee that a product will be granted a marketing authorization.

Product development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, or any future product candidates. Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the initiation or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval or limit market acceptance of our product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Clinical development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain, a clinical trial can fail at any stage of development. We may experience delays in initiating, progressing or completing our clinical trials. We may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful. Clinical trials may fail to meet their primary or secondary endpoints, raise safety concerns or generate mixed results. Differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Clinical data may not be sufficient to apply for and obtain regulatory approval on the timelines we expect or at all. Other decisions or actions of regulatory agencies may affect our plans, progress or results.

We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any clinical trials in process or any future clinical trials that we conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, or any future product candidates, including:

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the initiation or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval or limit market acceptance of our product candidates. For example, we anticipate some of our future trials to, in part, utilize an open-label trial design, and our ongoing Phase 1 DRAGON clinical trial for SRK-181 in cancer immunotherapy and our ongoing ONYX long-term extension study for apitegromab in patients from both the TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE trials, utilize an open-label trial design. An open-label trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the test article or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Open-label trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label studies are aware that they are receiving treatment.

Open-label trials may be subject to a patient bias, for example, if patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Open-label trials also may be subject to an investigator bias where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The potential sources of bias in clinical trials as a result of open-label design may not be adequately mitigated and may cause any of our trials that utilize such design to fail and additional trials may be necessary to support future marketing applications. In addition, other types of trials (including randomized, double-blind, parallel arm studies), particularly if smaller in size or if limited to one study, are also subject to potential sources of bias and limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect or falsely identify a positive efficacy signal, or conversely, fail to detect an efficacy signal when in fact there may actually be a positive therapeutic effect. Furthermore, we are conducting clinical trials with apitegromab in SMA, but by using apitegromab in a Phase 2 obesity clinical trial, we may become aware of safety information associated with apitegromab that we did not observe when we used apitegromab in our clinical trials in SMA. We, the FDA, the competent authorities and/or ethics committees of the EU Member States or other applicable regulatory authorities for their jurisdictions, or an IRB for their site(s) may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects or patients in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects.

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Our clinical development strategy depends on the continued use and availability of certain third-party approved drug therapies.

Apitegromab and SRK-181 are our two clinical-stage product candidates. Patients in ONYX, our long-term extension study for patients from both the TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE studies, are receiving apitegromab in conjunction with an approved SMN therapy. These patients are reliant on the continued use and availability of such therapies. If access to an approved SMN therapy such as nusinersen or risdiplam becomes limited or is unavailable, we may be forced to pause or stop our ONYX long-term extension trials, or the medical condition of patients may be affected which could negatively affect the efficacy and safety results for apitegromab in the trials or reduce the amount of data or confound the data from this trial. In May 2024, we initiated the Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial of apitegromab in combination with approved GLP-1 RAs in obesity. This study relies upon the continued availability of such GLP-1 RA. Access to approved GLP-1 RAs are limited for use in clinical trials and may continue to be limited for such use. If GLP-1 RAs become more limited or unavailable, we may be unable to enroll, or may be delayed in enrolling patients, or may be forced to stop our Phase 2 study. While we have obtained substantial supply of an approved GLP-1 RA for use in this Phase 2 study, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain adequate supply for future studies of our product candidate in obesity. Patients in Part B of our ongoing Phase 1 DRAGON clinical trial of SRK-181 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that exhibit resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapies are receiving SRK-181 in conjunction with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 therapy such as pembrolizumab. If access to the approved anti-PD-(L)1 therapy becomes limited or is unavailable, we may be forced to pause or stop our Phase 1 DRAGON clinical trial, or the medical condition of patients may be affected which could negatively affect the efficacy and safety results for SRK-181 in the trial. Any delay or suspension of our clinical trials would significantly and delay our clinical development programs and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The results or success of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of future results or replicated in later preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates in the same indications or other indications.

The results or success of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of future results or replicated in later preclinical studies or later-stage clinical trials. Preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials are primarily designed to study PK and PD, understand the side effects of product candidates, and evaluate various doses and dosing schedules.

Our current or future product candidates may demonstrate different chemical, biological and pharmacological properties in patients than they do in laboratory studies or may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen or harmful ways. Product candidates in later-stages of clinical trials may fail to show desired pharmacological properties or produce positive safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials. We completed a Phase 1 clinical trial for apitegromab in healthy adult volunteers and our Phase 2 TOPAZ clinical trial for the treatment of patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA. In 2024, we announced data from the Phase 2 TOPAZ trial extension period which showed patient outcomes at 48 months of treatment with apitegromab. These data show that continued treatment with apitegromab over the extended period was associated with sustained clinical benefit, a continued favorable safety profile with no new safety findings, and a retention rate of over 90% in patients with nonambulatory Types 2 and 3 SMA receiving SMN therapy. In January 2022, we initiated our Phase 3 SAPPHIRE clinical trial of apitegromab for the treatment of patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA and in October 2024, we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 3 SAPPHIRE clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of apitegromab. We also announced in October 2023 our plans to expand into cardiometabolic disorders based on preclinical data with SRK-439, and we initiated the Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial of apitegromab in combination with a GLP-1 RA in obesity in May 2024 with top-line results expected in the second quarter of 2025. We cannot assure you that any future clinical trials of apitegromab, such as our Phase 2 clinical trial in obesity, or of SRK-439 will show positive results. Additionally, product candidates evaluated in one disease indication may interact in unforeseen or harmful ways in a patient population with a different disease indication than was previously studied. For example, we have initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial of apitegromab in obesity. Apitegromab may interact in unforeseen or different ways in the obesity population than in the SMA patient population. There can be no assurance that any of our current or planned clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates. There can also be no assurance that any of our future clinical trials will show similar results to our earlier clinical trials or support further development or registration of any of our product candidates.

Interim, initial, or preliminary results from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change (e.g., from positive safety or efficacy results to poor or negative safety or efficacy results) as more patient data become available and are subject to additional audit, validation and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim, initial, or preliminary data, including interim top-line results or initial or preliminary results from our clinical trials. Any interim, initial or preliminary data and other results from our clinical trials may materially change as more patient data become available. Preliminary, initial, interim or top-line results also remain subject to audit, validation and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the interim, initial or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim, initial or preliminary data may not be predictive of final results and should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. We may also arrive at different conclusions, or considerations may qualify such results, once we have received and fully evaluated additional data. For example, clinical data from our Phase 1 DRAGON trial in cancer immunotherapy, including preliminary safety, efficacy and biomarker data were presented in June 2024 at the ASCO 2024 annual meeting and in November 2024 at the SITC 39th Annual Meeting, and we will continue to present data from our Phase 1 DRAGON trial while the trial is ongoing. Tumor response data is based on assessments by site investigators. Central reads for the tumor responses are also being conducted, with a comprehensive review of the central reads to be performed once completed within and/or across the cohorts. Differences between preliminary, initial or interim data and final data could adversely affect our business.

There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologics proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Many drugs have failed to replicate efficacy and safety results in larger or more complex later stage trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain regulatory approval. If we fail to produce positive results in our ongoing and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials in apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or if a regulatory authority interprets and analyzes the results as not positive, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for our product candidates, and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects, may be materially adversely affected.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

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

For example, we are initially developing apitegromab for the treatment of SMA, a rare disease, affecting an estimated 20,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe. As a result, we may encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials for apitegromab due, in part, to the small size of this patient population. In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we expect to conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Additionally, patients may opt out of participation in clinical trials in favor of treatment with FDA-approved therapies, or therapies approved in the EU or other foreign jurisdictions.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our future clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and certain aspects of our preclinical studies. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines or comply with legal and regulatory requirements, we may be delayed or unable to receive regulatory approval of or commercialize apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, or any future product candidates, and our business could be materially harmed.

We depend upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and to conduct our clinical trials, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, CROs, strategic partners and others. We often have to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, and if we are unsuccessful or if the negotiations take longer than anticipated, this could result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

We rely especially heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and, as a result, have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their individual employment policies or compliance with the approved clinical protocol.

Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities 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 GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, clinical investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the GCP requirements. We also are required to register certain ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in civil monetary penalties, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. The FDA and National Institutes of Health have signaled the government’s willingness to begin enforcing these registration and reporting requirements against non-compliant clinical trial sponsors.

Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting aspects of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical studies and clinical trials. The third party CROs and clinical trial sites that conduct our clinical trials have experienced staffing shortages and the inability of a CRO or clinical trial site to maintain appropriate levels of competent staffing to support the demands of our clinical trials could negatively impact the execution of our clinical trials. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, receive regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or others terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or other third parties or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO begins work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

We have received Orphan Drug designation from the FDA for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA and the EC granted Orphan Medicinal Product designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA. We may seek Orphan Drug designation from regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions for apitegromab and Orphan Drug designation from the FDA, EC or regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions for our other product candidates. In any of these instances, we may not receive the requested designation or we may be unable to realize the benefits associated with Orphan Drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

We have received Orphan Drug designation from the FDA for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA, and following the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products’ positive opinion, the EC designated apitegromab as an orphan medicinal product for the treatment of SMA.

Even if we receive orphan drug exclusivity, the benefit of that exclusivity may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan-designated indication or could be revoked under certain circumstances, for example if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or that we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Further, even if we receive orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition during the exclusivity period because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition, and the same product can be approved for different uses. Also, in the U.S., even after an orphan drug is approved and receives orphan drug exclusivity, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter drug is not the same drug, including because it has been shown to be clinically superior to the drug with exclusivity because it is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EU, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product to an authorized orphan product for the same orphan indication if:

The FDA may reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business. Depending on what changes the FDA may make to its orphan drug regulations and policies, our business could be adversely impacted.

We have received Rare Pediatric Disease designation for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA. However, a marketing application for apitegromab, if approved, may not meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher.

We have received Rare Pediatric Disease designation for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA. Designation of a biologic as a product for a rare pediatric disease does not guarantee that a BLA for such biologic will meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher at the time the application is approved. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, we will need to request a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher in our original BLA for apitegromab. The FDA may determine that a BLA for apitegromab, if approved, does not meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher, including for the following reasons:

The FDA’s authority to grant rare pediatric disease designations expired on December 20, 2024. Under the amended statutory sunset provisions, the FDA may award a priority review voucher for an approved rare pediatric disease product application only if the sponsor has rare pediatric disease designation for the drug and if that designation was granted by December 20, 2024. After September 30, 2026, the FDA may not award any rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers. If the BLA for apitegromab is not approved on or prior to September 30, 2026 for any reason, it will not be eligible for a priority review voucher. However, it is possible the authority for the FDA to award rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers will be further extended by Congress.

We have received Fast Track designation from the FDA and PRIME designation from the EMA for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA. We may seek Fast Track designation or Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA or PRIME designation from the EMA for certain of our current and future product candidates, and we may not be successful in receiving such designations, or if received, such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation or PRIME designation for certain of our product candidates.

