UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

Commission File Number 001-40192

Longboard Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (619) 592-9775

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 Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market on June 30, 2022, was approximately $52,100,000.

As of February 28, 2023, the registrant had 22,965,350 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding, comprised of 19,335,950 shares of voting common stock, $0.0001 par value per share and 3,629,400 shares of non-voting common stock, $0.0001 par value per share.

Table of Contents

i

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this Annual Report) contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made and are not guarantees of future performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative or plural of these words or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements generally relate to future events or our future financial or operating results and may include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

Unless the context otherwise indicates, references in this Annual Report to the terms “Longboard”, the “Company”, “we”, “our”, and “us” refer to Longboard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and references to our “common stock” refers to our voting common stock.

1

SUMMARY OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Below is a list of the more significant risks associated with our business. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks listed in this summary, as well as other risks that we face, are set forth under Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. Some of the material risks associated with our business include the following:

2

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel, transformative medicines for neurological diseases. We were formed in January 2020 by Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Arena) to advance a portfolio of centrally acting product candidates designed to be highly selective for specific G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Our small molecule product candidates were discovered out of the same platform at Arena that represents a culmination of more than 20 years of world-class GPCR research. Arena was purchased by Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) on March 11, 2022 and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

We are currently focused on developing the following product candidates in our pipeline:

LP352, our most advanced product candidate, is a potential best-in-class serotonin receptor agonist anti-seizure medication (ASM) for DEEs. LP352 has shown no measurable impact on 5-HT2B and 5-HT2A receptor subtypes in preclinical studies to date. 5-HT2B and 5-HT2A receptor agonism have been associated with significant adverse side effects, including valvular heart disease and pulmonary arterial hypertension in the case of the 5-HT2B receptor, and euphoria, hallucination, and dissociation in the case of the 5-HT2A receptor. LP352 has the potential to be a clinically differentiated 5-HT2C superagonist for patients with DEEs, a group of severe early-childhood onset epilepsies characterized by refractory seizures and developmental delay and/or regression. Certain compounds in the 5-HT2C agonist class, including FINTEPLA and lorcaserin, have been shown to produce clinical benefit in epilepsy patients, although the side effect profiles of available non-selective 5-HT2 therapies may limit their use due to their activity on receptor subtypes 5-HT2B and/or 5-HT2A. We believe LP352’s potential for high selectivity and novel chemistry may reduce seizures and lead to differentiated non-seizure outcomes in DEE patients, as well as overcome the known or perceived safety limitations of available drugs in the 5-HT2 class.

We are also developing LP659, a centrally acting, S1P1,5 receptor modulator for which aberrant modulation has been shown to be involved in a wide range of neurological diseases. Based on its novel chemistry, potential for high selectivity for specific subtypes of GPCRs and favorable blood-brain-barrier penetration, we believe LP659 has the potential to address multiple inflammatory neurological conditions. LP659 was designed by Arena to have more optimized pharmacology and pharmacokinetics (PK) for its intended S1P receptor subtypes, compared to other known compounds. We believe this potential selectivity and specificity could result in a superior profile in the clinic compared to drugs that may not fully engage the intended GPCR target, may cause off-target activity, or may be associated with other undesirable effects.

Our Pipeline

Our product candidates are targeted towards specific GPCRs. GPCRs mediate cell-to-cell communication in humans, and approximately 40% of prescription drugs currently on the market target mainly GPCRs, making GPCRs a highly validated class of drug targets. Our GPCR product candidates are designed to increase the likelihood of the desired pharmacology and PK and minimize the risk of off-target effects.

3

The following table provides an overview of our product candidates currently in development:

LP352

We are developing LP352, an oral, centrally acting, 5-HT2C superagonist for DEEs and other epileptic disorders. LP352 is the only 5-HT2C receptor agonist being dose optimized specifically for DEEs, a group of severe early-childhood onset epilepsies characterized by refractory seizures and developmental delay and/or regression. These diseases are often progressive and resistant to treatment. DEEs encompass a diverse range of over 25 syndromes, of which only four currently have FDA-approved therapies. We believe that LP352 could be a treatment for individuals with DEEs where no options are available and a potentially safer, more efficacious, easy to add-on treatment option for individuals with syndromes where current therapies are inadequate.

The following diagram illustrates the current DEE landscape:

LP352 selectively targets the 5-HT2C receptor, which has been shown to upregulate the release of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), a principal neurotransmitter in the brain. This release of GABA increases the threshold for neuronal hyperexcitability, and decreases the likelihood of seizure occurrences. We believe LP352 has the mechanistic potential to reduce seizures in a broad number of DEEs.

4

We initiated our first clinical trial in patients with DEEs (the PACIFIC Study) in the first quarter of 2022. We plan to evaluate 50 patients, ages 12 to 65 years old, with a range of DEEs, across sites in the United States and Australia. Topline data is expected in the second half of 2023. In addition, we have conducted multiple Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy volunteers with LP352, and will continue to conduct such trials to further explore the potential of LP352.

LP659

We are developing LP659, a centrally acting, S1P1,5 receptor modulator for inflammatory neurological conditions. LP659 was designed for optimized pharmacology, PK and engagement of S1P1,5, which may lead to improved efficacy and safety. LP659 was designed to avoid the negative effects connected to the receptor subtypes 2 and 3, which may be associated with more serious, off-target cardiac, pulmonary, and cancer-related effects. Aberrant S1P receptor modulation has been shown to be involved in a wide range of neurological diseases, including multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Preclinical data demonstrated an initial dose-dependent decrease in disease progression over 17 days in a mouse model of demyelinating disease. LP659 rapidly reduced circulating lymphocytes, which returned to baseline after its clearance. We believe LP659 has high oral bioavailability with a direct impact on CNS glial cell S1P receptors. We anticipate initiating a Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers for LP659 in the first half of 2023. Topline SAD data is expected in the second half of 2023.

Our Company History and Team

We were established in January 2020 as Arena Neuroscience, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Arena, based in San Diego, California. We changed our name to Longboard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and launched as an independent company in October 2020. Building on Arena’s 20-year history in discovering, developing and optimizing GPCR therapies, we believe we are well positioned to execute our clinical development programs. Our current product candidates LP352 and LP659 were designed by Arena to have distinct chemistry and therapeutic profiles from Arena’s other product candidates with similar mechanisms of actions. Namely, LP352 was designed to be centrally acting and a more specific and selective 5-HT2C subtype receptor agonist than lorcaserin, and LP659 was designed to be a centrally acting S1P1,5 receptor modulator with differentiated selectivity and blood brain penetration compared to etrasimod (an S1P1 receptor modulator that is Arena's lead product candidate and the subject of an New Drug Application (NDA) submission accepted for review in December of 2022 following Arena's acquisition by Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer)).

In October 2020, we entered into a License Agreement (Arena License Agreement) with Arena, pursuant to which Arena granted us an exclusive, royalty bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license to develop and commercialize LP352, LP659, LP143 and certain 5-HT2A compounds (pharmaceutical products containing any such product candidates, the Licensed Products). In January 2022, we amended the Arena License Agreement to add an additional program, and in September 2022 we further amended the Arena License Agreement to expand the field of the license of LP659 and provide Arena a right of first negotiation to acquire certain development and commercial rights to LP659 products.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop therapies targeting well-characterized receptor pathways with optimized pharmacology and PK properties to transform the lives of patients with neurological diseases, initially focused on rare neurological diseases. Key elements of our strategy to achieve this goal include:

5

Our Product Candidates

LP352, an oral, centrally acting, 5-HT2C superagonist

We are developing LP352, an oral, centrally acting, 5-HT2C superagonist for DEEs and other epileptic disorders. LP352 is designed to selectively target 5-HT2C, which has been shown to upregulate the release of GABA, a principal inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain. The release of GABA increases the threshold for neuronal hyperexcitability and decreases the likelihood of seizure occurrence. We believe LP352 has the mechanistic potential to reduce the frequency of seizures in Dravet syndrome and LGS as well as a broader epilepsy population. We have conducted multiple clinical trials in healthy volunteers with LP352. We initiated the PACIFIC Study in patients with DEEs in the first quarter of 2022 and expect to have topline data in the second half of 2023.

Background on Epilepsy

Epilepsy covers a broad range of disorders and is characterized by spontaneous and recurrent seizures, or bursts of neuronal hyperactivity. Seizures are caused by a disrupted balance between excitatory and inhibitory signaling at the synaptic level. Excitatory synaptic activity is normally regulated by inhibitory interneurons, but disruptions to this regulatory process can result in hyperexcitability. Common aberrations include mutations to ion channels or neurotransmitter genes or proteins that regulate signaling, such as GABA, and disruptions lead to the signaling aberrations characteristic of epileptic disorders. For example, Dravet syndrome is characterized by mutations in the sodium ion channel, the ion channel critical for the generation and propagation of action potentials in neurons, and which ordinarily plays a crucial role in inhibitory signaling.

Overview of the Forms of Epilepsy

Epilepsy spans all age groups and in many cases is debilitating, with a large portion of patients resistant to pharmacologic treatment, underscoring a large unmet need. Epilepsy is currently estimated to affect up to 1.2% percent of the U.S. population or approximately 3.4 million individuals, with roughly 150,000 new cases diagnosed each year. We are initially focused on DEEs, which are a group of severe early childhood-onset epilepsies characterized by refractory seizures and developmental delay and/or regression and include Dravet syndrome and LGS, among others, but the 5-HT2C pathway has been implicated in a broader set of epilepsies.

Dravet Syndrome - Dravet syndrome is an early childhood-onset CNS disease that results in severe epileptic seizures typically occurring within the first year after birth. Incidence for Dravet syndrome is approximately 1:15,000 in the United States, and 90% of the associated mutations are de novo (not passed from a parent). Mortality rate for Dravet syndrome patients is higher than general epilepsy patients, with a rate of 15-20% by adulthood. The disease is genetically linked, with 70% to 85% of cases characterized by mutations in the SCN1A gene. Mutations cause defects in the function of the sodium ion channel. Seizures due to Dravet syndrome are typically difficult to control and require life-long treatment.

Lennox Gastaut Syndrome - LGS is a severe form of childhood-onset epilepsy with prevalence of approximately 1:7,000 in the United States. The age of onset is typically between three and five years and affected children typically experience cognitive dysfunction, leading to developmental and behavioral problems. LGS is characterized by multiple seizure types, with the most common associated seizures being tonic and atonic seizures. Seizures due to LGS are difficult to control and generally require life-long treatment. The pathophysiology of LGS is less known than Dravet syndrome.

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) - TSC is a genetic disorder that causes tumors to form in many different organs, primarily in the brain, eyes, heart, kidney, skin and lungs. The aspects of TSC that most strongly impact quality of life are generally associated with the brain: seizures, developmental delay, intellectual disability and autism. Current estimates place TSC-affected births at 1:6,000 in the United States. Nearly 1 million people worldwide are estimated to have TSC, with approximately 50,000 in the United States.

CDKL5 Deficiency Disorder (CDD) – CDD is a rare developmental epileptic encephalopathy caused by mutations in the CDKL5 gene, and this can manifest in a broad range of clinical symptoms and severity. The hallmarks are early-onset, intractable epilepsy and neurodevelopmental delay impacting cognitive, motor, speech, and visual function. Although rare, the occurrence is believed to be approximately 1:40,000 -60,000 live births in the United States, making it one of the most common forms of genetic epilepsy.

Current Treatment Paradigm

DEEs are commonly treated with multiple combinations of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) though physician preference for administered therapies differs across different epilepsy types. Currently available AEDs have limited long-term efficacy with many patients cycling through multiple lines of treatment to try to optimize efficacy. Non-pharmaceutical therapies for epilepsy patients include a ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and surgery for some patients.