In May 2021, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure that the FDA would decide to grant it. Although the FDA has granted Fast Track designation for apitegromab in SMA, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

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 instead determine not to make such designation. 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 products considered for approval under conventional FDA 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 products no longer meet the conditions for qualification and rescind the breakthrough designation. See the sections of this Annual Report entitled, “Business — Government Regulation — US Biological Product Development — Expedited Development and Review Programs.”

In March 2021, the EMA granted PRIME designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA. PRIME is a scheme provided by the EMA to enhance support for the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need. The receipt of PRIME designation for apitegromab for the treatment of SMA may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to products considered for approval under conventional regulatory agency procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the EMA.

See the section of this Annual Report entitled, “Business – Government Regulation – European Union Drug Development — European Union Expedited Review and Development.”

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

Receiving and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to receive or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, but a failure or delay in receiving regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in other jurisdictions. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, the EC, the competent authorities of EU Member States or comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions may not approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in other countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the U.S., 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 U.S., 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 products is also subject to approval.

We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions. Receiving 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 products 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.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of any product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements, including requirements related to manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, import, export, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-marketing information. The safety and efficacy profile of any product will continue to be closely monitored by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA, EU and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to periodic review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA or other marketing application and previous responses to inspection observations. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved uses for which the product may be marketed or contain requirements for potentially costly post-market testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS program as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could entail requirements for long-term patient follow-up, a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for their approved indications and in a manner consistent with their FDA-approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of unapproved uses and a company that is found to have improperly promoted unapproved uses may be subject to significant liability.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision to overturn established case law giving deference to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory language has introduced uncertainty regarding the extent to which the FDA’s regulations, policies and decisions may become subject to increasing legal challenges, delays, and/or changes. 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 face enforcement action and our business may be harmed.

Even if a product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or any future product candidate we develop receives marketing approval, whether as a single agent or in conjunction with other therapies, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. There may be delays in getting our product candidates, if approved, on hospital or insurance formularies or limitations on coverage that may be available in the early stages of commercialization for newly approved drugs. If any of our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among hospitals, physicians, patients or health care payors, we will not be able to generate significant revenues, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. For example, doctors may deem it sufficient to treat patients with SMA with an SMN therapy such as nusinersen or risdiplam, and therefore will not be willing to utilize apitegromab in conjunction with such SMN therapy. If the product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market apitegromab, we may not be successful in commercializing apitegromab if and when it is approved.

​

We have recently begun to build our sales or marketing infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must continue to develop a sales and marketing organization and/or outsource certain functions to third parties.

​

There are risks involved both with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and with entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. 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 commercialize our product candidates on our own include:

​

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, third-party logistics providers, specialty distributors, specialty pharmacies, patient service providers and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of these product revenue to us may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Competing therapies may exist or could emerge that adversely affect the amount of revenue we are able to generate from the sale of apitegromab, if approved, or any of our future product candidates, if successfully developed and approved.

The biopharmaceutical industry is highly competitive. There are many public and private companies, universities, governmental agencies and other research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to our product candidates or address similar markets. If we are successful in developing apitegromab, it is probable that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to our products candidates or targeting similar indications will increase. Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do, and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of treatments and the commercialization of those treatments. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. We expect competition in the indications we are pursuing will focus on efficacy, safety, convenience, availability, and price. The commercial opportunity for apitegromab, if approved, could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are perceived to be safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than apitegromab. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Preclinical development is uncertain. Our preclinical programs, such as SRK-439, may experience delays or may never advance to clinical trials, which would adversely affect our ability to develop our product pipeline and receive regulatory approvals or commercialize these programs on a timely basis or at all, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Before we can commence clinical trials for any product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical studies that support our planned INDs in the U.S., or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical studies or of the timing of any planned IND submission to the FDA or similar applications in other jurisdictions, and cannot predict if the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical studies will ultimately support the further development of our programs. As a result, we cannot be sure that we will be able to submit INDs or similar applications for the clinical development of our preclinical programs, such as our potential IND for SRK-439, on the timelines we expect, if at all, and we cannot be sure that submission of INDs or similar applications will result in the FDA, the competent authorities and/or ethics committees in the EU Member States or other regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin.

Conducting preclinical testing can be a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process. The time required for such testing may vary substantially according to the type, complexity and novelty of the program, and can be several years or more per program. Delays associated with programs for which we are conducting preclinical testing and studies may cause us to incur additional operating expenses. We also may be affected by delays associated with the preclinical testing and studies of certain programs that are the responsibility of our collaborators or our potential future collaborators over which we have limited or no control. The commencement and rate of completion of preclinical studies for a product candidate may be delayed by many factors, including, for example, challenges in reaching consensus with regulatory agencies regarding the scope of the necessary preclinical study program and/or appropriate preclinical study designs.

Risks Related to Our Business and Operations

Because we rely on a limited number of third-party manufacturing and supply partners, our supply of research and development, preclinical and clinical development materials, and, if approved, commercial materials, may become limited or interrupted or may not be of satisfactory quantity or quality.

We have no experience manufacturing our product candidates on a commercial scale. We rely on a limited number of third-party contract manufacturers to manufacture all of our clinical trial product supplies and, if approved, all of our commercial product supplies, including all of our drug substance, drug product, labeling, and packaging. We do not own our own manufacturing facilities for producing any clinical trial or commercial product supplies. There can be no assurance that our preclinical, clinical development, and, if approved, commercial product supplies will not be limited or interrupted due to impacts to our third-party contract manufacturers. For example, we rely on a single source supplier for the manufacture of apitegromab and SRK-181. Any replacement of our current drug substance contract manufacturer or drug product contract manufacturer would require significant resources, lead time and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In addition, our ability to procure sufficient supplies for the development of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or future product candidates could be impacted by factors outside of our control such as current macroeconomic and geopolitical events and the changing rates of inflation and interest rates. We have no direct control over our contract manufacturers’ ability to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. Furthermore, all of our third-party contract manufacturers supply and/or manufacture materials or products for other companies, which exposes our third-party contract manufacturers to regulatory risks for the production of such materials and products. As a result, failure to satisfy the regulatory requirements for the production of those materials and products may affect the regulatory clearance of our contract manufacturers’ facilities generally.

The manufacturing process for a product candidate is subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authority review. Suppliers and manufacturers must meet applicable manufacturing requirements and undergo rigorous facility and process validation tests required by regulatory authorities in order to comply with regulatory standards, such as cGMP. In the event that any of our manufacturers fails to comply with such requirements or to perform its obligations to us in relation to quality, timing or otherwise, or if our supply of components or other materials becomes limited or interrupted for other reasons, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we currently do not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with another third-party, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all.

In some cases, the technical skills or technology required to manufacture our product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third-party and a feasible alternative may not exist. These factors would increase our reliance on the original manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacture our product candidates. If we must change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers for commercial supplies of drug substance, drug product, and packaged and labeled product for apitegromab, if we receive regulatory approval. We will also rely on our contract manufacturers to manufacture sufficient quantities of apitegromab to produce validation batches. We do not have long-term supply agreements in place with many of our contract manufacturers, and each batch of our drug product for our product candidates is individually contracted through a purchase order governed by master service and quality agreements. If our existing drug product contract manufacturers for our product candidates are not willing to enter into long-term supply agreements, or are not willing or are unable to supply product candidate supplies to us, we could be required to engage new contract manufacturers who would need to scale up the manufacturing process before we would be able to use the product candidate supplies they manufacture, which could result in delays to our clinical trials or future commercialization plans, if we are successful and gain approval.

To the extent that we have existing, or in the future enter into, manufacturing arrangements with third parties, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance. If we are unable to obtain or maintain third-party manufacturing for product candidates, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to develop and commercialize our product candidates successfully. Our or a third-party’s failure to execute on our manufacturing requirements and comply with cGMP could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including:

In addition, we contract with fill and finishing providers which we believe have the appropriate expertise, facilities and scale to meet our needs. Failure to maintain compliance with cGMP can result in a contractor receiving FDA sanctions, which can impact our ability to operate or lead to delays in any clinical development programs or commercial supply. We believe that our current fill and finish contractors are operating in accordance with cGMP, but we can give no assurance that the FDA, EMA, competent authorities of the EU Member States or other regulatory agencies will not conclude that a lack of compliance exists. In addition, any delay in contracting for fill and finish services, or failure of the contract manufacturer to perform the services as needed, may delay any clinical trials, registration and commercial launches, which could negatively affect our business.

Our reliance on third parties, such as manufacturers, third-party logistics providers, specialty distributors, specialty pharmacies, and patient service providers, may subject us to risks relating to manufacturing scale-up and may cause us to undertake substantial obligations, including financial obligations.

In order to conduct later-stage clinical trials, or, if approved, produce commercial product, we will need to manufacture such product candidate in large quantities. In particular, we expect to rely on our contract manufacturers to scale our manufacturing processes for future clinical trials of apitegromab, and if our development efforts are successful and if apitegromab is approved, for commercial supply of apitegromab. We, or any manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for apitegromab in a timely or cost-effective manner to meet our supply requirements. If we successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, we may be required to establish large-scale commercial manufacturing capabilities. As our drug development pipeline increases and matures, we will have a greater need for clinical study and commercial manufacturing capacity. In addition, quality-control issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we, or any manufacturing partners, are unable to successfully scale-up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing, clinical trials, and if approved, commercial supply, of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval, commercial launch or commercial supply of any resulting product may be delayed or not received, which could significantly harm our business.

Our reliance on third-party logistics providers, specialty distributors, specialty pharmacies, and patient services providers may subject us to risks that could impact the commercialization and patient access to apitegromab. If apitegromab is approved, we expect to use limited distribution agreements, which could concentrate supply with a small number of specialty pharmacies, increasing the risk of distribution disruptions, capacity constraints, and gaps in patient access if these partners fail to perform. Additionally, third parties manage high-touch patient support, reimbursement processing, and copay assistance, and any failures in these areas could lead to delays in initiation of treatment, coverage denials, and financial barriers for patients. Additionally, challenges such as disruptions in logistics, quality-control issues, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, or delays in onboarding key distribution partners may arise. If we or our third-party distribution service providers fail to scale and manage commercial distribution operations efficiently, the launch, commercialization, or continued supply of apitegromab may be delayed or compromised, which could significantly harm our business, reputation, and financial results.

We will need to continue to grow our organization in certain areas, including our personnel, systems and relationships with third parties, in order to develop and potentially commercialize our product candidates, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As our clinical development plans and commercialization strategies continue to develop and expand, we expect we will need to hire additional managerial, clinical development, scientific, regulatory, commercial, and administrative personnel. Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified specialized personnel. As apitegromab approaches commercialization, we will also need to hire sales, marketing and other commercial personnel. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and future 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 a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on third parties, advisors and consultants to provide certain services, including CROs, contract manufacturers and companies focused on antibody development and discovery activities. There can be no assurance that the services of third parties, 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 preclinical studies and clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to receive, or may be substantially delayed in receiving, regulatory approval of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or future 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.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and scientific personnel in the future due to the intense competition for a limited number of qualified personnel in the biopharmaceutical space, especially those engaged in oncology and immuno-oncology and cardiometabolic fields. In this highly competitive market, there may be increased costs to attract and retain qualified personnel. Many of the other pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial resources, different risk profiles and a longer 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 than what we have to offer. If we are not able to offer competitive compensation or appealing opportunities for high quality candidates, we may not be able to attract or retain qualified candidates and personnel. 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 apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or any future product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Our executives and highly skilled technical and managerial personnel are critical to our business. If we have transition in management, lose key personnel, or if we fail to recruit additional highly skilled personnel, our ability to further develop and potentially commercialize apitegromab, SRK-181 and SRK-439 and identify and develop new or next generation product candidates may be impaired.

Our performance substantially depends on the performance of our management team. Any transition or loss of the services of any of our executives or highly skilled technical and managerial personnel could have a disruptive impact on our ability to implement our strategy and impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives. In addition, these transitions or departures could, cause us to incur increased operating expenses, divert senior management resources in searching for replacements, or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, internal controls, financial condition and results of operations. Management transition inherently causes some loss of institutional knowledge, which can negatively affect strategy and operational execution during this phase. If we have additional changes to our executives or highly skilled technical and managerial personnel, we may be unable to successfully manage and grow our business, and our results of operations, execution of corporate goals, internal controls and financial condition could suffer as a result. The unplanned loss of the services of our executives or other personnel also could harm our reputation.

Our internal computer systems, or those used by our contract research organizations, or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, incidents or compromises.

We have outsourced significant parts of our IT and business infrastructure to third-party providers, and we currently use these providers to perform business critical IT and business services for us. Despite the implementation of security measures, our computer systems, whether they are managed by us directly or by the third parties with whom we contract, and those of our existing and future CROs, and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses and unauthorized access. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. Our increased reliance on personnel working from home may increase our cyber security risk, create data accessibility concerns, and make us more susceptible to workforce and communication disruptions, any of which could adversely impact our business operations or delay necessary interactions with local and federal regulators, ethics committees, manufacturing sites, research or clinical trial sites and other agencies and contractors. For example, the loss of preclinical or clinical data could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data.

Likewise, we rely on third parties for the manufacture of apitegromab, SRK-181 and SRK-439 and to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and future product candidates could be delayed.

As a company that uses IT systems, our systems may be subject to cyber-attacks, incidents or compromises. Due to the nature of some of these attacks, there is a risk that they may remain undetected for a period of time. While we have invested in the protection of data and information technology, our efforts may not prevent service interruptions or security breaches (e.g., ransomware attacks). We maintain cyber liability insurance; however, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover the financial, legal, business, or reputational losses, including regulatory fines, that may result from an interruption or breach of our systems.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, vendors and distributors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to comply with the laws and regulations of the FDA, EU Member States, EMA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, EMA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the U.S. and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we receive FDA approval or EMA approval or approval from other foreign regulatory bodies of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or any future product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the U.S. or in such other jurisdictions, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could result in the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, individual imprisonment, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and the curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Ongoing healthcare legislative and regulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Changes in statutes, regulations or the interpretation of existing statutes or 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; (iv) additional record-keeping requirements; or (v) changes to our pricing arrangements, or coverage of or reimbursement for our products. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the profitability and operation of our business. See the sections of this Annual Report entitled, “Business — Government Regulation — Current and Future Healthcare Reform Legislation” and “Business – Government Regulation – Coverage and Reimbursement.”

It is possible that the ACA, as currently enacted or as it may be amended or otherwise modified in the future, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare or other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, or new payment methodologies or otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from commercial payors.

We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be modified or invalidated. The continuing health care reform initiatives efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payers of health care services to contain or reduce costs of health care may adversely affect the demand for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval, our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products, our ability to obtain coverage and reimbursement approval for a product, our ability to generate revenues and achieve or maintain profitability; and the level of taxes that we are required to pay.

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the U.S. and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the research of our product candidates, as well as the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information received in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. See the section in this Annual Report entitled “Business – Government Regulation – Other Healthcare Laws.”

It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs, contractual damages and the curtailment or restricting of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a pharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

Failure to comply with health care privacy and data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We, our CROs, and any potential collaborators may be subject to strict and changing federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security) and policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security. In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our CROs and collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to civil, criminal, and administrative 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.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, 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 harm our business.

We have conducted our Phase 2 TOPAZ clinical trial and Phase 3 SAPPHIRE clinical trial of apitegromab in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), and are currently conducting ONYX, our long-term extension clinical trial of apitegromab, in the EEA and the UK, and may conduct future clinical trials in the EEA or the UK and therefore may be subject to additional privacy laws. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “EU GDPR”) imposes a broad range of strict requirements on companies subject to the EU GDPR, including requirements relating to having legal bases and conditions for processing personal information relating to personal data and transferring such personal data outside the EEA or the UK, including to the U.S., providing details to those individuals regarding the processing of their personal information, keeping personal information secure, having data processing agreements with third parties who process personal information, responding to individuals’ requests to exercise their rights in respect of their personal information, where required reporting security breaches involving personal data to the competent national data protection authority and affected individuals, where required, appointing data protection officers, where required conducting data protection impact assessments for high risk processing, and record-keeping. The EU GDPR imposes penalties in the event of non-compliance, including fines of up to 10,000,000 Euros or up to 2% of our total worldwide annual turnover for certain comparatively minor offenses, or up to 20,000,000 Euros or up to 4% of our total worldwide annual turnover for more serious offenses. The EU GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the EU GDPR.

The EU GDPR ceased to apply in the UK after the UK’s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020, but the UK incorporated the EU GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law (“ the UK GDPR”). The UK GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 set out the UK’s data protection regime, which is independent from but currently still aligned to the EU’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Although the UK is regarded as a third country under the EU’s GDPR, the UK is recognized as providing adequate protection under the EU GDPR (“UK Adequacy Decision”) and, therefore, transfers of personal data originating in the EU to the UK remain unrestricted. Likewise, personal data transfers from the UK to the EEA remain free flowing. The UK Government introduced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill which failed in the UK legislative process. A new Data (Use and Access) Bill (“UK Bill”) has been introduced into parliament. If passed, the final version of the UK Bill may have the effect of further altering the similarities between the UK and EEA data protection regime and threaten the UK Adequacy Decision from the European Commission, or EC. Further, this may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk. The respective provisions and enforcement of the EU GDPR and UK GDPR may further diverge in the future and create additional regulatory challenges and uncertainties.

Adequate safeguards must be implemented to enable the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA or the UK in compliance with European and UK data protection laws. The EC has issued forms of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EEA (or otherwise subject to the EU GDPR) to controllers or processors established outside the EEA (and not subject to the EU GDPR). The UK is not subject to the EC’s SCCs but has published its own standard clauses, the International Data Transfer Agreement, which enables transfers from the UK. We will be required to implement these new safeguards when conducting restricted data transfers under the EU GDPR and UK GDPR and doing so will require significant effort and cost. Where relying on the SCCs or UK IDTA for data transfers, we may also be required to carry out transfer impact assessments to assess whether the recipient is subject to local laws which allow public authority access to personal data.

In July 2023, the EC adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“Framework”). On the basis of the new adequacy decision, personal data can flow safely from the EU to U.S. companies participating in the Framework, without having to put in place additional data protection safeguards. There has been an extension to the Framework to cover UK transfers to the United States. The long-term validity of the Framework remains uncertain as the Framework could be challenged like its predecessor frameworks. This complexity and the additional contractual burden increases our overall risk exposure. There may be further divergence in the future, including with regard to administrative burdens.

The EU GDPR and UK GDPR may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the EU GDPR and UK GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the EU GDPR and UK GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Given the new law, we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the law. Compliance with the EU GDPR and UK GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities.

EU Member States have adopted implementing national laws to implement the EU GDPR which may partially deviate from the EU GDPR and the competent authorities in the EU Member States may interpret EU GDPR obligations slightly differently from country to country, so that we do not expect to operate in a uniform legal landscape in the EU. Also, as it relates to processing and transfer of genetic data, the EU GDPR specifically allows national laws to impose additional and more specific requirements or restrictions, and European laws have historically differed quite substantially in this field, leading to additional uncertainty.

In addition, in the United States, many states in which we operate have laws that protect the privacy and security of sensitive and personal information. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. Where state laws are more protective than HIPAA, we must comply with the state laws we are subject to, in addition to HIPAA. In certain cases, it may be necessary to modify our planned operations and procedures to comply with these more stringent state laws. Further, in some cases where we process sensitive and personal information of individuals from numerous states, we may find it necessary to comply with the most stringent state laws applicable to any of the information. For example, California’s California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), creates comprehensive individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. While there are currently exceptions for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, and other enacted or proposed comprehensive state consumer privacy legislation may impact our business activities. We continue to monitor the impact that the state consumer privacy and protection laws, like the CCPA, may have on our business activities. See the section in this Annual Report entitled “Business – Government Regulation – European General Data Protection Regulation and “Business – Government Regulation – Other Healthcare and Privacy Laws.”

Artificial intelligence presents risks and challenges that can impact our business including by posing security risks to our confidential information, proprietary information, and personal data.

The potential use of new and evolving technologies, such as artificial intelligence, in our offerings to employees may result in additional spending and present risks and challenges that can impact our business including by posing security and other risks to our confidential information, proprietary information and personal information, and as a result we may be exposed to reputational harm, legal liability, and regulatory investigations and fines.

We may build and integrate artificial intelligence into our offerings, and this innovation may present risks and challenges that could affect its adoption, and therefore our business. If we enable or offer solutions that draw controversy due to perceived or actual negative societal impact, we may experience brand or reputational harm, competitive harm or legal liability. The use of certain artificial intelligence technology can give rise to intellectual property risks, including compromises to proprietary intellectual property and intellectual property infringement, for example where third-party

data sources are used to train artificial intelligence models, or the output of artificial intelligence systems reproduce or incorporate third party intellectual property rights, in each case without the right to do so.

Additionally, we expect to see increasing government and supranational regulation related to artificial intelligence use and ethics, which may also significantly increase the burden and cost of research, development and compliance in this area. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”), the world’s first comprehensive AI law, entered into force on August 1, 2024 and most provisions of which will become effective on August 2, 2026. This legislation imposes tiered obligations on providers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems which are put onto the EU market, or where the output is intended for use in the EU market, depending on the risk classification of the AI system, and encourages providers and deployers of artificial intelligence systems to account for EU fundamental rights in their development and use of these systems. If we develop or use AI systems that are governed by the AI Act, it may necessitate ensuring higher standards of data quality, transparency, and human oversight, and if the AI systems are considered high risk, we would be required to implement substantive risk and quality management systems and post-market monitoring systems and adhere to specific and burdensome and costly ethical, accountability, and administrative requirements. Other jurisdictions, including the United States and UK, are also taking steps to regulate AI systems. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence will require the application of significant resources to design, develop, test and maintain our service offerings to help ensure that artificial intelligence is implemented in accordance with applicable law and regulation and in a socially responsible, safe and ethical manner and to minimize any real or perceived unintended harmful impacts.