6

The following table is illustrative of the typical treatment paradigm for DEEs:

Dravet syndrome and LGS are two types of epilepsies that are difficult to treat given that most patients are refractory to antiseizure medications. The seizures for a vast majority of these patients remain uncontrolled and patients typically require multiple lines of treatment. FDA approved drugs in Dravet syndrome include Epidiolex® (cannabidol), FINTEPLA® (fenfluramine) and DIACOMIT® (stiripentol). Epidiolex is also approved in LGS and TSC. Ztalmy is approved for CDD. Despite these treatments being available, we believe a significant unmet medical need remains.

Background on GABA and Neurotransmission

GABA is a principal neurotransmitter in the brain and binds to receptors inside and outside the synaptic gap. GABA plays key roles in neuronal inhibition, and reduction of GABA levels has been shown to result in a decline of this inhibition. Lack of GABA-mediated inhibition subsequently leads to the chronic activation of post-synaptic neurons characteristic of seizures.

5-HT2 Receptors

5-HT receptors, or serotonin receptors, are widely expressed in neural networks. Serotonin plays a key role in modulating neurotransmission, as agents elevating extracellular serotonin levels have been shown to inhibit focal and generalized seizures while agents reducing serotonin levels have been shown to lower the threshold for seizures. To date, 14 receptor subtypes of 5-HT receptors have been characterized and are grouped into seven classes. The two main classes are 5-HT1 and 5-HT2. 5-HT2 receptors are G-coupled membrane proteins that are distinguished by their function of increasing intracellular calcium levels (Ca2+) and activation of protein kinase C. Three subtypes exist: 5-HT2A, 5-HT2B and 5-HT2C, with the 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptor subtypes primarily expressed in the CNS and 5-HT2B primarily expressed in the peripheral nervous system. All subtypes have been shown to modulate neurotransmission, though the 5-HT2B receptor has been implicated with valvular heart disease and pulmonary arterial hypertension and the 5-HT2A receptor subtype has been implicated with hallucinations and mild to severe anxiety.

5-HT2C is one of the many binding sites for serotonin and is expressed on GABAergic, glutamatergic, and dopaminergic neurons. Multiple preclinical studies have suggested that 5-HT2C plays an important role in the inhibition of seizures. For example, in a knockout mouse model, mice missing the 5-HT2C receptor subtype were shown to have a lower threshold for seizures and experienced spontaneous convulsions. Preclinical models suggest that activation of 5-HT2C regulates GABA and glutamate pathophysiology seen in seizure disorders. Excitatory glutamate release is directly and indirectly regulated by 5-HT actions on GABA interneurons and pyramidal neurons. Research proposes that neuronal hyperexcitability occurs during the transition to seizure when excitatory glutamatergic activity increases while inhibitory GABAergic synaptic input is weakened. It is thought that 5-HT2C agonists, acting on GABA interneurons, inhibit excitatory glutamatergic activity, thereby decreasing neuronal action potential firing and downstream electrical activity.

7

This downstream electrical activity is illustrated in the below:

The 5-HT2 class and 5-HT2C subtype have additionally been shown in the clinic to reduce seizure frequencies.

FINTEPLA (fenfluramine) - FINTEPLA, a 5-HT2 receptor agonist with activity on 5-HT2A, 5-HT2B and 5-HT2C receptors, was initially developed as monotherapy treatment for adult obesity as well as in combination with phentermine (fen-phen). Later, however, reports were published documenting cases of valvular heart disease and pulmonary arterial hypertension, causing the drug to be pulled from the market in 1997. More recently, Zogenix, Inc. (Zogenix) began developing fenfluramine for Dravet syndrome, LGS, and other rare epilepsies using lower doses of fenfluramine. In June 2020, the FDA approved fenfluramine for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome. Approval was based on data from two randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials, as well as safety data from an open-label extension trial in which patients received FINTEPLA for up to three years. Patients administered the therapy demonstrated significant reductions in monthly convulsive seizure frequency compared to placebo. However, the FDA placed a boxed warning in FINTEPLA’s label noting an association between serotonergic drugs with 5-HT2B agonist activity, including fenfluramine, and valvular heart disease and pulmonary arterial hypertension. FINTEPLA is available only through a restricted distribution program called the FINTEPLA REMS program, in which prescribers and patients must be enrolled. Cardiac monitoring via echocardiogram is required pretreatment, during treatment and after treatment with FINTEPLA. In June 2022, the FDA approved fenfluramine for the treatment of seizures associated with LGS. Zogenix was acquired by UCB in June 2022 for approximately $1.9 billion.

Lorcaserin - Lorcaserin, a 5-HT2C agonist, was discovered by Arena, approved by the FDA for weight management, and marketed as BELVIQ by Eisai Inc. Lorcaserin was withdrawn from the market at the request of the FDA following the FDA’s analysis of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 clinical trial, for which patients in the lorcaserin group demonstrated a numerically higher but not a statistically significantly higher rate of total cancer diagnoses (7.7% vs 7.1% placebo). Based on the results of this clinical trial, the FDA concluded that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh the benefits, and requested that lorcaserin be withdrawn from the market for the approved indication of weight management in February 2020. The FDA authorized an expanded access program for patients with Dravet syndrome to continue to receive lorcaserin.

Lorcaserin has demonstrated the potential to reduce seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome and refractory epilepsies. A National Institutes of Health funded study conducted at the University of California, San Francisco showed that several 5-HT receptor modulating compounds, including lorcaserin, reduced seizure-like activity in a zebrafish model of Dravet syndrome.

Lorcaserin has been tested in a small study of “off-label” use in five children who each had an SCN1A (sodium channel) gene mutation or a clinical diagnosis of Dravet syndrome, and failed at least two medications. Lorcaserin was initially dosed at 2.5 mg at bedtime and gradually increased weekly as needed to a maximum dose of 10 mg twice a day or 0.3 mg/kg/day, whichever occurred

8

first. One patient was initially seizure-free for three weeks, one patient was seizure-free for two weeks, and a third patient had one to two seizure-free days per week. All five patients exhibited a reduction in the total number of seizures after three months on treatment.

A follow-up retrospective study conducted in 35 lorcaserin-treated refractory epilepsy patients found a 50% reduction in mean monthly frequency of seizures in LGS patients (n = 9), a 43% reduction in patients with Dravet syndrome (n = 20), and a 23% reduction in patients with other epilepsies (n = 6). Overall, the study demonstrated a 47.7% median percentage reduction in mean monthly frequency of motor seizures from baseline.

In September 2020, following consultation with the FDA, Eisai Inc. initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial of lorcaserin in patients with Dravet syndrome.

Our Solution

LP352 in Epilepsies

LP352 is an oral, centrally acting, 5-HT2C superagonist. A superagonist displays higher receptor signaling output than the natural agonist. As a 5-HT2C superagonist, LP352 is designed to modulate GABA inhibition and as a result, suppress the hyperexcitability that is characteristic of seizures. Based on its potential mechanism of action, we believe that LP352 has the potential to reduce the frequency of seizures in Dravet syndrome, LGS, and across a broad range of refractory epilepsies. 5-HT2C agonism has shown clinical benefit in epilepsy patients, however, currently available 5-HT2 agonists have been associated with significant adverse events (AEs). LP352 was discovered at Arena, and was developed to be the next-generation to lorcaserin. LP352 has novel chemistry and attributes, and was designed with the goal of being a safer, more effective 5-HT2C superagonist. We hold worldwide rights to LP352 through the Arena License Agreement.

LP352 has demonstrated selectivity on the 5-HT2C receptor subtype with no detected activity on the 5-HT2B and 5-HT2A receptor subtypes in in vitro preclinical studies, as shown in the following table:

The above table is for illustrative purposes only and is not a head-to-head comparison. These data were generated from different studies, and caution should be exercised when comparing data across studies. However, each of these studies followed the same basic protocol using HEK293 cells expressing recombinant human 5-HT2 receptors, and receptor densities in all of the functional assays were determined by [125I]-2,5-Dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine, or DOI, radioligand binding.

A superagonist is a compound that is capable of producing a higher receptor response than the endogenous agonist. We have shown LP352 to be a superagonist in a dynamic mass redistribution assay measuring a holistic integrated cellular response to

9

lorcaserin, serotonin and LP352. This assay demonstrated that, as the concentration of LP352 increases, the cellular response is greater than the endogenous ligand serotonin and considerably more than lorcaserin. The results of this assay are demonstrated below.

LP352 Clinical Development Overview

Phase 1 Clinical Trial SAD-MAD

LP352 was evaluated in a multi-part Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that included a SAD portion (with and without food effect) and a MAD portion (with and without dose titration). Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the clinical trial, and blood sampling and urine samples for PK analysis were also collected. LP352 was administered as a capsule formulation. The Phase 1 clinical trial enrolled 83 healthy participants. Doses ranging from 1 mg to 24 mg were evaluated.

SAD Results - LP352 was observed to be generally well-tolerated, and AEs were consistent with events observed with other centrally acting 5-HT2C agonists. Headache was the dose limiting AE, and mild to moderate headache was the most common treatment-emergent AE. There were no serious adverse events (SAEs) reported, and no participants dropped out due to AEs. In the SAD and food effect portions of the clinical trial, LP352 demonstrated favorable PK and pharmacodynamic effects (with target plasma exposure (minimum serum concentration) measured based on prolactin levels), including dose-dependent PK properties with proportional increases in AUC and Cmax.

MAD Results - Five doses including the maximum planned dose were evaluated. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate, with the most common being headache. AEs were generally consistent with CNS effects and expected effects of serotonergic drugs. A single SAE of anxiety was reported at the maximum planned dose two days after the last dose of study drug and subsequently resolved. LP352 demonstrated dose- and exposure-dependent increases of prolactin, suggesting proof of central 5-HT2C receptor engagement, as well as dose-dependent increases in exposure (Cmax and AUCtau). The safety and tolerability of titrating LP352 was also examined.

Other Phase 1 Clinical Trials

In December 2022, we announced topline data from cohorts 1 and 2 of a Phase 1 clinical trial assessing CNS PK/PD parameters in healthy adult male and female participants. In these cohorts LP352 exhibited a strong correlation between plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) PK concentration, which increased in a dose-dependent and consistent manner. In these cohorts LP352 also demonstrated early quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) changes and sustained effects on qEEG activity after continuous dosing in a dose-dependent manner indicating receptor engagement, and favorable safety and tolerability results were observed, with AEs generally consistent with previous clinical studies.

10

We are currently conducting and plan to conduct additional Phase 1 clinical trials with LP352 to further characterize and differentiate LP352.

The PACIFIC Study - a Phase 1b/2a Clinical Trial of LP352 in Patients with DEEs

The PACIFIC Study is a Phase 1b/2a safety, tolerability and exploratory efficacy clinical trial of LP352. This is a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. We plan to enroll 50 participants ages 12-65 with a variety of treatment resistant motor seizures and seizure disorders that fall into the category of DEEs. The PACIFIC Study was initiated in the first quarter of 2022, with completion of enrollment expected in the first half of 2023 and topline data expected in the second half of 2023.