Our vendors may in turn incorporate artificial intelligence tools into their own offerings, and the providers of these artificial intelligence tools may not meet existing or rapidly evolving regulatory or industry standards, including with respect to privacy and data security. Further, bad actors around the world use increasingly sophisticated methods, including the use of artificial intelligence, to engage in illegal activities involving the theft and misuse of personal information, confidential information and intellectual property. Any of these effects could damage our reputation, result in the loss of valuable property and information, cause us to breach applicable laws and regulations, and adversely impact our business. A risk of our proprietary intellectual property rights being compromised through the use of artificial intelligence could arise through third party vendors using our data to train their models and/or to generate output for other users of their systems. There is also a risk (as with any hosted service) of security incidents occurring that could lead to unauthorized access to our data. In the event that personal data (including special category data relating to patients) were to be compromised, we may also face action from regulators and affected data subjects, and damage to our reputation.

Additional laws and regulations governing international operations, including certain U.S. and foreign anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, export control, sanctions, and other trade laws and regulations, could negatively impact or restrict our operations.

If we further expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“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 U.S. to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the 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.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products.

If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

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

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our research and development activities involve the use of biological and hazardous materials and produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities, and as a result, may be subject to lengthy and expensive litigation and excessive damages and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. We do not carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage, workers compensation or property and casualty and general liability insurance policies that include coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of testing apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and any of our future product candidates in clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products, if approved. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with collaborators. We may be unable to obtain, or may obtain on unfavorable terms, additional clinical trial insurance in amounts adequate to cover any liabilities from any of our clinical trials. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, including policy, leadership and personnel changes, could prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

A prolonged government shutdown or other disruption including significant leadership and personnel changes, could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Future shutdowns or other disruptions could also affect other government agencies such as the SEC, which may also impact our business by delaying review of our public filings, to the extent such review is necessary, and our ability to access the public markets.

Our current laboratory operations are concentrated in one location, and we or the third parties upon whom we depend, including our clinical trial sites and the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may experience business interruptions and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster, including earthquakes, outbreak of disease or other natural disasters.

Our office and laboratory facilities are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, the facilities at any clinical trial site, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, 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. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and future product candidates or interruption of our business operations. If a natural disaster, outbreak of disease, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our research facilities, our clinical trial sites or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, 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.

Global events, including global health concerns could also result in social, economic, and labor instability in the countries in which we operate or where the third parties with whom we engage, including our clinical trial sites and manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, operate. Unforeseen global events, such as increasing rates of inflation and interest, could adversely impact our business. For example, we are conducting ONYX, our long-term extension clinical trial of apitegromab in the EU could adversely affect the conduct of our clinical trials. Such conflicts could lead to sanctions, embargoes, supply shortages, regional instability, geopolitical shifts, cyberattacks, other retaliatory actions, and adverse effects on macroeconomic conditions, currency exchange rates, and financial markets, which could adversely impact our operations and financial results, as well as those of third parties with whom we conduct business.

The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at our facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or the sites where we conduct clinical trials or preclinical studies, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, our research and development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, if approved, which could make it difficult for us to sell any product candidates profitably.

The success of our product candidates, apitegromab and SRK-181, and future product candidates such as SRK-439, if approved, depends on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for, or accurately estimate the potential revenue from, apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or future product candidates or assure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we may develop. See the sections in this Annual Report entitled “Business– Government Regulation – Coverage and Reimbursement” and “Business–Government Regulation–Current and Future Healthcare Reform Legislation.”

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or national payor bodies (such as in European countries), and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance.

Government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third party payors, Coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. Coverage and reimbursement for products may vary widely from payor to payor, state-to-state (for example, state Medicaid coverage and reimbursement for products may be subject to varying degrees of coverage restrictions or delays) or across national payors from country to country.

Payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain and maintain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive evidence generation studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of such a product, in addition to the costs required to obtain regulatory approvals. If payors do not consider a product to be cost-effective compared to current standards of care, they may not cover the product as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a company to cover its costs or make a profit. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations required following the use of product candidates. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates. There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

Payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures are expected to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for certain pharmaceutical products or additional pricing pressures.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the U.S. 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. There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. 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, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes.

EU drug marketing and reimbursement regulations may materially affect our ability to market and receive coverage for our products in the European Member States.

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the U.S. and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we receive approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or future product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the EU, the pricing of medicinal products is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receiving marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures.

Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the U.S., the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-inducement, advertising and anti-bribery laws of EU Member States. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain EU Member States must be disclosed publicly. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the EU Directive governing medicinal products for human use, further provides that where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

In addition, in most foreign countries, including several EU Member States, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the EU provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced Member States, can further reduce prices. A Member State may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of any of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales by us or our strategic partners and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

We may seek to enter into collaborations in the future with third parties, including for apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or potential product candidates. If we are unable to enter into such collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

A part of our strategy is to evaluate and, as deemed appropriate, enter into additional collaborations or partnerships in the future when strategically attractive, including potentially with biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We have limited capabilities for product development and only recently have begun to build our capabilities to prepare for potential commercialization.

Accordingly, we may enter into collaborations with other companies to provide us with important technologies, capabilities and funding for our programs and underlying technology.

Any future collaboration we enter into may pose a number of risks, including the following:

If our future collaborations do not result in the successful discovery, development and commercialization of product candidates or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under such collaboration. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K also apply to the activities of potential therapeutic collaborators.

Additionally, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the biotechnology or pharmaceutical industry, including within the business and financial communities, could be adversely affected.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate partners for our product candidates, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully partner our product candidates, potential partners must view these product candidates as economically valuable in markets they determine to be attractive in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available products for licensing by other companies. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations or do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates, bring them to market and generate revenue from sales of drugs or continue to develop our technology, and our business may be materially and adversely affected. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish new strategic collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such strategic collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any delay in entering into new strategic collaboration agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property. It is difficult and costly to protect our proprietary rights and technology, and we may not be able to ensure their protection.

Our commercial success will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark and trade secret protection of our proprietary technologies and our product candidates, their respective components, formulations, combination therapies, methods used to manufacture them and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop unauthorized third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities. If we are unable to secure and maintain patent protection for any product or technology we develop, or if the scope of the patent protection secured is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to commercialize any product candidates we may develop may be adversely affected.

The patenting process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all relevant markets. Unforeseen global events, and sanctions or actions relating to such events, could affect our ability to file, prosecute, maintain, and/or defend patents and applications in those markets. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors or licensees.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the U.S. and/or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. For example, Russia issued a decree in March of 2022, stating that patent owners who reside in a country “unfriendly” to Russia are not entitled to compensation in the event of patent infringement. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property and/or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

We cannot be certain that we are the first to invent the inventions covered by pending patent applications and, if we are not, we may be subject to priority disputes. We may be required to disclaim part or all of the term of certain patents or all of the term of certain patent applications. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. There also may be prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. No assurance can be given that if challenged, our patents would be declared by a court to be valid or enforceable or that even if found valid and enforceable, a competitor’s technology or product would be found by a court to infringe our patents. We may analyze patents or patent applications of our competitors that we believe are relevant to our activities, and consider that we are free to operate in relation to our product candidates, but our competitors may achieve issued claims, including in patents we consider to be unrelated, which block our efforts or may potentially result in our product candidates or our activities infringing such claims. The possibility exists that others will develop products which have the same effect as our products on an independent basis which do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property rights, or will design around the claims of patents that we have had issued that cover our products.

In addition, periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the U.S. Patent Office (“USPTO”) and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process and following the issuance of a patent. While an inadvertent lapse can, in many cases, be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. Moreover, complications due to global pandemics may result in inadvertent lapse due to, for example, unexpected closures of the USPTO or foreign patent offices, delays in delivery of notifications relating to deadlines, or failure to timely and/or properly obtain signatures on necessary documents. Additionally, due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, there remain uncertainties as to any potential impact on patent protection and/or enforcement in the region, including, for example, payments to the Russian Patent Office and other entities. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

Our current patents covering our proprietary technologies and our product candidates are expected to expire beginning in 2034, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions.

Our earliest patents may expire before, or soon after, our first product achieves marketing approval in the U.S. or foreign jurisdictions. Upon the expiration of our current patents, we may lose the right to exclude others from practicing these inventions. The expiration of these patents could also have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. We own pending patent applications covering our proprietary technologies or our product candidates that if issued as patents are expected to expire from 2034 through 2046, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. However, we cannot be assured that the USPTO or relevant foreign patent offices will grant any of these patent applications.

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties. Failure to comply with our obligations under any of these licenses or termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.

We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, including intellectual property rights licensed from others. We may be a party to license agreements pursuant to which we in-license key patents and patent applications for our product candidates. These licenses impose various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensors may have the right to terminate the license. Any termination of licenses by third parties could result in our loss of significant intellectual property rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

We may have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed patents and patent applications, 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 have been or 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 is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to develop any future product candidates on acceptable terms.

Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights.

Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently, and these rights may be held by others. We may develop products containing our compounds and pre-existing pharmaceutical compounds. We may be required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to provide a companion diagnostic test or tests with our product candidates. These diagnostic test or tests may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others.

We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which would harm our business. 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 development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology.

Additionally, we sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. In certain cases, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to others, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or to maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of such program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire.

Changes in patent law in the U.S. and in ex-U.S. jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain.

In addition, recent or future patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. Under the enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “America Invents Act”), enacted in 2013, the U.S. moved from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system. Under a “first to file” system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The America Invents Act includes a number of other significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and establish a new post-grant review system. The effects of these changes are currently unclear as the USPTO only recently developed new regulations and procedures in connection with the America Invents Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law, including the “first to file” provisions, only became effective in March 2013. In addition, the courts have yet to address many of these provisions and the applicability of the act and new regulations on specific patents discussed herein have not been determined and would need to be reviewed. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have also narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. As a consequence, issued patents may be found to contain invalid claims according to the newly revised eligibility and validity standards. Additionally, some of our owned or in-licensed patents may be subject to challenge and subsequent invalidation or significant narrowing of claim scope in proceedings before the USPTO, or during litigation, under the revised criteria which could also make it more difficult to obtain patents.

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents, or interpretation thereof, could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents, to maintain, or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the case Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Federal Circuit held that a well characterized antigen is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of certain claims directed to a genus of antibodies that are solely defined by function. While the validity of a subset of patents at issue was subsequently upheld by a district court jury, uncertainty remains as to the legal question pertaining to the written description requirement under 35 USC §112 as it relates to functional antibodies. In the case of Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. We cannot predict how these decisions or any future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents. Similarly, any adverse changes in the patent laws of other jurisdictions could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. For example, Russia issued a decree in March of 2022, stating that patent owners who reside in a country “unfriendly” to Russia are not entitled to compensation in the event of patent infringement.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings for challenging patents, including interference, derivation, inter partes review, post-grant review, and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates and/or proprietary technologies infringe their intellectual property rights. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of 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.

If a third-party claims that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including, but not limited to:

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.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Generally, conducting clinical trials and other development activities in the U.S. is protected under the Safe Harbor exemption as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 271. If and when apitegromab, SRK-181, or another one of our product candidates is approved by the FDA, that certain third-party may then seek to enforce its patent by filing a patent infringement lawsuit against us. While we are not aware of any claims of such a patent that could otherwise materially adversely affect commercialization of our product candidates, we may be incorrect in this belief, or we may not be able to prove it in a litigation. In this regard, patents issued in the U.S. by law enjoy a presumption of validity that can be rebutted only with evidence that is “clear and convincing,” a heightened standard of proof. There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Even if we obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, and/or pay royalties or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

We may also choose to challenge the patentability of claims in a third-party’s U.S. patent by requesting that the USPTO review the patent claims in an ex-parte re-exam, inter partes review or post-grant review proceedings. These proceedings are expensive and may consume our time or other resources. We may choose to challenge the grant of a third-party’s patent in opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office (“EPO”) or other foreign patent office. The costs of these opposition proceedings could be substantial, and may consume our time or other resources. If we fail to obtain a favorable result at the USPTO, EPO or other patent office, then we may be exposed to litigation by a third-party alleging that the patent may be infringed by our product candidates or proprietary technologies.

Additionally, the Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court system in Europe became fully operational in June 2023.

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to our patents or the patents of our licensors, and we may be unable to protect our rights to our products and technology.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims against a third party(ies), which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of our patents or the patents of our licensors is upheld, the court will refuse to stop the third-party on the ground that such third-party’s activities do not infringe our owned or in-licensed patents. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business.

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. In addition, there could 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 substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

In some situations, we or our licensor, may not be able to detect infringement against our owned or in-licensed patents, as the case may be, which may be especially difficult for manufacturing processes or formulation patents. Even if we or our licensors detect infringement by a third-party of our owned or in-licensed patents, we or our licensors, as the case may be, may choose not to pursue litigation against or settlement with the third-party. If we, or our licensors, later sue such third-party for patent infringement, the third-party may have certain legal defenses available to it, which otherwise would not be available except for the delay between when the infringement was first detected and when the suit was brought. Such legal defenses may make it impossible for us or our licensors to enforce our owned or in-licensed patents, as the case may be, against such third-party.

Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or the USPTO.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third-party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the U.S. or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include inter parties review, ex parte re-examination, post-grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). For example, EP3368069, EP2981822 and EP3365368 are currently subject to opposition proceedings. Such proceedings are expensive and could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, or if we are otherwise unable to adequately protect our rights, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and product candidates.

In addition, because some patent applications in the U.S. may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, because patent applications in PCT member jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after the earliest filing, and because publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our owned and in-licensed issued patents or our pending applications, or that we or, if applicable, a licensor were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our products, compositions, methods of use, or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our owned and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to those owned by or in-licensed to us, we or, in the case of in-licensed technology, the licensor may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the U.S. If we or one of our licensors is a party to an interference proceeding involving a U.S. patent application on inventions owned by or in-licensed to us, we may incur substantial costs, divert management’s time and expend other resources, even if we are successful.

For applications filed under pre-AIA, interference proceedings declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and 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. Litigation or interference proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the U.S.

We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

We have limited intellectual property rights outside the U.S. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Indeed, Russia issued a decree in March of 2022, stating that patent owners who reside in a country “unfriendly” to Russia are not entitled to compensation in the event of patent infringement. 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 where enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products and/or methods of medical treatment, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products against third parties in violation of our proprietary rights generally. The initiation of proceedings by third parties to challenge the scope or validity of our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. 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.

As another example, in Europe, a new unitary patent system became effective in June 2023, which may significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”).

As the UPC is a new court system, there is little precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Subject to current transitional provisions, European patents 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 are 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 any potential changes.

Patent terms may result in inadequate protection for our product candidates, and we may be unable to obtain patent term extensions and data exclusivity for our product candidates, resulting in material harm to our business.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., 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. Various extensions such as patent term adjustments and/or extensions, may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Action of 1984, also known as the Hatch Waxman Amendments. The Hatch Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half of the time between the effective date of the IND or the date of patent grant (whichever is later) and the date of submission of the BLA, plus the time between the date of submission of the BLA and the date of FDA approval of the product. The patent holder must apply for restoration within 60 days of approval. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, the patents protecting our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours, which could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to patent protection, we rely heavily upon know-how and trade secret protection, as well as non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties, to protect our confidential and proprietary information, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third-party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information. Our security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, trade secrets may be independently developed by others in a manner that could prevent legal recourse by us. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed.

In addition, courts outside the U.S. are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets. If we choose to go to court to stop a third-party from using any of our trade secrets, we may incur substantial costs. These lawsuits may consume our time and other resources even if we are successful. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology.

Thus, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. 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. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary technology by third parties. We have also adopted policies and conduct training that provides guidance on our expectations, and our advice for best practices, in protecting our trade secrets.

Third parties may assert that our employees or consultants have wrongfully used, disclosed, or misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biopharmaceutical or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, and 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 be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. 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 or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and, if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. This type of litigation or proceeding 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 such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other intellectual property related proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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 trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic 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. 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.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We have incurred net losses in every year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses in the future.

We are a biopharmaceutical company formed in 2012 and our operations to date have been focused on research and development of monoclonal antibodies that selectively inhibit activation of growth factors for therapeutic effect. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to progress any of our product candidates through clinical trials, we have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date. 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 losses in each period since our inception. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we reported a net loss of $246.3 million and $165.8 million, respectively. We have incurred losses since our inception, and as of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $922.7 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, and any future product candidates and prepare for the commercialization of apitegromab, if approved.

To become and remain profitable, we or any current or potential future collaborators must develop and eventually commercialize products with significant market potential and favorable pricing. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical studies and clinical trials, receiving marketing approval for product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling products for which we may receive marketing approval and satisfying any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable could decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.

Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We will require additional capital to fund our operations and if we fail to obtain necessary capital, we will not be able to complete the development and commercialization of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 and any future product candidates.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts of cash to conduct further research and development, including clinical trials for apitegromab and SRK-181 and preclinical studies and clinical trials for SRK-439 and any future product candidates, to seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates and to launch and commercialize any products for which we receive regulatory approval. As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately $437.3 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. Based on our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and cash available to us as of December 31, 2024, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2026. However, our future capital requirements and the period for which our existing resources will support our operations may vary significantly from what we expect, and we will in any event require additional capital in order to complete clinical development of any of our current programs. Our monthly spending levels will vary based on new and ongoing development and corporate activities. Because the length of time and activities associated with development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require for development and any approved marketing and commercialization activities. Additionally, any program setbacks or delays due to changes in federal or state laws or clinical site or clinical vendor policies as a result of the impacts of current macroeconomic and geopolitical events, increasing rates of inflation and rising interest rates could impact our programs and increase our expenditures. Our future funding requirements, both near and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

We do not have any committed external source of funds or other support for our development efforts. Until we can generate sufficient product or royalty revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If we raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights. Further, to the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, your ownership interest will be diluted. In addition, any debt financing may subject us to fixed payment obligations and covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable rights to our product candidates, technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. We also could be required to seek collaborators for apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or any future product candidate at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or relinquish our rights to product candidates or technologies that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or one or more of our future product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Changes in tax law could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. For example, under Section 174 of the Code, in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, expenses that are incurred for research and development in the U.S. will be capitalized and amortized, which may have an adverse effect on our cash flow. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations.

It cannot be predicted whether, when, in what form or with what effective dates tax laws, regulations and rulings may be enacted, promulgated or issued, which could result in an increase in our or our shareholders’ tax liability or require changes in the manner in which we operate in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of changes in tax law. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain tax credit carryforwards may be subject to limitation.

As of December 31, 2024, we had net operating loss carryforwards for federal and state income tax purposes of $512.6 million and $498.8 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2032, except for our post 2017 federal net operating loss carryforwards of $462.1 million, and $0.2 million of state net operating losses which do not expire. As of December 31, 2024, we also had available tax credit carryforwards for federal and state income tax purposes of $54.9 million and $7.7 million, respectively, which begin to expire in 2034 and 2025, respectively. Additionally, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 the deductibility of the indefinite lived federal and state net operating losses is limited to 80% of our taxable income in any future taxable year. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), changes in our ownership may limit the amount of our net operating loss carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards that could be utilized annually to offset our future taxable income, if any. This limitation would generally apply in the event of a cumulative change in ownership of our company of more than 50% within a three-year period. Any such limitation may significantly reduce our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards before they expire. Private placements and other transactions that have occurred since our inception, as well as our IPO, may trigger such an ownership change pursuant to Section 382 of the Code. Any such limitation, whether as the result of our IPO, prior private placements, sales of our common stock by our existing stockholders or additional sales of our common stock by us, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in future years.

Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry, such as actual events or concerns involving liquidity, defaults, or non-performance by financial institutions or transactional counterparties, could adversely affect our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations.

Actual events involving limited liquidity, defaults, non-performance or other adverse developments that affect financial institutions, transactional counterparties or other companies in the financial services industry or the financial services industry generally, or concerns or rumors about any events of these kinds or other similar risks, have in the past and may in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023, SVB was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank and Silvergate Capital Corp. were each swept into receivership. Since then, additional financial institutions have experienced similar failures and have been placed into receivership.

Inflation and rapid increases in interest rates have led to a decline in the trading value of previously issued government securities with interest rates below current market interest rates. Although the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve Board have announced a program to provide up to $25 billion of loans to financial institutions secured by certain of such government securities held by financial institutions to mitigate the risk of potential losses on the sale of such instruments, widespread demands for customer withdrawals or other liquidity needs of financial institutions for immediate liquidity may exceed the capacity of such program. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the U.S. Department of Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve Board will provide access to uninsured funds in the future in the event of the closure of other banks or financial institutions, or that they would do so in a timely fashion.

Although we assess our banking relationships as we believe necessary or appropriate, our access to funding sources and other credit arrangements in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our current and projected future business operations could be significantly impaired by factors that affect the Company, the financial institutions with which the Company has credit agreements or arrangements directly, or the financial services industry or economy in general. These factors could include, among others, events such as liquidity constraints or failures, the ability to perform obligations under various types of financial, credit or liquidity agreements or arrangements, disruptions or instability in the financial services industry or financial markets, or concerns or negative expectations about the prospects for companies in the financial services industry. These factors could involve financial institutions or financial services industry companies with which the Company has financial or business relationships, but could also include factors involving financial markets or the financial services industry generally.