LP659, a centrally acting, S1P1,5 modulator

We are developing LP659, a centrally acting, S1P1,5 receptor modulator for inflammatory neurological conditions. LP659 was designed to have optimized pharmacology, PK and engagement of S1P1,5, which may lead to improved efficacy and safety. LP659 was designed to avoid the negative effects connected to the receptor subtypes 2 and 3, which may be associated with more serious, off-target cardiac, pulmonary, and cancer-related effects. Aberrant S1P receptor modulation has been shown to be involved in a wide range of neurological diseases, including multiple sclerosis, Lupus, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Preclinical data in a mouse model of demyelinating disease demonstrated that LP659 treatment produced a dose-dependent decrease in disease progression over 17 days. LP659 rapidly reduced circulating lymphocytes, which returned to baseline after its clearance. In a PK/PD study to assess LP659 effects on lymphocytes in rats, male rats were given a 0.00 (vehicle control), 0.300 or 1.00 mg/kg oral dose of LP659 (n=3 per dosing group). Fingolimod, the positive control for blood lymphopenia, was given as an oral dose (n=4) at 1.00 mg/kg to a separate group of rats. Blood samples were collected at 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 72 hours post-dose for blood lymphocyte and

11

plasma drug concentration measurements. LP659 at both doses demonstrated a rapid reduction in lymphocytes which returned to baseline, whereas no return to baseline was observed for fingolimod over the study duration.

A study of CNS distribution of LP659 was conducted in rats. Male rats were dosed orally with LP659 at 1.00 mg/kg for six consecutive days. On Day 6, plasma, brain and cerebrospinal fluid samples were taken at 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, and 24 hours post-last dose (n = 3 per time point). The maximum plasma concentration of LP659 was 551 ng/mL at 3.00 hours post-dose. The maximum brain concentration of LP659 was 947 ng/mL at 8.00 hours post-dose. The mean brain to plasma ratios of LP659 at 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, and 24 hours post-last dose were 2.87, 1.25, 1.17, 1.68, 1.98, and 2.94, respectively. We believe LP659 has high oral bioavailability with a direct impact on CNS glial cell S1P receptors. We anticipate initiating a Phase 1 clinical study in healthy volunteers in the first half of 2023 and expect topline SAD data in the second half of 2023.

S1P Receptors

S1P receptors are expressed broadly in the CNS. By limiting lymphocyte circulation, S1P receptor modulators exert anti-inflammatory effects. Multiple S1P receptor modulators have been approved for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. There are five known receptor types: S1P1, S1P2, S1P3, S1P4 and S1P5. S1P1, S1P2 and S1P3 receptors are expressed broadly, S1P4 is primarily expressed in immune system cells, and S1P5 is expressed primarily in the spleen and CNS. Astrocytes are the most abundant cells in the human CNS and preferentially express S1P3 and S1P1 and express S1P2 at low levels. Oligodendrocytes, oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPC), neurons, and microglia are other brain cells that express S1P.

12

The various brain cell types are illustrated in the below:

Our Solution

LP659 in Neurological Diseases

LP659 acts as a S1P1 and S1P5 receptor subtypes modulator with no observed impact on S1P2 or S1P3 and has been selectively developed to cross the blood-brain barrier and target neurological diseases. In addition to its receptor subtype selectivity, LP659 has demonstrated rapid onset and offset of action (in preclinical models), with a low half-maximal inhibitory concentration in plasma (IC50 approximately 25 ng/ml in rat) to inhibit entrance of lymphocytes into blood. A single dose of LP659 causes rapid depletion of circulating lymphocytes and rapid recovery, paralleling elimination of LP659 from plasma. The S1P receptor has been well-validated in slowing the progression of neurodegeneration, notably in multiple sclerosis, for which disease area the FDA has approved four S1P receptor modulators. LP659 was designed to avoid the negative effects connected to the receptor subtypes 2 and 3, which may be associated with more serious, off-target cardiac, pulmonary, and cancer-related effects. While initial studies have shown that LP659 is efficacious in reducing the development and severity of disease in a widely accepted model of demyelinating disease (e.g., multiple sclerosis), we have not finalized a target indication as we see potential for a selective S1P1 receptor modulator to treat a spectrum of inflammatory neurological conditions.

Other Compounds

We have a license to certain compounds including LP143, a centrally acting, full cannabinoid type 2 receptor (CB2) agonist, and compounds targeting the 5-HT2A receptor, including nelotanserin. We are not currently developing any of these compounds.

License Agreement with Arena

The Arena License Agreement was originally entered into in October 2020 and amended in January 2022 and again in September 2022. Pursuant to the Arena License Agreement, Arena granted us an exclusive, royalty bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license under certain know-how and patents of Arena to LP352 for any use in humans, LP659 for the treatment of developmental, degenerative and autoimmune disease, disorders or conditions of the CNS or peripheral nervous system in humans and LP143 and certain 5-HT2A compounds for the treatment of CNS indications (excluding the treatment, prevention or amelioration of pain or any gastrointestinal, non-CNS autoimmune or cardiovascular disorder) in humans (pharmaceutical products containing any such compounds, Licensed Products). Arena further granted us a covenant not to sue under any patents or certain information of Arena with respect to each Licensed Product in its respective field. Arena retained the exclusive right to use the licensed intellectual property to

13

develop, make or use intermediates, pro-drugs and metabolites related to the LP352, LP659, LP143 and 5-HT2A compounds to exploit Arena’s etrasimod, lorcaserin, olorinab, or temanogrel products, in any dosage strength or formulation, and we granted Arena a covenant not to sue with respect to such activities under certain of our intellectual property related to such compounds and the Licensed Products. We will assign to Arena new intellectual property developed by us related to such compounds. We have sole responsibility over development, regulatory and commercialization activities for the Licensed Products in the applicable fields, as well as commercial manufacture and supply therefor. In September 2022, we provided Arena a right of first negotiation, for a specified period of time, to acquire certain development and commercial rights to LP659 products subject to Arena and we mutually agreeing on terms. This right of first negotiation is triggered by our announcing Phase 2 clinical results relating to an LP659 product for an indication that was not in the original field of the license or if we otherwise intend to commence discussions or negotiations to license or partner rights to LP659 in such field.

As consideration for the rights granted to us under the Arena License Agreement, we will be required to pay to Arena a mid-single digit royalty on net sales of Licensed Products of LP352, and a low-single digit royalty on net sales of all other Licensed Products, by us, our affiliates or our sublicensees, subject to standard reductions. Our royalty obligations continue on a Licensed Product-by-Licensed Product and country-by-country basis until the later of the (i) tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country or (ii) expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of the patents licensed to us under the Arena License Agreement covering the manufacture, use or sale of such product in such country, which we expect to run in most jurisdictions until 2036 for LP352, until 2029 for LP659 and 2030 for LP143 without taking into account patent term adjustments or extensions regimes of any country, or any additional term of exclusivity we might obtain by virtue of later filed patent applications. We also will owe Arena up to two $25.0 million commercial sales milestones if nelotanserin products (which are among the licensed 5-HT2A compounds) are developed and achieve annual net sales of $100.0 million and $500.0 million.

We may unilaterally terminate the Arena License Agreement for any reason with a specified prior notice period, and Arena may terminate the Arena License Agreement if we challenge any of the licensed patents. Either party may terminate the Arena License Agreement in the event of the other party’s insolvency or for the other party’s uncured material breach of the Arena License Agreement. Absent early termination, the Arena License Agreement will automatically expire upon the expiration of all our payment obligations under the Arena License Agreement.

Royalty Purchase Agreement with Arena

In October 2020, we entered into a Royalty Purchase Agreement with Arena and 356 Royalty Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Arena (356 Royalty), pursuant to which we purchased the right to receive all milestone payments, royalties, interest and other payments relating to net sales of lorcaserin, in all countries and territories of the world owed or otherwise payable to 356 Royalty by Eisai Inc. and Eisai Co., Ltd. (Eisai) pursuant to a Transaction Agreement dated December 28, 2016, as amended (Transaction Agreement), by and among 356 Royalty and Eisai, for an upfront payment of approximately $0.1 million. Under the Transaction Agreement, the royalty rates range from 9.5% on annual global net sales less than or equal to $175.0 million, 13.5% on annual global net sales greater than $175.0 million but less than or equal to $500.0 million and 18.5% on annual global net sales greater than $500 million. In addition, we purchased the right to receive a payment of $25.0 million, which will be payable upon the achievement of annual net sales of $250.0 million. Lorcaserin is currently in a Phase 3 clinical trial for Dravet syndrome.

Services Agreement with Arena

In October 2020, we entered into a Services Agreement with Arena (Services Agreement) under which Arena agreed to perform certain research and development services, general administrative services, management services and other mutually agreed services for us. The initial term of the Services Agreement was through December 31, 2021, and it then automatically renews for successive one-year terms. Neither party provided notice of non-renewal as of December 31, 2022. Each party may also terminate the Services Agreement for any reason, subject to specified notice periods. During 2022, we significantly reduced our activities under the Services Agreement, including as a result of our having hired employees or contracted with third parties with the requisite expertise, and we are no longer dependent on such services from Arena.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates and other discoveries, inventions, trade secrets and know-how that are critical to our business operations. Our success also depends in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others, and in part, on our ability to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. A comprehensive discussion on risks relating to intellectual property is provided under the section of this prospectus entitled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

As of February 1, 2023, we held an exclusive, worldwide license to issued and pending patent claims for compositions of matter and certain methods of treatment using LP352 in several jurisdictions, including issued patents in the United States, Europe (17

14

countries), China, Japan, India, Russia, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, and Israel, and pending applications in Brazil, Canada, and Macao. The terms of these patents (and applications, if issued) are capable of continuing into 2036, without taking into account any patent term adjustment or extension regimes of any country (e.g., up to five additional years in certain jurisdictions if maximum PTE or SPC applies) or any additional term of exclusivity we might obtain by virtue of later filed patent applications. For example, we exclusively license pending patent claims directed to methods of dosing LP352 in a later patent application having a term capable of continuing into 2043 in certain jurisdictions, without taking into account any applicable patent term adjustment or extension.

As of February 1, 2023, we held an exclusive, worldwide license to issued and pending patent claims for compositions of matter and certain methods of treatment using LP659 in several jurisdictions, including issued patents in the United States, Europe (39 countries), Brazil, China, Japan, Canada, Russia, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, South Africa, New Zealand, Singapore, Israel. The terms of these patents (and applications, if issued) are capable of continuing into 2029, without taking into account any patent term adjustment or extension regimes of any country (e.g., up to five additional years in certain jurisdictions if maximum PTE or SPC applies) or any additional term of exclusivity we might obtain by virtue of later filed patent applications. For example, we exclusively license patent claims for compositions of matter and certain methods of treatment using salt and crystalline forms of LP659 in several jurisdictions, including issued patents in the United States and 10 countries in Europe. The terms of these patents are capable of continuing into 2031 in certain jurisdictions, without taking into account any patent term adjustment or extension.

In addition to patent protection, we rely on trade secret protection, trademark protection and know-how to expand our proprietary position around our chemistry, technology and other discoveries and inventions that we consider important to our business. We are a party to a license agreement with Arena under which we are granted intellectual property rights to know-how that are important to our business. We have licensed know-how related to the Licensed Products (including LP352, LP659, LP143 and certain 5-HT2A compounds) in all countries around the world from Arena. The Arena License Agreement imposes various development, regulatory and/or commercial diligence obligations, payment of royalties, including a mid-single digit royalty on net sales of Licensed Products of LP352, and a low-single digit royalty on net sales of all other Licensed Products, by our company, its affiliates or its sublicensees, subject to standard reductions, and other obligations.

We also seek to protect our intellectual property by having confidentiality terms in our agreements with companies with whom we share proprietary and confidential information in the course of business discussions, and by having confidentiality terms in our agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, clinical investigators and other contractors and also by requiring our employees, commercial contractors, and certain consultants and investigators, to enter into invention assignment agreements that grant us ownership of any discoveries or inventions made by them while in our employ.

Sales and Marketing

Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities. We intend to build a commercial infrastructure to support sales of any of our approved products. We expect to manage sales, marketing and distribution through internal resources and third-party relationships. While we may commit significant financial and management resources to commercial activities, we will also consider collaborating with one or more pharmaceutical companies to enhance our commercial capabilities.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely for the foreseeable future, on third parties for the manufacturing of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture of any products that we may commercialize. We expect to initially obtain our supplies from manufacturers on a purchase order basis without long-term supply arrangements in place. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and drug product. For all of our product candidates, we intend to identify and qualify manufacturers to provide the APIs and drug product prior to submission of an NDA to the FDA or other marketing authorization applications to other regulatory authorities.

All our product candidates are compounds of low molecular weight, generally called small molecules. They can be manufactured from readily available starting materials in reliable and reproducible processes that we expect will be amenable to scale-up and will not require specialized equipment in the manufacturing process. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities.

Competition

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary drugs. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any other product

15

candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide.

DEEs are commonly treated with multiple combinations of AEDs though physician preference for administered therapies differs across different epilepsy types. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Lundbeck, Pfizer, and UCB have approved AEDs for the treatment of epilepsies. There are also non-pharmaceutical therapies for epilepsy patients, such as a ketogenic diet, VNS, and surgery for some patients. FINTEPLA (fenfluramine) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in June 2020 and LGS in June 2022 (both include REMS programs). Epidiolex (cannabidiol) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS in 2018, and the treatment of seizures associated with TSC in 2020, and DIACOMIT (stiripentol) was approved by the FDA in 2018 for seizures associated with Dravet syndrome. Lorcaserin is also in a Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome. In addition, other companies are developing therapeutics for the treatment of epilepsies, including alternative approaches such as gene therapy.

In the S1P receptor modulator space, there are four drugs that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of certain indications in multiple sclerosis: fingolimod, ozanimod, siponimod and ponesimod. There are multiple additional S1P receptor modulators in development for additional therapeutic indications beyond multiple sclerosis, including in other neurological diseases. There are also numerous other drugs and product candidates in development for indications for which we might develop our product candidates.

Additional potential competitors include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of the indications that we are pursuing. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their greater size, resources and institutional experience. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing reimbursement, government contracts, relationships with key opinion leaders, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals and distribution relationships to market products, and marketing approved drugs. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of our product candidates are likely to be their efficacy and safety, the scope and limitations of marketing approval, success of regulatory approval, successful protection of our intellectual property, and the availability of funding and reimbursement.

Other drugs, non-pharmaceutical therapies and alternative approaches to indications we may pursue for our drug candidates will compete with us both in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

As a pharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation. Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug products such as those we are developing. Product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA, before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country specific regulation remains essential in many respects.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and its implementing regulations. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the United States. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or

16

judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the drug candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies, to assess the potential safety and activity of the drug candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLPs. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a drug candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the drug candidate 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 GCPs, which include the requirement that all research participants 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 inclusion 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. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

17

Post-approval studies, or 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 an NDA.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected AEs or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human participants. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, 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 or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not 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 must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, 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 effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data need to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. However, if only one indication for a product has orphan designation, a pediatric assessment may still be required for any applications to market that same product for the non-orphan indication(s).

18

The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug 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. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions and typically follows the advisory committee’s recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. 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. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application has ended and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may detail required additional clinical data and/or (an) additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct one or more post-market studies or clinical trials. For example, the FDA may require Phase 4 testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug safety and effectiveness, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA may also determine that a REMS is necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan 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 product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biological product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or inability to manufacture the product in sufficient quantities. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which

19

the orphan product has exclusivity. If an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a fast track designation program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. With regard to a fast track product, the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a serious condition compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has 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, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials to verify the predicted clinical benefit. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required clinical trials, or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a drug candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the drug is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If a drug is designated as breakthrough therapy, FDA will expedite the development and review of such drug. Breakthrough therapy designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met.

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. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. In addition, such designations or shortened review periods may not provide a material commercial advantage.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the drug product. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are

20

required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with 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 studies 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 closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labeling.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of the use of our product candidates, some of our U.S. patents, if granted, may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years, as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term

21

extension or restoration. In the future, we may intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Orphan drug exclusivity, as described above, may offer a seven-year period of marketing exclusivity, except in certain circumstances. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

DEA Regulation

The CSA establishes registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA is concerned with the control of handlers of controlled substances, and with the equipment and raw materials used in their manufacture and packaging, in order to prevent loss and diversion into illicit channels of commerce. The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances.

Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use, and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The registration is specific to the particular location, activity and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances are authorized. The DEA typically inspects a facility to review its security measures prior to issuing a registration. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule, with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as cages, surveillance cameras and inventory reconciliations. Records must be maintained for the handling of all controlled substances, and periodic reports made to the DEA. Reports must also be made for thefts or losses of any controlled substance, and authorization must be obtained to destroy any controlled substance. In addition, special authorization and notification requirements apply to imports and exports.

To meet its responsibilities, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in loss or diversion, can result in enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could eventuate in criminal proceedings. Individual states also regulate controlled substances, and we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to state regulation on distribution of these products.

22

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Although we currently do not have any products on the market, we are and, upon approval and commercialization, will be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. In the United States, such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting, and physician sunshine laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.

Additionally, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The federal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, which prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim under the False Claims Act includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The federal civil False Claims Act can be enforced through private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the civil False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product and for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-covered, uses. In addition, a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) also created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) annually report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians (currently defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, and certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, self-regulatory schemes, regulations, and standards govern the collection of, disclosure of, use of, access to, transfer of, and confidentiality and security of personal information and health-related information, and could apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC 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 partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and regulations implemented

23

thereunder, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information on covered entities, including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, and their respective “business associates” that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, as well as their covered subcontractors. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by complaint about privacy practices or an audit by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. Further, entities that 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 may be subject to criminal penalties.

In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. For instance, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in January 2020. The CCPA creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling certain personal information of consumers or households. The CCPA, among other things, creates new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA also creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach. Further, a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) went into effect on January 1, 2023 and modifies significantly the CCPA. Both the CCPA and CPRA could impact our business activities depending on how they are interpreted and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to not only cyber threats but also the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information. In addition to California, other states in which we have, or may have in the future, employees or operations, have passed or may pass privacy laws. For example, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah have passed privacy laws that go into effect in 2023, but aspects of these state privacy statutes remain unclear, resulting in further legal uncertainty and potentially requiring us to modify our data practices and policies and to incur substantial additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply.

We also are or will become subject to applicable privacy laws in the jurisdictions in which we are established or in which we sell or market our products or run clinical trials. For example, if we conduct EU-based clinical trials, we will be subject to the GDPR in relation to our collection, control, processing and other use of personal data of data participants within the European Economic Area (EEA) (i.e. data relating to an identifiable living individual) including the health and medical information of clinical trial participants. The GDPR is directly applicable in each EU and EEA Member State, however, it provides that EU and EEA Member States may introduce further conditions, including limitations which could limit our ability to collect, use and share personal data (including health and medical information), or could cause our compliance costs to increase, ultimately having an adverse impact on our business. The GDPR imposes onerous accountability obligations requiring data controllers and processors to maintain a record of their data processing activities and implement policies as part of its mandated privacy governance framework. It also requires data controllers to be transparent and disclose to data participants (in a concise, intelligible and easily accessible form) how their personal data is to be used, imposes limitations on retention of personal data; defines for the first time pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data; introduces mandatory data breach notification requirements; and sets higher standards for data controllers to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent for certain data processing activities. We are also subject to EU rules with respect to cross-border transfers of personal data out of the EU and EEA. We are subject to the supervision of local data protection authorities in those EU jurisdictions where we are established or otherwise subject to the GDPR, and may also be subject to the laws of other jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, which may have their own set of stringent privacy and data protection laws and regulations. For example, the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (DPA) applies to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information, in certain circumstances, for companies conducting business in Switzerland or with Swiss companies or individuals. The DPA has been revised and adopted by the Swiss Parliament, and the revised law may result in an increase of costs of compliance, risks of noncompliance and penalties for noncompliance. Fines for certain breaches of the GDPR are significant: up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of total global annual turnover. In addition to the foregoing, a breach of the GDPR or other applicable privacy and data protection laws and regulations could result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/change our use of data, enforcement notices, or potential civil claims including class action type litigation.

In addition, we may be unable to transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries due to data localization requirements or limitations on cross-border data flows. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK) have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA and UK’s standard contractual clauses, these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to

24

lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Some European regulators have prevented companies from transferring personal data out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, track and report gifts, compensation and other remuneration made to physicians and other healthcare providers, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow us to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such drug products.

In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, government authorities, private managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical drug products and medical services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. Such payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. Moreover, the process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the drug product. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

If we elect to participate in certain governmental programs, we may be required to participate in discount and rebate programs, which may result in prices for our future products that will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. For example, drug manufacturers participating under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program must pay rebates on prescription drugs to state Medicaid programs.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the EU, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these

25

countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any product candidates for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we or our collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare Reform

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and applying new payment methodologies.

For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively ACA), was enacted, which affected existing government healthcare programs and resulted in the development of new programs. There have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and it is unclear how such litigation and other efforts to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact the ACA or our business. In addition, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program.

Other legislative changes relating to healthcare have also been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted, and there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which pharmaceutical companies set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries, presidential executive orders, and proposed federal legislation, as well as state efforts, designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product 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 drug products. For example, the IRA also, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. The IRA is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

We anticipate that these new laws will result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, and could seriously harm our business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. In addition, it is possible that there will be further legislation or regulation that could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Europe / Rest of World Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we or our potential collaborators obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the

26

United States have a similar process that requires the submission of an application for a clinical trial authorization (CTA) much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an application made to an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements and a favorable ethics committee opinion has been issued, clinical trial development may proceed.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

To obtain regulatory approval of an investigational drug or biological product under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures.

Centralized procedure. The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission following a favorable opinion by the EMA that is valid in all EU member states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases, other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for other products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health or which contain a new active substance for indications other than those specified to be compulsory.

National authorization procedures. There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

The EMA grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products for the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the EU. In addition, orphan drug designation can be granted if the drug is intended for a life threatening or chronically debilitating condition in the EU and without incentives it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EU would be sufficient to justify the investment required to develop the drug. Orphan drug designation is only available if there is no other satisfactory method approved in the EU of diagnosing, preventing or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed orphan drug will be of significant benefit to patients. Orphan drug designation provides opportunities for free or reduced-fee protocol assistance, fee reductions for marketing authorization applications and other post-authorization activities and ten years of market exclusivity following drug approval, which can be extended to 12 years if trials are conducted in accordance with an agreed-upon pediatric investigational plan. The exclusivity period may be reduced to six years if the designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

For other countries outside of the EU, 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. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Human Capital and Employee Engagement

We believe that our success largely depends upon attracting and retaining a highly skilled team with key expertise in our areas of therapeutic focus. We are committed to creating and maintaining a culture that is positive, diverse, inclusive and dynamic. Our human capital priorities include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, developing and integrating our existing and

27

future employees. We provide our employees competitive base salaries, as well as a cash target bonus, a robust benefits package and equity compensation. In addition, we regularly conduct an employee survey to gauge employee engagement and identify areas of potential improvement.

As of December 31, 2022, we employed 33 employees, 32 of whom are full-time, consisting of clinical, research and manufacturing, operations, finance and business personnel. Fifteen of our employees hold either an M.D. or Ph.D. degree. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Facilities

We entered into a two-year lease for certain office space in La Jolla, California in June 2021. Rent payments were approximately $29,000 per month for the first year and increased by 4.5% in July 2022. In August 2022, we extended the lease agreement (lease extension) through December 31, 2024. Rent payments under the lease extension are approximately $33,000 starting in July 2023 and increase by 4.5% in July 2024. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our current needs, and that suitable additional alternative spaces will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

Legal Proceedings

We are currently not a party to any material legal proceedings.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

An investment in shares of our common stock is speculative and involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report, including our audited financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” before deciding whether to purchase, hold or sell shares of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the risks described below could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, growth prospects and/or stock price or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements we have made in this Annual Report and those we may make from time to time. You should consider all of the risk factors described when evaluating our business. Any of the risks identified herein relating to Arena are also risks relating to Pfizer.

Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Position and Need For Additional Capital

We have a limited operating history, and we have incurred losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. We may never generate any revenue or become profitable or, if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain it.

We were incorporated in January 2020 and we have a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. Our operations to date have been primarily focused on organizing and staffing our company, research and development activities, business planning, raising capital, in-licensing intellectual property rights and establishing our intellectual property portfolio, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. LP352, our most advanced product candidate, is in early clinical development, while our other product candidates, including LP659, are in the preclinical or research stage. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical industry, including an ability to obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate, manufacture any product candidate at commercial scale, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. In addition, we have limited experience completing clinical trials as a company. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they would be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effectiveness in the targeted indication or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred net losses since our inception in January 2020. For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we reported net losses of $43.9 million and $27.8 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $86.1 million.

We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we:

28

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and eventually commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials and preclinical studies of our product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the preliminary stages of most of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. 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. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product candidates or even continue our operations. Our prior net losses and expected future net losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will need substantial additional capital to finance our operations, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. The effects of macroeconomic conditions and geopolitical events, including economic slowdowns, recessions, inflation, rising interest rates and tightening of credit markets caused by COVID-19 or another pandemic, the conflict in Ukraine or otherwise, may limit our access to capital. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate certain of our product development efforts or other operations.

We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we continue to develop our product candidates in preclinical studies and clinical trials and expand our organization by hiring additional personnel. Our expenses will increase substantially if our product candidates successfully complete early clinical and other studies, and also could increase beyond expectations if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other regulatory authorities require us to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. In addition, we have incurred and expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Furthermore, if we obtain marketing approval for our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution.

As of December 31, 2022, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments were $67.6 million. We believe, based on our current operating plan, that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, along with proceeds from the follow-on public offering completed in February 2023, will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings, third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements, as well as other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or any combination of these approaches.

In any event, we will require substantial additional capital to support our business operations as we pursue additional preclinical and clinical activities and regulatory approval of our current or any future product candidates, and otherwise to support our continuing operations. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Even if we believe we have sufficient capital for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations. Any additional capital raising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and, if approved, commercialize our current and any future product candidates.

Additional funding may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. As a result of adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic developments, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to slow its spread, the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia and related sanctions, and global supply chain challenges, the global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility

29

and disruptions, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, high inflation rates and the responses by central banking authorities to control such inflation, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates, and uncertainty regarding economic stability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate or are otherwise not favorable, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly or more dilutive. If we do not raise additional capital in sufficient amounts, we may be prevented from pursuing development and commercialization efforts, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Raising additional capital or acquiring or licensing assets by issuing equity or debt securities may cause dilution to our stockholders and raising funds through lending and licensing arrangements may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional capital through future collaborations, strategic alliances or third-party licensing arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

If we are unable to raise additional capital 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 develop and market ourselves.

Unfavorable geopolitical and macroeconomic developments could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

From time to time we may maintain a portfolio of investments in marketable debt securities, which are recorded at fair value. Although we have established investment guidelines relative to diversification and maturity with the objectives of maintaining safety of principal and liquidity, we rely on credit rating agencies to help evaluate the riskiness of investments, and such agencies may not accurately predict such risk. In addition, such agencies may reduce the credit quality of our individual holdings, which could adversely affect their value. Lower credit quality and other market events, such as changes in interest rates and deterioration in credit markets, may have an adverse effect on the fair value of our investment holdings and cash position.

Our business could be adversely affected by conditions in the U.S. and global economies, the United States and global financial markets and adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic developments, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and related sanctions. For example, inflation rates, particularly in the United States, have increased recently to levels not seen in years, and increased inflation may result in increases in our operating costs (including our labor costs), reduced liquidity and limits on our ability to access credit or otherwise raise capital on acceptable terms, if at all. In response to rising inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve has raised, and may again raise, interest rates, which, coupled with reduced government spending and volatility in financial markets, may have the effect of further increasing economic uncertainty and heightening these risks. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers and manufacturers, possibly resulting in supply disruption. Any of the foregoing could harm our business.

Additionally, financial markets around the world experienced volatility following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, including as a result of economic sanctions and export controls against Russia and countermeasures taken by Russia. The full economic and social impact of these sanctions and countermeasures, in addition to the ongoing military conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which could conceivably expand, remains uncertain; however, both the conflict and related sanctions have resulted and could continue to result in disruptions to trade, commerce, pricing stability, credit availability, and/or supply chain continuity, in both Europe and globally, and has introduced significant uncertainty into global markets. While we do not currently operate in Russia, Ukraine or Eastern Europe, as the adverse effects of this conflict continue to develop our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We are early in our development efforts and have only one product candidate, LP352, in early clinical development. All of our other product candidates are in the preclinical or research stage. If we are unable to advance our product candidates in clinical

30

development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately commercialize our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are in the early stages of our development efforts and have one product candidate, LP352, in clinical development. We have completed the SAD and MAD portions of a Phase 1 clinical trial and are currently conducting the PACIFIC Study, a Phase 1b/2a clinical trial for this product candidate. Our other product candidates currently in development, including LP659, are in the preclinical stage. We will need to progress LP659 and any other early product candidates through IND-enabling studies and submit INDs to the FDA prior to initiating their clinical development. Moreover, none of our product candidates have advanced into a pivotal study. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our product candidates will depend on several factors, including the following:

The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate any revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our most advanced product candidate, LP352, as well as our other product candidates, which may never occur. We have not yet succeeded and may not succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for any product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter. Given our early stage of development, it will take several years before we can demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a treatment sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization, if we can do so at all. If we are unable to develop, or obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

Risks associated with the in-licensing or acquisition of product candidates could cause substantial delays in the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates.

Prior to October 2020, we had no involvement with or control over the preclinical and early clinical research and development of our product candidates. We have relied on third parties, including Arena, to have conducted such research and development in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards prior to the in-licensing of our product candidates. If the research and development processes or the results of the development programs prior to the in-licensing of our product candidates prove to be unreliable, this could result in increased costs and delays in the development of our product candidates, which could adversely affect any future revenue from these product candidates.

We have licensed our product candidates from Arena. The fields of the licenses for these product candidates contain certain restrictions. For example, the field of license for LP659 is for developmental, degenerative and autoimmune disease, disorders or conditions of the CNS or peripheral nervous system. We also rely on Arena to help protect the intellectual property rights relating to our licensed product candidates. The scope of our license or Arena’s failure to cooperate with us to protect our intellectual property

31

could have an adverse impact on our ability to develop our product candidates and could limit our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

We may also acquire or in-license additional product candidates for preclinical or clinical development in the future as we continue to build our pipeline. The risks associated with acquiring or in-licensing current or future product candidates could result in delays in the commencement or completion of our research and development, prevent or impede our commercialization, and adversely affect or delay our ability to generate revenues from our product candidates.

Clinical and preclinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. The results of prior clinical trials and early preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates are not necessarily predictive of future results.

Before we can initiate clinical trials for our product candidates, we must submit the results of preclinical studies to the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) or comparable regulatory authorities along with other information, including information about product candidate chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and our proposed clinical trial protocol, as part of an IND application or similar regulatory filing. Before obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must complete preclinical development and extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Clinical and preclinical drug development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Our clinical trials may not be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all, and failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study or clinical trial process. Despite promising preclinical or clinical results, any product candidate can unexpectedly fail at any stage of preclinical or clinical development. The historical failure rate for product candidates in our industry is high. The results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not predict the results of later clinical trials of the product candidate, and interim results of a clinical trial are not necessarily indicative of final results. Furthermore, product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy characteristics despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials.

In particular, while we have results from the SAD and MAD portions of a Phase 1 clinical trial of LP352, we do not know how LP352 will perform in future clinical trials, including the ongoing PACIFIC Study. It is not uncommon to observe results in clinical trials that are unexpected based on preclinical studies and early clinical trials, and many product candidates fail in clinical trials despite very promising early results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data may be susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies, or after others, including regulatory authorities, disagreed with such companies’ views and interpretations of the data and results from earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. As we investigate LP352 for DEEs and other epileptic diseases, we may encounter difficulties that we have not yet encountered. For example, LP352 is being designed and dose-optimized for DEEs. This work is ongoing and we may encounter unforeseen difficulties. Furthermore, LP659 and other of our current or future product candidates may not be able to progress from preclinical to Phase 1 clinical development.

Clinical trials may not be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of a clinical trial can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

32

We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended, terminated or modified by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political, economic and legal risks relevant to such foreign countries.

In addition, adverse geopolitical and macroeconomic developments, including disruptions caused by the COVID-19 or another pandemic or the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine may increase the likelihood that we encounter difficulties or delays in initiating, screening, enrolling, conducting, or completing our ongoing and planned preclinical studies and clinical trials. Clinical site initiation and patient screening and enrollment may be delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the COVID-19 or another pandemic, or to the extent the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine escalates to involve additional countries, further economic sanctions or wider military conflict. Investigators and patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19 or another virus, could be limited, which in turn could adversely impact our clinical trial operations. Additionally, we may experience interruption of key clinical trial activities, such as clinical trial site monitoring, due to limitations on travel, quarantines or social distancing protocols imposed or recommended by federal or state governments, employers and others in connection with the COVID-19 or another pandemic. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have faced and may continue to face delays in meeting our anticipated timelines for our ongoing and planned clinical trials. For example, the initiation of the MAD portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial of LP352 was delayed, in part, as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical site in the United Kingdom that conducted the SAD portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial for LP352, and subsequently we modified the protocol and relocated the MAD portion of such trial to a new clinical site in the United States. We announced topline data from the MAD portion of such trial in September 2021.

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue from future product sales and regulatory and commercialization milestones. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional testing to bridge our modified product candidate to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive

33

right to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, or allow our competitors to bring comparable products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have limited experience as a company in conducting clinical trials, have never conducted later-stage clinical trials or submitted an NDA or other marketing application, and may be unable to do so for any of our product candidates.

We are early in our development efforts for our product candidates, and we will need to successfully complete Phase 1 clinical trials and later-stage and pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval to market LP352, LP659, or any future product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of marketing applications is complicated. To date, we have only conducted a limited number of Phase 1 trials for one of our product candidates, LP352.We have not completed any later stage or pivotal clinical trials, have limited experience as a company in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings and have not previously submitted an NDA or other comparable foreign regulatory submission for any product candidate. We also plan to conduct a number of clinical trials for multiple product candidates in parallel over the next several years. This may be a difficult process to manage with our limited resources and may divert the attention of management. In addition, we have had limited interactions with the FDA and cannot be certain how many clinical trials of our product candidates will be required or how such trials will have to be designed. For example, we are currently conducting a “basket” Phase 1b/2a trial with LP352 in which participants with different DEEs are being enrolled and which is designed to include multiple clinically defined populations under one investigational protocol. We may seek to conduct our pivotal trials for LP352 with a basket design. A basket trial design could potentially decrease the time to study new populations by decreasing administrative burden, however, this trial may not provide opportunities for accelerated regulatory pathways and may not overcome limitations to extrapolating data from the experience in one disease to other diseases, because safety and efficacy results in each indication may be analyzed separately. Accordingly, clinical success in a basket trial, or any trial in one indication, may not predict success in another indication. The FDA and other regulatory health authorities may not view such a design or the data from such trials favorably. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to regulatory submission and approval of any of our product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in submitting marketing applications for and commercializing our product candidates.