The results of events or concerns that involve one or more of these factors could include a variety of material and adverse impacts on our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations. These could include, but may not be limited to, the following:

In addition, investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any decline in available funding or access to our cash and liquidity resources could, among other risks, adversely impact our ability to meet our operating expenses, financial obligations or fulfill our other obligations, result in breaches of our financial and/or contractual obligations or result in violations of federal or state wage and hour laws. Any of these impacts, or any other impacts resulting from the factors described above or other related or similar factors not described above, could have material adverse impacts on our liquidity and our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, any further deterioration in the macroeconomic economy or financial services industry could lead to losses or defaults by our suppliers, which in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our current and/or projected business operations and results of operations and financial condition. For example, a supplier could be adversely affected by any of the liquidity or other risks that are described above as factors that could result in material adverse impacts on us, including but not limited to delayed access or loss of access to uninsured deposits or loss of the ability to draw on existing credit facilities involving a troubled or failed financial institution. Any supplier bankruptcy or insolvency, or any breach or default by a supplier, or the loss of any significant supplier relationships, could result in material losses to us and may have a material adverse impact on our business.

Our current investment policy focuses on preservation of capital. However, we could recognize losses on securities held in our investment portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.

As of December 31, 2024, the fair value of our cash, cash equivalents and investments in our marketable debt securities portfolio was approximately $437.3 million and consisted primarily of investments in money market funds and U.S. treasury obligations and government agency securities. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. For example, fixed-rate securities acquired by us are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities or our own analysis of the value of the security, defaults by the issuer with respect to the underlying securities, and continued instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause other-than-temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security.

At December 31, 2024, we had $20,000 in net unrealized losses in our marketable securities available-for-sale portfolio, and unrealized losses in our securities portfolio may increase in the future due to the aforementioned economic factors. While our goal is to hold each security until maturity, that may not be possible in light of our policy to preserve capital and liquidity and because investment in securities with unrealized losses has a diminished utility as a source of liquidity prior to maturity. Selling securities with an unrealized loss would result in the realization of such losses, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The terms of our loan and security agreement place restrictions on our operating and financial flexibility. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, the terms of any new debt could further restrict our ability to operate our business.

On February 10, 2025, we entered into an Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the “Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement”) with Oxford Finance LLC (“Oxford”). The Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement amends and restates in its entirety that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of October 16, 2020, as amended.

The Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement provides us with up to $200.0 million of borrowing capacity. Our overall leverage and certain obligations and affirmative and negative covenants contained in the related documentation could adversely affect our financial health and business and future operations by limiting our ability to, among other things, satisfy our obligations under the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, refinance our debt on terms acceptable to us or at all, plan for and adjust to changing business, industry and market conditions, use our available cash flow to fund future acquisitions and make dividend payments, and obtain additional financing for working capital, to fund growth or for general corporate purposes, even when necessary to maintain adequate liquidity.

If we default under the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, Oxford may accelerate all of our repayment obligations and exercise all of their rights and remedies under the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement and applicable law, potentially requiring us to renegotiate our agreement on terms less favorable to us. Further, if we are liquidated, the lenders’ right to repayment would be senior to the rights of the holders of our common stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. Oxford could declare a default upon the occurrence of customary events of default, including events that they interpret as a material adverse change as delineated in the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, payment defaults or breaches of certain affirmative or negative covenants, thereby requiring us to repay the loan immediately. Any declaration by the lender of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline. Additionally, if we raise any additional debt financing, the terms of such additional debt could further restrict our operating and financial flexibility.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The price of our stock is volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Similar to the trading prices of the common stock of other biopharmaceutical companies, the trading price of our common stock is subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, these factors include:

In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, our ability to pay cash dividends is currently restricted by the terms of our debt facility with Oxford, and future debt or other financing arrangements may contain terms prohibiting or limiting the amount of dividends that may be declared or paid on our common stock. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Our Board members, management, and their affiliates, own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of December 31, 2024, our executive officers, directors and their affiliates beneficially hold, in the aggregate, approximately 9% of our outstanding voting stock. These stockholders, acting together, are able to significantly influence all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders are able to significantly influence elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our stockholders.

We are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act, and have elected to take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies, including reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation.

While we are no longer an “emerging growth company”, we are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act, and have elected to take advantage of certain of the scaled disclosures available to smaller reporting companies, including reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation if we are eligible to do so. These exemptions and reduced disclosures in our SEC filings due to our status as a smaller reporting company also mean our auditors are not required to audit our internal control over financial reporting for so long as we report less than $100 million in annual revenues for the most recent fiscal year and may make it harder for investors to analyze our results of operations and financial prospects. 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 common stock price may be more volatile. We will remain a smaller reporting company until our public float exceeds $250 million or our annual revenues exceed $100 million with a public float greater than $700 million as of the prior June 30 in any given year.

​

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

​

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq have imposed various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. These rules and regulations have significantly increased our legal and financial compliance costs and we anticipate that these activities will become more time-consuming and costly over time now that we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. Our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to formally attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act until the date we report at least $100 million in annual revenues and have a public float of at least $75 million for the most recent fiscal year or have a public float of at least $700 million for the most recent fiscal year. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we are engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting.

Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction to the trading price of our common stock in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on a quarterly basis and our management will be required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. However, for as long as we are a “smaller reporting company”, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. We will qualify as a “smaller reporting company” if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is below $250 million (or $700 million if our annual revenue is less than $100 million) as of June 30 in any given year. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We have broad discretion in the use of our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities and may not use them effectively.

Our management has broad discretion in the application of our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. Because of the number and variability of factors that will determine our use of our existing cash and cash equivalents, their ultimate use may vary substantially from their currently intended use. Our management might not apply our existing cash and cash equivalents in ways that ultimately increase the value of your investment. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could harm our business.

Anti-takeover provisions under our charter documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control which could limit the market price of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

If securities or industry analysts publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price may decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

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

The market price of our common stock may be volatile. 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 these companies. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Our amended and restated bylaws contain certain exclusive forum provisions requiring that substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders be resolved in certain judicial forums, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our amended and restated bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our bylaws, any action to interpret, apply, enforce, or determine the validity of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws contain a provision by virtue of which, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will be the exclusive forum for any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. In addition, our amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing provisions, however, stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived compliance with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

We have chosen the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts as the exclusive forum for such causes of action because our principal executive offices are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some companies that have adopted similar federal district court forum selection provisions have had such provisions challenged in legal proceedings by stockholders. While the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in March 2020 in Salzburg et al. v. Sciabacucchi that federal forum selection provisions purporting to require claims under the Securities Act be brought in federal court are “facially valid” under Delaware law, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our federal forum selection provision, and we may incur additional costs of litigation should such enforceability be challenged. If the federal forum selection provision is otherwise found inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We recognize that the federal district court forum selection clause may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders who assert the provision is not enforceable and may impose more general additional litigation costs in pursuing any such claims, particularly if the stockholders do not reside in or near the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Additionally, the choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated bylaws 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 and financial condition.

We have issued a substantial number of warrants and equity awards from our equity plans which are exercisable into shares of our common stock which could result in substantial dilution to the ownership interests of our existing stockholders.

As of December 31, 2024, approximately 8,678,664 shares of our common stock were reserved for issuance upon exercise of outstanding common stock purchase warrants. As of December 31, 2024, we also have 17,362,147 shares of our common stock reserved for issuance upon exercise of pre-funded warrants, which are already included in our calculation of our weighted average common shares outstanding. Additionally, 11,956,594 shares of our common stock were reserved for issuance upon exercise of outstanding stock options and vested restricted stock units. The exercise of these securities will result in a significant increase in the number of outstanding shares and substantially dilute the ownership interests of our existing stockholders. The shares underlying the equity awards from our equity plans are registered on a Form S-8 registration statement. As a result, upon vesting these shares can be freely exercised and sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates. The exercise of options and the subsequent sale of the underlying common stock could cause a decline in our stock price.

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

The sales of a substantial number of the shares and/or the exercise and sale of a substantial number of the pre-funded warrants and common stock purchase warrants in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock. In addition, the sale of substantial amounts of our common stock could adversely impact the price of our common stock. The sale, or the availability for sale, of a large number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

The sale or issuance of our common stock to, or through, Jefferies may cause significant dilution and the sale of the shares of common stock acquired by Jefferies, or the perception that such sales may occur, could cause the price of our common stock to fall.

On November 14, 2022, we entered into a sales agreement with Jefferies LLC (“Jefferies”), pursuant to which we may offer and sell our common stock, subject to certain limitations in the sales agreement and compliance with applicable law, at any time throughout the term of the sales agreement. The number of shares that are sold by Jefferies after delivering a placement notice will fluctuate based on the market price of the common stock during the sales period and limits we set with Jefferies. Because the price per share of each share sold will fluctuate based on the market price of our common stock during the sales period, it is not possible at this stage to predict the number of shares that will be ultimately issued. Sales to, or through, Jefferies by us could result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock.

Additionally, the sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or the anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales.

From January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024, we did not sell any shares of common stock through the Jefferies sales agreement.

​

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

Cyber Risk Management and Strategy

​

We have processes for assessing, identifying and managing cybersecurity risks, which are informed by industry standards and built into our overall enterprise risk management function and are designed to help protect our information assets and operations from internal and external cyber threats, and to protect employee, collaborator and patient information from unauthorized access or attack.

​

We maintain a team of internal and external information technology specialists who are responsible for the design, implementation, and operation of our information technology ecosystem and cybersecurity governance processes. We engage with certain external parties, including consultants, computer security firms and risk management advisors, peer companies, and industry groups in an effort to enhance our cybersecurity oversight and risk management strategy. We also use security technologies, including third-party solutions and monitoring tools that are designed to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks. Further, we regularly engage third parties to conduct penetration testing, security assessments and tabletop exercises. We also engage a virtual chief information security officer (“vCISO”) to support and advise on our cybersecurity program. We have a process to consider the internal risk oversight programs of critical third-party service providers, including through security questionnaires and contractual requirements, as appropriate. In addition, in an effort to deter and detect cyber threats, we have implemented an annual training program to provide employees with data protection, cybersecurity and incident response and prevention training.

​

We have not identified any cybersecurity incidents or threats that have materially affected us or are reasonably likely to materially affect us, including our business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. However, like other companies in our industry, we and our third-party vendors have from time to time experienced threats and security incidents. For more information, please see the section entitled “Risk Factors.”

​

Governance Related to Cybersecurity Risks

The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors provides direct oversight over cybersecurity risk and provides updates to the Board of Directors regarding such oversight. The Audit Committee receives periodic updates from management, including from our Vice President, Information Technology (the “VP of IT”), regarding cybersecurity matters, such as relevant cybersecurity risk assessments, as applicable. We have established a process for the Audit Committee to be notified in the event of significant cybersecurity threats or incidents.