Because we have multiple product candidates in our pipeline and are considering a variety of target indications, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on specific product candidates, indications and development programs. We may also conduct several clinical trials for our product candidates in parallel over the next several years, which may make our decision as to which product candidates to focus on more difficult. For example, we are currently conducting the PACIFIC Study for LP352 for the treatment of seizures associated with DEEs, which may include Dravet syndrome, LGS and TSC, among others, which we initiated in the first quarter of 2022. Further, we are investigating preclinical studies of LP659 for multiple neurological diseases, and we have other compounds in earlier research. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or other indications that could have had greater commercial potential or likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. In addition, if we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through future collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical trials is an expensive and time-consuming process and could be made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control.

Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, and the timing of our clinical trials depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in our trials, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials to such trial’s conclusion as required by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Additionally, certain clinical trials for future product candidates may be focused on indications with relatively small patient populations, which may further limit enrollment of eligible patients or may result in slower enrollment than we anticipate. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials, once established, may further limit the pool of available trial participants. For example, the number of patients suffering from DEEs, such as Dravet syndrome, LGS and TSC, is small and, in some cases, has not been established with precision. If the actual number of patients with these diseases is smaller than we anticipate, we may encounter

34

difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical trials, thereby delaying or preventing development and approval of our product candidates. Even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials.

Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, the severity of the disease under investigation, the nature of the trial protocol, the existing body of safety and efficacy data for the product candidate, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical trials of competing therapies for the same indication, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the ability to adequately monitor patients during a trial, clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product candidate being studied, and the risk that patients will drop out of a trial before completing all site visits. There are limited patient pools from which to draw in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner, including due to the fact that the neurological diseases we target are rare.

Furthermore, our efforts to build relationships with patient communities may not succeed, which could result in delays in patient enrollment in our clinical trials, which could be exacerbated to the extent the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine escalates to involve additional countries, further economic sanctions or wider military conflict. In addition, any negative results we may report in clinical trials of our product candidate may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of that same product candidate. Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop our product candidates, or could render further development impossible. For example, the impact of public health epidemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may delay or prevent patients from enrolling or from receiving treatment in accordance with the protocol and the required timelines, which could delay our clinical trials, or prevent us or our partners from completing our clinical trials at all, and harm our ability to obtain approval for such product candidate. Further, if patients drop out of our clinical trials, miss scheduled doses or follow-up visits, or otherwise fail to follow clinical trial protocols, whether as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and related illness or actions taken to slow the spread of COVID-19 or otherwise, the integrity of data from our clinical trials may be compromised or not accepted by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which would represent a significant setback for the applicable program. In addition, we may rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to compel their actual performance.

Preliminary, topline and interim data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or topline data from our clinical trials, such as our announcement in December 2022 of positive topline data from our Phase 1 clinical study evaluating PK and PD of LP352 in healthy volunteers, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, topline data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical studies. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

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

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

35

During the conduct of clinical trials, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries and discomforts, to their doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused these conditions. Regulatory authorities may draw different conclusions or require additional testing to confirm these determinations, if they occur.

In addition, it is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other AEs that were observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by participants. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational product candidates are tested in large-scale, Phase 3 trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. Patients in our ongoing or planned clinical trials may experience similar or other side effects after treatment with one or more of our product candidates. If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our current product candidates and any future product candidates has serious or life-threatening side effects or other side effects that outweigh the potential therapeutic benefit, the development of the product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked, which would harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenue through their sale may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

LP352, our most advanced product candidate, is an oral, centrally acting, 5-HT2C receptor superagonist with no observed impact on 5-HT2B and 5-HT2A receptor subtypes in our preclinical studies to date. 5-HT2B and 5-HT2A receptor subtypes have been known to be associated with significant adverse side effects, including valvular heart disease and pulmonary arterial hypertension in the case of the 5-HT2B receptor, and hallucinations and mild to severe anxiety in the case of the 5-HT2A receptor. LP352 has the potential to be a clinically differentiated 5-HT2C superagonist for patients with DEEs. For example, fenfluramine, marketed as FINTEPLA, a non-specific 5-HT2 agonist, was approved for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS by the FDA in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Fenfluramine has been associated with significant side effects and FINTEPLA has a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program requirement and a boxed warning. Another 5-HT2C agonist, lorcaserin, is also under evaluation for its potential to reduce seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome and refractory epilepsies. Lorcaserin was discovered by Arena and approved by the FDA for chronic weight management, marketed as BELVIQ by Eisai Inc. Lorcaserin was withdrawn from the market at the request of the FDA following the FDA’s analysis of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 clinical trial, for which patients in the lorcaserin group demonstrated a numerically higher but not a statistically significantly higher rate of total cancer diagnoses (7.7% vs 7.1% placebo). Based on the results of this clinical trial, the FDA concluded that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh the benefits, and requested that lorcaserin be withdrawn from the market for the approved indication of weight management. However, the FDA authorized an expanded access program for patients with Dravet syndrome to continue to receive lorcaserin. LP352 was designed and developed by Arena to be the next generation to lorcaserin, with the goal of being a safer and more effective 5-HT2C agonist. We believe LP352’s potential for high selectivity and novel chemistry gives it the potential to reduce seizures in DEE patients and overcome the known or perceived safety limitations of available drugs in the 5-HT2 class. However, we may not be correct, and the selectivity, specificity or other attributes of LP352 may result in similar or less desirable clinical profiles than less selective and specific available drugs or other product candidates. Further, in nonclinical toxicity studies of LP352 in rats and non-human primates (NHPs) conducted by Outpost Medicine, LLC prior to returning the product to Arena, certain male rats and NHPs of varying degrees of maturity in the respective high dose groups experienced minimal to slight degeneration/atrophy of the seminiferous tubules with reduced spermatocyte maturation. Although exposure levels for these high dose groups were estimated to be far in excess of planned human exposures in our clinical trials and no similar AEs were observed in our subsequent toxicity studies in sexually mature rats and NHPs, we may see similar findings in the future.

In addition, if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval, the FDA could require us to include a black box or other warning, or contraindication, in our product labeling, or adopt REMS to ensure that the benefits outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the drug for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates or other products with the same or related active ingredients, several other potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

36

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, even assuming approval of a product candidate, our business may suffer. Because the patient populations in the market for our product candidates may be small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and acquire a significant market share to achieve profitability and growth.

If the size of the market opportunities in each of our target indications is smaller than we anticipate, we may not be able to achieve profitability and growth. We focus on developing novel medicines for neurological diseases. Given the small number of patients who have the diseases that we are targeting, our eligible patient population and pricing estimates may differ significantly from the actual market addressable by our product candidates. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates that have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, patient foundations, or market research, and which may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Likewise, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than us.

The development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of the indications that we are pursuing. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

DEEs are commonly treated with multiple combinations of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) though physician preference for administered therapies differs across different epilepsy types. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Lundbeck, Pfizer, and UCB have approved AEDs for the treatment of epilepsies. There are also non-pharmaceutical therapies for epilepsy patients, such as a ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation, and surgery for some patients. Several companies have obtained FDA approval for the treatment seizures associated with DEEs. For example, ZTALMY (ganaxalone) was approved for the treatment of seizures associated with CDKL5 deficiency disorder in March 2022. Fenfluramine was approved for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in June 2020 and LGS in March 2022, and is available for patients through a REMS program. Epidiolex (cannabidiol) was approved for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS in 2018, and the treatment of seizures associated with TSC in 2020, and DIACOMIT (stiripentol) was approved for seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in 2018. In addition, other companies are developing therapeutics for the treatment of DEEs, including alternative approaches such as gene therapy.

In the S1P receptor modulator space, there are four drugs that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of certain indications in multiple sclerosis: fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod and siponimod. There are multiple additional S1P receptor modulators in development for additional therapeutic indications beyond multiple sclerosis, including in other neurological diseases. There are also numerous other drugs and product candidates in development for indications for which we might develop our product candidates.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of the indications that we are pursuing. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their substantially greater size, financial, technical and other resources, and institutional experience. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing reimbursement, government contracts,

37

relationships with key opinion leaders, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining and maintaining regulatory approvals and distribution relationships to market products, and marketing approved drugs. These companies also have significantly larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. If we are not able to compete effectively against existing and potential competitors, our business and financial condition may be harmed.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of our product candidates are likely to be their efficacy and safety, the scope and limitations of marketing approval, success of regulatory approval, successful protection of our intellectual property, and the availability of funding and reimbursement.

As a result of these factors, our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their drugs before we are able to, which may limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. Our competitors may also develop therapies that are safer, more effective, more widely accepted and cheaper than ours, and may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their drugs. These appreciable advantages could render our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of such product candidates’ development and commercialization.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries.

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

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

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. To demonstrate the safety of our clinical products, we may also be required to conduct extensive clinical trials and nonclinical studies, some of which have not been initiated or completed, and may not be completed for several years. For example, we believe that we will need to conduct additional nonclinical studies in juvenile animals, as well as develop a liquid formulation, to support the evaluation of LP352 in pediatric populations. We also expect that we will need to conduct additional toxicology, long-term carcinogenicity and other nonclinical studies to support the safety evaluation of LP352 and any of our product candidates intended to be administered for an extended period of time. There is no assurance our development or these studies will be successful. In addition, results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program.

The FDA or any foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates or require us to conduct additional nonclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for, including the following:

38

Any of the above events could prevent us from achieving market approval of our product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates. The demand for our product candidates could also be negatively impacted by any adverse effects of a competitor’s product or treatment.

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

Even if our current or future product candidates receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

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

39

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our product candidates.

In addition, if approved, LP352 may face challenges in gaining market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors or others in the medical community as a result of it being a 5-HT2C agonist, which is part of an agonist class associated with significant risks and side effects. For example, fenfluramine, marketed as FINTEPLA, is a non-specific 5-HT2 agonist, has been associated with significant side effects and FINTEPLA has a REMS program requirement and a boxed warning. Another 5-HT2C agonist, lorcaserin, is also under evaluation for its potential to reduce seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome and refractory epilepsies. Lorcaserin was discovered by Arena and approved by the FDA for chronic weight management, marketed as BELVIQ by Eisai Inc. and withdrawn from the market at the request of the FDA based on a change in the FDA’s risk-benefit assessment for the approved indication. However, the FDA authorized an expanded access program for patients with Dravet syndrome to continue to receive lorcaserin.

Although we aim to improve upon current 5-HT2C agonist product profiles with LP352, which was designed to be the next generation to lorcaserin, with the goal of being a safer and more effective 5-HT2C agonist, and which we believe has the potential to overcome the limitations of the currently available 5-HT2 class, if we are unable to do so and to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community about this product candidate and successfully distinguish the safety profile of this product candidate to those of other products in the 5-HT2C agonist class, we may fail to gain market acceptance of LP352.

Because we expect sales of our product candidates, if approved, to generate substantially all of our revenues for the foreseeable future, the failure of our product candidates, if approved, to find market acceptance would harm our business and could require us to seek additional financing.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for our current or future product candidates, they will remain subject to ongoing regulatory oversight.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our current or any future product candidates, such approvals will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export, sampling, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as on-going compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we may conduct post-approval. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our current or future product candidates may also be subject to a REMS, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the drug.