​

The VP of IT leads the operational oversight of company-wide cybersecurity strategy, policies, processes, and support staff. Additionally, the VP of IT works across all relevant departments to assess and help prepare us and our employees to address cybersecurity risks. The VP of IT reports and provides regular updates to the Chief Operations Officer and Chief Financial Officer on the cybersecurity program as well as periodic updates to executive management, as needed. Our VP of IT has worked in the information technology field for over 20 years at biotechnology companies including publicly-traded organizations.

​

Item 2. Properties

Our corporate headquarters and operations are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In November 2019, we entered into a lease of laboratory and office space at 301 Binney Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts to be used as our new corporate headquarters. The expiration date was originally in August 2025 and included an option to extend the term by two years. In May 2024, we entered into the First Amendment to the Lease to extend the term for approximately two years, commencing on August 19, 2025 with an option to extend the term by five years.

​

We believe that our existing facility is adequate to meet our current needs, and that suitable additional space will be available as and when needed.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, as of the date of this Annual Report, we do not believe we are party to any claim or litigation the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources 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 is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “SRRK”. Trading of our common stock commenced on May 24, 2018, following the completion of our IPO. Prior to that time, there was no established public trading market for our common stock.

Stockholders

As of February 24, 2025, there were approximately four stockholders of record of our common stock. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares are held in street name.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any dividends to our stockholders since our inception and we do not plan to declare or pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We currently anticipate that we will retain all available funds and any future earnings for the operation and expansion of our business. Furthermore, our ability to pay cash dividends is currently restricted by the terms of our debt facility with Oxford. Any future determination related to dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on, among other factors, our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant. Investors should not purchase our common stock with the expectation of receiving cash dividends.

Equity Compensation Plans

The information required under this item is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report, such information to be provided in the Company’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A, which proxy statement will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

Unregistered Sales of Securities

Not applicable.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Item 6. Reserved

Not applicable.

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

The information contained in this section has been derived from our consolidated financial statements and should be read together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the “Exchange Act” and are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. In particular, statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not historical facts, including, but not limited to statements regarding our future expectations, plans and prospects, including without limitation, our expectations regarding the potential of the TGFβ program, the potential of apitegromab as a therapy in SMA and the timeline for and progress in developing apitegromab, the potential of SRK-181 as a cancer immunotherapy and the timeline for and progress in developing SRK-181, the potential for our anti-myostatin program as a therapy in cardiometabolic disorders, and liquidity, constitute forward-looking statements and are made under these safe harbor provisions. Some of the forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terms such as "believes," "expects," "may," "will," "should," "could," "seek," "intends," "plans," "estimates," "anticipates," or other comparable terms. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. We urge you to consider the risks and uncertainties discussed in greater detail under the heading "Risk Factors" elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in evaluating our forward-looking statements. We have no plans to update our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report. As a result of many factors, including those factors set forth under the heading "Risk Factors" elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our actual results could differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis.

Overview

We are a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and delivery of innovative medicines for the treatment of serious diseases in which signaling by protein growth factors plays a fundamental role. As a global leader in transforming growth factor beta (“TGFβ”) superfamily biology, our novel understanding of the molecular mechanisms of growth factor activation enabled us to develop a proprietary platform for the discovery and development of monoclonal antibodies that locally and selectively target the precursor, or latent, forms of growth factors. By targeting the signaling proteins at the cellular level and acting in the disease microenvironment, we believe we may avoid the historical dose-limiting safety challenges associated with inhibiting growth factors for therapeutic effect. We believe our focus on biologically validated growth factors may facilitate a more efficient development path.

Based on this proprietary and scalable technology platform, we are building a growing portfolio of novel product candidates with the aim of transforming the lives of patients suffering from a wide range of serious diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, cancer, fibrosis and iron-restricted anemia. We have discovered and progressed the development of:

​

​

Our first product candidate, apitegromab, is a highly selective, fully human, monoclonal antibody, with a unique mechanism of action that results in inhibition of the activation of the growth factor, myostatin, in skeletal muscle. Apitegromab is being developed as a potential first muscle-targeted therapy for the treatment of SMA. We completed SAPPHIRE, a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apitegromab in patients with nonambulatory Type 2 and Type 3 SMA (which is estimated to represent the majority of the current prevalent SMA patient population in the U.S. and Europe) and announced positive top-line results in October 2024. The study achieved its primary endpoint. We submitted a U.S. Biologics License Application to the FDA in January 2025 and are planning to submit a European Union marketing authorization application to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in the first quarter of 2025. If apitegromab is approved, we expect to initiate a commercial product launch in the fourth quarter of 2025 in the United States, with a commercial launch of apitegromab in Europe to follow. 

Apitegromab was evaluated in our Phase 2 TOPAZ proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA. Positive 12-month top-line results were initially announced in April 2021. We have subsequently presented data from the TOPAZ trial over 24-months (2022), 36-months (2023) and 48-months (2024). At 48-months over 90% of TOPAZ patients with nonambulatory Type 2 and 3 SMA receiving a survival motor neuron (“SMN”) therapy remained on apitegromab treatment and showed sustained clinical benefit, a continued favorable safety profile with no new safety findings. Additionally, we are conducting a long-term extension study, ONYX, for patients from both the TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE studies, who were receiving apitegromab in conjunction with an approved SMN therapy. The FDA granted Fast Track designation, Rare Pediatric Disease designation and Orphan Drug designation to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA in May 2021, August 2020 and March 2018, respectively. The EMA granted Priority Medicines (“PRIME”) designation in March 2021 and the EC granted orphan medicinal product designation in December 2018 to apitegromab for the treatment of SMA.

In October 2023, we announced an expansion of our therapeutic focus into cardiometabolic disorders by advancing our anti-myostatin program with SRK-439, a novel, fully human anti-myostatin monoclonal antibody, for evaluation in cardiometabolic disorders, including obesity. We are developing SRK-439 towards a potential IND submission in the third quarter of 2025. In 2024, we presented preclinical data at scientific conferences which support the potential of SRK-439 to increase lean mass and contribute to a favorable body composition in conjunction with a GLP-1 receptor agonist (“GLP-1 RA”) treatment. To inform the development of SRK-439, in May 2024 we initiated the Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial, designed to assess the safety and efficacy of apitegromab to preserve muscle mass in individuals living with obesity and on background therapy of a GLP-1 RA. In September 2024, we announced that we completed enrollment in the Phase 2 EMRAZE proof-of-concept trial. Top-line results from this trial are expected in the second quarter of 2025.

​

We believe that apitegromab has the potential to be the first muscle-targeted therapy that is aimed at improving motor function in patients with SMA who are receiving an SMN therapy. We also have identified multiple other diseases for which the selective inhibition of the activation of myostatin may offer therapeutic benefit, including additional patient populations in SMA (such as patients with SMA under 2 years of age) and indications for other neuromuscular disorders beyond SMA.

Our second product candidate, SRK-181, a highly selective inhibitor of the activation of latent TGFβ, is being developed for the treatment of cancers that are resistant to CPI therapies, such as anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody therapies (referred to together as anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapies). SRK-181 is being evaluated in our Phase 1 DRAGON proof-of-concept clinical trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors that exhibit resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapies. We completed enrollment of the DRAGON trial in December 2023 and continue to treat patients who remain on study. This two-part clinical trial consists of a dose escalation portion (Part A) and a dose expansion portion evaluating SRK-181 in combination with an approved anti-PD-(L)1 antibody therapy (Part B). Part B commenced in 2021 and includes the following active cohorts: urothelial carcinoma, cutaneous melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, ccRCC, and HNSCC.

Safety, efficacy and biomarker data were presented in June 2024 at the ASCO annual meeting and in November 2024 at the SITC 39th Annual Meeting. The data showed encouraging responses in heavily pretreated and anti-PD-(L)1 resistant patients across multiple tumor types. We believe that the DRAGON trial achieved its study objectives by showing objective, durable clinical responses in patients with ccRCC resistant to PD-1 therapy above what is expected from continuing PD-1 alone. We anticipate that emerging data from the DRAGON trial will be presented at medical meetings in the future.

​

Using our innovative approach and proprietary platform, we are creating a pipeline of novel product candidates that selectively modulate the activation of growth factors implicated in a variety of serious diseases, including neuromuscular disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, cancer, fibrosis, and iron-restricted anemia. Our proprietary platform is designed to generate highly selective antibodies that target the growth factor’s latent precursor form prior to its activation within the disease microenvironment, or tissue where it is localized. Our structural insights and unique antibody discovery capabilities can also be applied to other protein classes beyond growth factors, with an aim of generating differentiated candidates targeting cell surface receptors such as immune cell receptors or G-protein coupled receptors, where selectivity remains challenging.

​

We have incurred significant operating losses since inception. Our net losses were $246.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $922.7 million. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future in performing our ongoing activities, as we:

​

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales. If we successfully complete clinical development and obtain regulatory approval for apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or any of our future product candidates, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales. In addition, if we obtain regulatory approval for apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439 or any of our future product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to developing our commercialization capabilities to support product sales, marketing and distribution activities.

Financial Operations Overview

Operating Expenses

Research and Development

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred for our research and development activities, including our product candidate discovery efforts, preclinical studies, manufacturing, and clinical trials under our research programs, which include:

​

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Costs for certain activities are recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks. Nonrefundable advance payments for research and development goods and services to be received in the future from third parties are deferred and capitalized. The capitalized amounts are expensed as the related services are performed.

A significant portion of our research and development costs have been external costs, which we track on a program-by-program basis after a clinical product candidate has been identified. However, we do not allocate our internal research and development expenses, consisting primarily of employee-related costs, depreciation and other indirect costs, on a program-by-program basis as they are deployed across multiple projects.

Research and development activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials, as well as the associated clinical trial material requirements. We expect research and development costs for our product candidates to continue to be substantial for the foreseeable future as the development programs progress. However, we do not believe that it is possible at this time to accurately project total program-specific expenses through commercialization. There are numerous factors associated with the successful commercialization of any of our product candidates, 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. Additionally, future commercial and regulatory factors beyond our control will impact our clinical development programs and plans.

The successful development of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, SRK-373, SRK-256 and any future product candidates is uncertain. Accordingly, at this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and estimated costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the remainder of the development of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, SRK-373, SRK-256 and any future product candidates. We are also unable to predict when, if ever, material net cash inflows will commence from the sale of our product candidates, if approved.

This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing product candidates, including the uncertainty of:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of apitegromab, SRK-181, SRK-439, SRK-373, SRK-256 or any of our future product candidates could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of employee-related expenses, including salaries, benefits and equity-based compensation expenses for personnel in executive, finance, business development, investor relations, legal, information technology, human resources and commercial functions. Other significant general and administrative expenses include facility costs not otherwise included in research and development expenses, legal fees relating to patent and corporate matters and fees for accounting, consulting services, professional fees and corporate expenses. We expect general and administrative expense to increase as we continue to invest in building the infrastructure to support the commercialization of apitegromab.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net consists primarily of interest income earned on our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, partially offset by interest expense incurred on our debt facility, including amortization of debt discount and debt issuance costs.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2024 and 2023

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 (in thousands, except percentages):

​

​

Operating Expenses

Research and Development

Research and development expense was $184.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 compared to $121.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2023, an increase of $62.7 million, or 51.4%. The following table summarizes our research and development expense for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 (in thousands, except percentages):

​

The increase in research and development expense was primarily attributable to the following:

Total research and development expenses are expected to continue to be substantial, driven by employee compensation costs and development costs associated with our clinical stage programs as we continue development activities for apitegromab in SMA, including the completion of our Phase 3 SAPPHIRE pivotal clinical trial in SMA, the conduct of ONYX, our long-term extension study for patients from both the TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE studies and the associated drug supply, as well as costs associated with supporting our cardiometabolic program, including our Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial of apitegromab and our preclinical program, SRK-439. Additionally, we will continue to invest in our pipeline. We expect costs of our SRK-181 program to decrease, as we completed enrollment of the Phase 1 DRAGON clinical trial in December 2023.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expense was $67.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 compared to $49.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2023, an increase of $18.1 million or 36.7%. The increase was primarily associated with employee-related costs including salaries, benefits and non-cash equity-based compensation expense related to increased headcount, in addition to an increase in professional service fees. We expect general and administrative expense to increase as we continue to invest in building the infrastructure to support the commercialization of apitegromab.

Other Income (Expense), Net

The change in other income (expense), net was primarily attributable to an increase in interest income earned due to higher interest rates and higher average balances in our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, partially offset by an increase in interest expense related to the Loan and Security Agreement, also due to higher interest rates.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Sources of Liquidity

Since our inception, we have not generated any product revenue and have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from our operations. We have funded our operations to date primarily with proceeds from the sale of our convertible preferred stock and units in private placements before our IPO, and issuance of our common stock through our IPO in 2018, to Gilead in an exempt private placement, through multiple secondary public offerings, including our recent follow-on offering in October 2024 (see Note 9) and through at-the-market (“ATM”) sales, as well as payments from our research collaborations and the Loan and Security Agreement entered into in October 2020 and subsequently amended (see Note 13).

The following table provides information regarding our total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023 (in thousands):

​

During the year ended December 31, 2024, our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities balance increased by $157.3 million. The change was primarily the result of proceeds from our equity offering completed in October 2024 and exercises of stock options and warrants, partially offset by cash used to operate our business, including payments related to, among other things, research and development and general and administrative expenses as we continued to invest in our product candidates and supported our internal research and development efforts and made interest payments on our debt.

Our current ATM program, established in November 2022, allows for the sale of shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $100 million. As of December 31, 2024, we sold 619,290 shares of our common stock, generating net proceeds of $5.2 million, under the ATM program. No sales were made under the ATM program during the year ended December 31, 2024. In October 2021, we sold 500,000 shares of our common stock through a sale in our prior ATM program (in place between March 2021 and June 2022) and received $13.1 million in net proceeds, after deducting commissions and fees.

​

We have had multiple equity offerings during the period 2019-2024. The most recent few are listed below:

​

In October 2024, we entered into an underwriting agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Jefferies LLC and Piper Sandler & Co., as representatives of the several underwriters named therein, relating to the issuance and sale of an aggregate of 11,858,408 shares of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase 353,983 shares of our common stock, which includes the exercise in full by the underwriters of their option to purchase an additional 1,592,920 shares. The offering price per share was $28.25 and the offering price per pre-funded warrant was $28.2499, which equals the per share public offering price for the common shares less the $0.0001 exercise price for each such pre-funded warrant. The offering resulted in estimated proceeds of approximately $324.4 million, net of underwriting discounts and estimated offering expenses (see Note 9).

​

In October 2023, we entered into an underwriting agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Piper Sandler & Co., as representatives of the several underwriters named therein, relating to the issuance and sale of an aggregate of 14,270,074 shares of our common stock, which includes the exercise in full by the underwriters of their options to purchase an additional 1,861,314 shares. The offering price per share was $6.85. The offering resulted in proceeds of approximately $92.4 million, net of underwriting discounts and offering expenses.

​

On February 10, 2025, we entered into the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement with Oxford for up to $200 million of which $25.0 million from Tranche 1 was received in October 2020 and $25.0 million from Tranche 2 was received in December 2021 (see Note 13). The Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement consolidates the existing outstanding loan tranches solely with Oxford.

​

In December 2018, we entered into the Gilead Collaboration Agreement pursuant to which we conducted research and preclinical development activities relating to the diagnosis, treatment, cure, mitigation or prevention of diseases, disorders or conditions, other than in the field of oncology in accordance with a pre-determined research plan. Pursuant to the Gilead Collaboration Agreement, Gilead made non-refundable payments of $80.0 million, including an upfront payment and an equity investment. In December 2019, we achieved a $25.0 million preclinical milestone for the successful demonstration of efficacy in preclinical in vivo proof-of-concept studies, and subsequently received the associated payment in January 2020. Revenue was recognized during the period January 2019 through December 2021, as research and development services were provided. All revenue related to the Gilead Collaboration Agreement had been fully recognized by January 31, 2022, upon the termination of Gilead’s option exercise period.

During the year ended December 31, 2024, 2,526,833 of the Company’s pre-funded warrants were exercised. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had 17,362,147 pre-funded warrants outstanding.

During the year ended December 31, 2024, 1,309,492 of the Company’s common warrants were exercised. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had 8,678,664 common warrants outstanding.

Cash Flows

The following table provides information regarding our cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 (in thousands):

​

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $200.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, and consisted of our net loss of $246.3 million, changes in our assets and liabilities of $6.6 million, partially offset by non-cash adjustments of $38.8 million. The non-cash adjustments are primarily from equity-based compensation.

Net cash used in operating activities was $145.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2023, and consisted of our net loss of $165.8 million, changes in our assets and liabilities of $10.6 million, partially offset by non-cash adjustments of $31.2 million. The non-cash adjustments are primarily from equity-based compensation.

Net Cash (Used in) Provided by Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $76.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, compared to net cash provided by investing activities of $41.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. Net cash used in and provided by investing activities for both periods was primarily associated with transactions involved in the routine management of our marketable securities.

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $353.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, compared to $102.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2024 was primarily attributable to net proceeds from an equity offering completed in October 2024, in addition to stock option and warrant exercises. Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2023 was primarily attributable to net proceeds from an equity offering completed in October 2023.

Funding Requirements

We expect our expenses to be substantial as we continue the research and development of apitegromab in SMA. In addition, we will seek marketing approval for apitegromab, and if we seek marketing approval for any of our future product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We expect to continue to incur costs related to SRK-181 as we continue to treat patients who remain on the Phase 1 DRAGON clinical trial. We expect to incur costs to support our cardiometabolic program, including our Phase 2 EMBRAZE proof-of-concept trial of apitegromab and our preclinical program, SRK-439. Additionally, we will support the development of our pipeline and any other preclinical programs. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company.

We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and cash available to us will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2026. However, we will require additional capital in order to complete clinical development and commercialization for each of our current programs. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we may use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

​

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenues, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, common stockholder ownership interests may be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could adversely affect the rights of a common stockholder. Additional debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business.

If we raise funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Market volatility or other factors could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Critical Accounting Estimates

This management’s discussion and analysis is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make judgments and estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities in our consolidated financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgements 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. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our judgments and estimates in light of changes in circumstances, facts and experience. The effects of material revisions in estimates, if any, will be reflected in the consolidated financial statements prospectively from the date of change in estimates. Our 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 consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this report, we believe that the following accounting estimates are those most critical to the judgments used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements. They involve a significant level of estimation uncertainty and have had or are reasonably likely to have a material impact on our finance condition or result of operations.

Research and Development Expenses and related Accruals/Prepaids

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel and/or reviewing other third-party sources to identify the progress of services that has been performed on our behalf, as well as invoices received and contracted costs. This contributes to 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.

The majority of our service providers invoice us monthly in arrears for services performed or when contractual milestones are met. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. We periodically confirm the accuracy of our estimates with the service providers and make adjustments if necessary.

The significant estimates in our accrued research and development expenses include the costs incurred for services performed by our vendors in connection with research and development activities for which we have not yet been invoiced. In certain instances, we prepay for services to be provided in the future. These amounts are expensed as the services are performed.

We base our expenses related to research and development activities on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to quotes and contracts with vendors that conduct research and development 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 research and development 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 balance accordingly. Nonrefundable advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future research and development 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 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 incurred.

The accrued research and development expenses at the end of each year are generally paid during the following year and therefore the same estimates and assumptions do not continue to exist each year, although, as described above, the method and procedures to develop those estimates and assumptions are generally consistent.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

We have reviewed all recently issued standards and have determined that, other than Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements as disclosed in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, such standards will not have a material impact on our financial statements or do not otherwise apply to our operations.

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

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

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Our financial statements, together with the report of our independent registered public accounting firm, appear in this Annual Report beginning on page F-1.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Management’s Evaluation of our Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is (1) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms and (2) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Our management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and our management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives.

Our management, with the participation of our chief executive officer (principal executive officer) and chief financial officer (principal financial and accounting officer), has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2024, the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based upon such evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of such date. We continue to review and document our disclosure controls and procedures, including our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting, and may from time to time make changes aimed at enhancing their effectiveness and to ensure that our systems evolve with our business.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a–15(f) and 15d-15(d) under the Exchange Act. Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management and our Board regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria set forth in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in 2013 (“COSO criteria”). Based on this assessment, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report pursuant to the requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of as we qualify as a “smaller reporting company” and as such, are exempt from such auditor attestation requirement.

Changes in Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting

No change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) occurred during the year ended December 31, 2024 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

Trading Plans

During the quarter ended December 31, 2024, certain of our directors and officers adopted contracts, instructions or written plans for the purchase or sale of our securities as noted below:

​

Other than as disclosed above, no other officer or director adopted, modified or terminated a Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement or non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement (as such terms are defined in Item 408 of Regulation S-K) during the quarter ended December 31, 2024.

​

​

Item 9C. Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections

Not applicable.

​

​

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

The information required under this item is incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A, which proxy statement will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

The information required under this item (excluding the information under the heading “Pay Versus Performance”) is incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A, which proxy statement will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

The information required under this item is incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A, which proxy statement will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence

The information required under this item is incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A, which proxy statement will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The information required under this item is incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A, which proxy statement will be filed with the SEC not later than 120 days after the close of the Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

​

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statements and Schedules

(a)(1) Financial Statements.

Our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, together with the Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm are included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K commencing on page F-1.

(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules.

All financial schedules have been omitted because the required information is either presented in the consolidated financial statements or the notes thereto or is not applicable or required.

(a)(3) Exhibits.

The following exhibits are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 (and are numbered in accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K):