In addition, drug manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP requirements and adherence to commitments made in the NDA or foreign marketing application. If we, or a regulatory authority, discover previously unknown problems with a drug, such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the drug is manufactured or if a regulatory authority disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of that drug, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to that drug, the manufacturing facility or us, including requesting a recall or requiring withdrawal of the drug from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of our current or future product candidates, a regulatory authority may:

40

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our current or future product candidates and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the FDA’s policies, and those of equivalent foreign regulatory agencies, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could cause changes to or delays in the drug review process, or suspend or restrict regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization and have no experience as a company in commercializing products, and we may have to invest significant resources to develop these capabilities. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our products, we may not be able to generate product revenue.

We have not as a company commercialized a product and have limited or no internal sales, marketing or distribution capabilities. If any of our product candidates ultimately receives regulatory approval, we must build a marketing and sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product in the markets that we target, which will be expensive and time consuming, or collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. We currently plan to independently commercialize our product candidates in the United States by establishing a focused sales force and marketing infrastructure. We may opportunistically seek additional strategic collaborations to maximize the commercial opportunities for our product candidates outside of the United States. There are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may not be able to enter into collaborations or hire consultants or external service providers to assist us in sales, marketing and distribution functions on acceptable financial terms, or at all. In addition, our product revenues and our profitability, if any, may be lower if we rely on third parties for these functions than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we are not successful in commercializing our products, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.

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

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

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and establishing and maintaining 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 or any future collaborator fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable

41

marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our current and any future product candidates in clinical trials and may face an even greater risk if we commercialize any product candidate that we may develop. Any side effects, manufacturing defects, failure to follow instructions, misuse or abuse associated with our product candidates could result in injury to a patient or even death. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that any such product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities and could incur reputational harm. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Large judgments have been awarded in class action and individual lawsuits based on drugs that had anticipated or unanticipated side effects. Any product liability insurance coverage that we obtain and maintain may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage each time we commence a clinical trial and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to obtain or maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Our product candidates may be regulated as controlled substances, the making, use, sale, importation, exportation, and distribution of which are subject to significant regulation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other regulatory agencies.

Our product candidates may be classified as controlled substances, which are subject to state, federal, and foreign laws and regulations regarding their manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation, and distribution. Among other things, controlled substances are regulated under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and regulations of the DEA.

The DEA regulates controlled substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Prior to commercialization, centrally acting drugs are generally subject to review and potential scheduling by the DEA. It is possible that LP352 or our other product candidates may be regulated by the DEA as a Schedule IV controlled substance, which would subject such product candidates to additional restrictions regarding their manufacture, shipment, storage, sale and use, depending on the scheduling of the active ingredients, and may limit the commercial potential of any of our product candidates, if approved. For example, BELVIQ and FINTEPLA are Schedule IV controlled substances.

Various states also independently regulate controlled substances. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule drugs as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug when the DEA does so, in other states there must be rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any controlled substance drug product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval and adverse scheduling could impair the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or our collaborators must also obtain separate state registrations in order to be able to obtain, handle and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet

42

applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions from the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

For any of our product candidates classified as controlled substances, we and our suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, customers and distributors are required to obtain and maintain applicable registrations from state, federal and foreign law enforcement and regulatory agencies and comply with state, federal and foreign laws and regulations regarding the manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation and distribution of controlled substances. There is a risk that DEA regulations may limit the supply of the compounds used in clinical trials for our product candidates, and, in the future, the ability to produce and distribute our products in the volume needed to meet commercial demand. Regulations associated with controlled substances govern manufacturing, labeling, packaging, testing, dispensing, production and procurement quotas, recordkeeping, reporting, handling, shipment and disposal. These regulations increase the personnel needs and the expense associated with development and commercialization of product candidates including controlled substances. The DEA, and some states, conduct periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to obtain and maintain required registrations or comply with any applicable regulations could delay or preclude us from developing and commercializing our product candidates containing controlled substances and subject us to enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings. Because of their restrictive nature, these regulations could limit commercialization of any of our product candidates that are classified as controlled substances.

Risks Related to Regulatory Compliance

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

Healthcare providers, including physicians, and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers and third-party payors may subject us to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws and other healthcare laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal false claims laws and the law commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations. These laws will impact, among other things, our clinical research, as well as our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct or may conduct our business. The laws that will affect our operations include, but are not limited to:

43

In Europe, the GDPR, as well as EU and EEA Member State implementing legislations, apply to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information. Importantly, the GDPR materially expands the definition of what is expressly provided to constitute “personal data” including by clarifying that the GDPR applies to pseudonymized (i.e. key-coded) data, which is often processed by sponsors in the context of clinical trials. EU and EEA Member States are also able to legislate separately on health and genetic data, and we must comply with these local laws where we operate. Also, notwithstanding the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the data protection obligations of the GDPR continue to apply to UK-related processing of personal data under the so-called “UK GDPR”. These GDPR regulations have “extra-territorial” reach in that it applies (inter-alia) to any processing of personal data that concerns the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA or UK (as applicable) and/or the monitoring of their behavior, regardless of the existence of an establishment in the EEA or UK (as applicable). As such, these GDPR regulations apply to any clinical trials and other operations taking in place in the EEA and UK. The GDPR provides for robust regulatory enforcement and substantial fines. While the GDPR affords some flexibility in determining how to comply with the various requirements, significant effort and expense has been, and will continue to be, invested to ensure continuing compliance. In Switzerland, the Federal Act on Data Protection (DPA), also applies to the collection and processing of personal data, including health-related information, by companies located in Switzerland, or in certain circumstances, by companies located outside of Switzerland. The applicability of the DPA will also result in an increase of costs of compliance, risks of noncompliance and penalties for noncompliance.

These data privacy and security laws impose strict obligations on the ability to process personal data, including health-related information, in particular in relation to their collection, use, disclosure and transfer. This includes several requirements relating to (i) obtaining, in some situations, the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, (ii) the information provided to the individuals about how their personal data is used, (iii) ensuring the security and confidentiality of the personal data, (iv) the obligation to notify regulatory authorities and affected individuals of personal data breaches, (v) extensive internal privacy governance obligations, and (vi) obligations to honor rights of individuals in relation to their personal data (for example, the right to access, correct and delete their personal data).

In addition, the GDPR regulations prohibit the transfer of personal data from the EEA and the UK to the United States, and other countries in respect of which the European Commission or other relevant regulatory body has not issued a so-called “adequacy decision” (known as “third countries”). Switzerland has adopted similar restrictions under the DPA. The implementation of the processes, including agreements with all relevant CROs, sub-processors and other third parties, is complex and time-consuming. As such, transfers of personal data from the EEA, UK and/or Switzerland to the United States and other third countries may not fully comply with the cross-border data transfer restrictions set out in the applicable data privacy and security regulations. Additionally,

44

other countries outside of Europe have enacted or are considering enacting similar cross-border data transfer restrictions and laws requiring local data residency, which could increase the cost and complexity of operating our business.

Furthermore, following Brexit, the relationship between the UK and the EEA in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains somewhat uncertain, and we may be required to implement processes and put agreements in place to enable transfers of personal data from the EEA to the UK, which could further increase the complexity and costs in our operations.

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. Actual or perceived 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 participants, 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.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements. The laws and regulations discussed in these risk factors are intended to be examples, and updates to these laws and regulations, as well as other laws and regulations, could have a material effect on our operations and prospects.

Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our current or any future product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell profitably, if approved.

Market acceptance and sales of any product candidates that we commercialize, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these drugs and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations and other private health insurers. Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any product candidates that we develop will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. One third-party payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the drug. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each third-party payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy, and on what tier of its formulary it will be placed. The position on a third-party payor’s list of covered drugs, or formulary, generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our drugs unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our drugs.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Third-party payors are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, requiring drug companies to provide them with varying levels of discounts from list prices and/or challenging the value of list prices charged for medical products. Similarly, the containment of healthcare costs has become a priority for federal and state governments. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any drug that we commercialize and, if reimbursement

45

is available, the level of reimbursement is uncertain. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any drug for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our current and any future product candidates that we develop. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

Reform measures that result in decreased physician reimbursement may adversely affect our business. Further, any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other governmental programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several U.S. presidential executive orders, Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Additionally, based on a recent executive order, the Biden administration expressed its intent to pursue certain policy initiatives to reduce drug prices. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which among other things extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage through plan year 2025 in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the ACA), marketplaces. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue to advance these principles. In addition, the IRA, among other things, (1) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare and (2) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. The IRA is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. We expect that these and 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 receive for any approved drug. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our drugs.

If any of our current or future product candidates are approved for marketing, and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses, or if physicians prescribe or use any of our current or future product candidates off-label, we may become subject to prohibitions on the sale or marketing of any of our current or future product candidates, significant fines, penalties, sanctions, or product liability claims, and our image and reputation within the industry and marketplace could be harmed.

The FDA, Department of Justice (DOJ), and comparable foreign authorities strictly regulate the marketing and promotional claims that are made about pharmaceutical products, including our product candidates LP352 and LP659. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses or indications that are not approved by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. Although physicians may prescribe products for off-label uses as the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, they do restrict promotional communications from companies or their sales force with respect to off-label uses of products for which marketing

46

clearance has not been issued. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may receive warning letters from the FDA and comparable foreign authorities and become subject to significant liability, which would materially harm our business. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would materially harm our business. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted from our business operations, significant legal expenses could be incurred, and our reputation could be damaged. The FDA and other governmental authorities have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed in order to resolve enforcement actions. If we are deemed by the FDA, DOJ, or other governmental authorities to have engaged in the promotion of any current or future product candidates for off-label use, we could be subject to certain prohibitions or other restrictions on the sale or marketing of our products and operations, or significant fines and penalties, and the imposition of these sanctions could also affect our reputation and position within the industry.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug designations or exclusivity for our product candidates, which could limit the potential profitability of our product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and application fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation, however, neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. Generally, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for an indication for which it receives the designation, then the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity that precludes the applicable regulatory authority from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for the exclusivity period except in limited situations. For purposes of small molecule drugs, the FDA defines “same drug” as a drug that contains the same active moiety and is intended for the same use as the drug in question. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation.

We intend to pursue orphan drug designation for one or more of our product candidates, as well as for potential other future product candidates. Obtaining orphan drug designations is important to our business strategy; however, obtaining an orphan drug designation can be difficult and we may not be successful in doing so. Even if we were to obtain orphan drug designation for a product candidate, we may not obtain orphan exclusivity and that exclusivity may not effectively protect the drug from the competition of different drugs for the same condition, which could be approved during the exclusivity period. Additionally, after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA could subsequently approve another application for the same drug for the same indication if the FDA concludes that the later drug is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States also may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. The failure to obtain an orphan drug designation for any product candidates we may develop, the inability to maintain that designation for the duration of the applicable period, or the inability to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of the applicable product candidate to balance our expenses incurred to develop it, which would have a negative impact on our operational results and financial condition.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the FDA have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies 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, at times during the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

47

By way of another example, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most foreign inspections of manufacturing facilities and products through April 2020, and subsequently, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. On July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to restart routine pre-announced surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA intends to use this risk-based assessment system to identify the categories of regulatory activity that can occur within a given geographic area, ranging from mission critical inspections to resumption of all regulatory activities. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties, including Arena, and the failure by us or our licensors to protect the licensed intellectual property or the termination of our license could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.

We are dependent on technology, patents, know-how, and proprietary materials, both our own and licensed from Arena. We entered into the Arena License Agreement pursuant to which we acquired an exclusive, royalty bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license to develop and commercialize LP352 for any use in humans, LP659 for the treatment of certain CNS and peripheral nervous system indications, and certain other compounds for CNS indications. Any termination of this license will result in the loss of significant rights and will restrict our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. If we or Arena fails to adequately protect this intellectual property, or if we seek to expand the field of our license to include additional indications we determine are advantageous or necessary for us to develop a licensed compound and Arena does not consent, our ability to commercialize these compounds could suffer.

Agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology to or from third parties may be complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. Our business also would suffer if any current or future licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if we or the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights.

Furthermore, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

In addition, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire or in-license additional proprietary rights, including to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. In that event, we may be required to expend considerable time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. For example, our programs may involve additional technologies or product candidates that may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties. Furthermore, other pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions may also have filed or are planning to file patent applications potentially relevant to our business. Our product candidates may also require specific formulations or other technology to work effectively and efficiently. These formulations or technology may be covered by intellectual property rights held by others. From time to time, in order to avoid infringing these third-party patents, we may be required to license technology from additional third parties to further develop or commercialize our product candidates. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any relevant third-party intellectual property rights, including any such intellectual property rights required to manufacture, use or sell our product candidates, 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, and as a result we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, and we may have to abandon development of the relevant research programs or product candidates, 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

48

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 under such intellectual property rights, any such license may be non-exclusive, which may allow our competitors’ access to the same technologies licensed to us.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive practice, and companies that 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 larger size and cash resources or 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.

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including those relating to:

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 are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize our products could suffer.

Furthermore, our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us and if we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, including due to the impact of adverse macroeconomic and geopolitical developments such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, or any economic slowdowns, recessions, market corrections, inflation, rising interest rates and tightening of credit markets resulting therefrom, on our business operations or our use of the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license.

We depend, in part, on our licensors to file, prosecute, maintain, defend, or enforce patents and patent applications that are material to our business.

Patents relating to our product candidates may be controlled by our licensor. Licensors may have rights to file, prosecute, maintain, and defend the patents we have licensed from such licensor. Our ability to settle legal claims may require consent of licensors. If our licensor or any future licensees having rights to file, prosecute, maintain, and defend our patent rights fail to conduct these activities for patents or patent applications covering any of our product candidates, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using, or selling competing products. We cannot be certain that such activities by our licensor has been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. If our licensor has the right to control enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and, even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we cannot ensure the cooperation of our licensor. We cannot be certain that our licensor will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize its or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business. In addition, even when we have the right to control patent prosecution of licensed patents and patent applications, enforcement of licensed patents, or defense of claims asserting the invalidity of those patents, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions

49

of our licensor and its counsel that took place prior to or after our assuming control. In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such prosecution, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners.

For most licensed products under the Arena License Agreement, including LP352 and LP659, we have the first right to control the prosecution and enforcement of the licensed patent applications and patents. However, we have an obligation to reasonably cooperate with Arena and will to some extent depend on Arena’s cooperation with us to prosecute and enforce such intellectual property. A disagreement between us and Arena with respect to the prosecution or enforcement of the patent applications or patents, or unsuccessful actions to prosecute or enforce the patent applications or patents, could adversely affect our intellectual property rights.

We may enter into collaboration agreements and strategic alliances, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of such collaborations or alliances. We may wish to form collaborations in the future with respect to our product candidates, but may not be able to do so or to realize the potential benefits of such transactions, which may cause us to alter or delay our development and commercialization plans.

We intend to broaden the global reach of our platform by potentially selectively collaborating with leading biopharmaceutical companies. We intend to retain significant economic and commercial rights to our programs in key geographic areas that are core to our long-term strategy. As a result, we intend to periodically explore a variety of possible additional strategic collaborations in an effort to gain access to additional product candidates or resources. At the current time, we cannot predict what form such a strategic collaboration might take. We are likely to face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic collaborators, and strategic collaborations can be complicated and time consuming to negotiate and document. We may not be able to negotiate strategic collaborations on acceptable terms, or at all. We are unable to predict when, if ever, we will enter into any additional strategic collaborations because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with establishing them.

Research and development collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include the following:

50

The development and potential commercialization of our product candidates will require substantial additional capital to fund expenses. We may form or seek further strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations, or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop, including in territories outside the United States or for certain indications. These transactions can entail numerous operational and financial risks, including exposure to unknown liabilities, disruption of our business and diversion of our management’s time and attention in order to manage a collaboration or develop acquired products, product candidates or technologies, incurrence of substantial debt or dilutive issuances of equity securities to pay transaction consideration or costs, higher than expected collaboration, acquisition or integration costs, write-downs of assets or goodwill or impairment charges, increased amortization expenses, difficulty and cost in facilitating the collaboration or combining the operations and personnel of any acquired business, impairment of relationships with key suppliers, manufacturers or customers of any acquired business due to changes in management and ownership and the inability to retain key employees of any acquired business. As a result, if we enter into acquisition or in-license agreements or strategic partnerships, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We also cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction or such other benefits that led us to enter into the arrangement.

In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. If and when we collaborate with a third-party for development and commercialization of a product candidate, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of that product candidate to the third-party. 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 our technologies, product candidates and market opportunities. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under any license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms or at all with potential collaborators.

As a result of these risks, we may not be able to realize the benefit of our existing collaborations or any future collaborations or licensing agreements we may enter into. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical and biomedical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators and changes to the strategies of the combined company. As a result, we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of such product candidate, reduce or delay one or more of our other development programs, delay the potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any planned sales or marketing activities for such product candidate, or increase our expenditures and undertake development, manufacturing or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development, manufacturing or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

Additionally, we may sometimes collaborate with academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide companies like 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 other parties, 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.

Our products will require specific constituents to work effectively and efficiently, and rights to those constituents are and, in the future, may be held by others. We may be unable to in-license any rights to constituents, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, which would harm our business. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. Any delays in entering into new collaborations or strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies, which could harm our business prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.

51

We may be dependent on intellectual property licensed or sublicensed to us from, or for which development was funded or otherwise assisted by, government agencies or academic or other institutions, for development of our technology and product candidates. Failure to meet our own obligations to our licensors or upstream licensors, including such government agencies or academic or other institutions, may result in the loss of our rights to such intellectual property, which could harm our business.

Government agencies or academic or other institutions may provide funding, facilities, personnel or other assistance in connection with the development of the intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to us. Such government agencies may have retained rights in such intellectual property, including the right to grant or require us to grant mandatory licenses or sublicenses to such intellectual property to third parties under certain specified circumstances, including if it is necessary to meet health and safety needs that we are not reasonably satisfying or if it is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by federal regulations, or to manufacture products in the United States. Any exercise of such rights, including with respect to any such required sublicense of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize licensed products.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our current or any future product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

We anticipate that we will file additional patent applications both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict:

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our development programs and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our current and any future product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our current and future development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution 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, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting our, our licensors’ or governmental patent offices' operations.

It is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current or any future product candidates in the United States or in foreign countries. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our current or any future product candidates, third parties may challenge their scope, validity, or enforceability, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates or companion diagnostic that we may develop. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate or companion diagnostic under patent protection could be reduced.

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current or any future product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability to commercialize, future drugs. Any such outcome could have a negative effect on our business.

Composition of matter patents for pharmaceutical products often provide a strong form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain, however, that the claims in our pending patent applications covering the composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered valid and enforceable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents

52

protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label” for those uses that are covered by our method of use patents. Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or enforce against.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to file for patent protection. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or drugs, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and drugs.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. These changes could also increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Leahy-Smith Act) was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act included several significant changes to U.S. patent law that impacted how patent rights could be prosecuted, enforced and defended. In particular, the Leahy-Smith Act also included provisions that switched the United States from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, allowed third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and set forth additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by the USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings. 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 the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures governing the administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, became effective on March 16, 2013. It remains unclear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith 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 negative effect on our business.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or drugs and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize drugs without infringing third-party patent rights. 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.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. An adverse determination in any such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and drugs, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and drugs. Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are paid timely, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. For instance, a patent term extension based on regulatory delay may be available in the United States. However, only a single patent can be extended for each marketing approval, and any patent can be extended only once, for a single product. Moreover, the scope of protection during the period of the patent term extension does not necessarily extend to all claims, but instead only to claims that read on the product as approved. Laws governing analogous patent term extensions in foreign jurisdictions vary widely, as do laws governing the ability to obtain multiple patents from a single patent family. Additionally, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data to launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially. In addition, although upon issuance in the United States a patent’s life can be increased based on certain delays caused by the USPTO, this increase can be reduced or eliminated based on certain delays caused by the patent applicant during patent prosecution. Without patent protection for our current or future product candidates, including once the patent life has expired even if patents covering our product

53

candidates are obtained, we may be open to competition from generic versions of such drugs. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic medications. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing drugs similar or identical to ours.

Even if we have or obtain patents covering our products or methods, we may still be barred from making, using and selling such products or methods because of the patent rights of others. Others may have filed, and in the future may file, patent applications covering compositions, products or methods that are similar or identical to ours, which could materially affect our ability to successfully develop our technology or to successfully commercialize any approved products alone or with collaborators.

Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are generally published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our methods and products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending claims in patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technologies or related products. These patent applications may have priority over patent applications filed by us.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our owned and licensed patents and/or applications and any patent rights we may own or license in the future. We rely on our outside counsel, patent annuity service providers, or our licensing partners to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We will employ one or more reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply and we are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance 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. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could harm our business.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates such as LP352, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents. In the United States, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent, which is limited to the approved indication (or any additional indications approved during the period of extension). However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the United States, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. If this occurs, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their drug earlier than might otherwise be the case.

Our intellectual property rights do not necessarily protect against all potential threats to our business.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

54

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

Our commercial success depends, in part, upon our ability and the ability of our current or future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our current and any future product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop may infringe existing or future patents owned by third parties. We may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current and any future product candidates and technology, including interference proceedings, post grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could have a negative impact on our ability to commercialize our current and any future product candidates. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. If we are found to infringe a third party’s valid and enforceable intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our product candidate(s) and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidate. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from manufacturing and commercializing our current or any future product candidates or force us to cease some or all of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Third parties asserting their patent or other intellectual property rights against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business, cause development delays, and may impact our reputation. 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, pay royalties, or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible on a cost-effective basis or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

We are aware of third-party patents and/or patent applications that could adversely affect the potential commercialization of our compounds. For example, we are aware of third-party patents, as well as a third-party patent application, with broad claims to administering an S1P receptor modulator by starting with a lower dose and then increasing to a higher, standard daily dose. Further, we are aware of third-party patent applications with broad claims to administering a 5-HT receptor agonist for epileptic disorders. While we do not believe that any such claims that would cover the potential commercialization of LP352 or LP659 would be valid and enforceable, we may be incorrect in this belief.

55

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors 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. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our related patent applications at risk of not issuing. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. The initiation of a claim against a third party may also cause the third party to bring counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or lack of statutory subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business.

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to, or the correct inventorship of, 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, interference, derivation or other 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.

There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture, or methods of use or treatment that cover our product candidates. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop, could be found to be infringed by our product candidate. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may obtain patents in the future that may prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates, and may claim that use of our technologies or the manufacture, use, or sale of our product candidates infringes upon these patents. We may also receive, and expect to receive, communications from various industry participants alleging our infringement of their patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property rights and/or offering licenses to such intellectual property.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Our business could be harmed if in litigation the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third-party is infringing our issued patents, or any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action, which typically last for years before they are concluded, may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders, or it may be otherwise impractical or undesirable to enforce our intellectual property against some third parties. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. In such cases, we may decide that the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings and that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical

56

trials, continue our internal research programs, in-license needed technology or other product candidates, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

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

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

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 we infringe their patents or that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention, or decide that the other party’s use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1). With respect to the validity of our patents, 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, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates and such an outcome may limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Changes in U.S. patent law or the patent law of other countries or jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our current and any future product candidates.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. 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. Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could negatively impact our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our current and any future product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can have a different scope and strength than do those in the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own drugs and, further, may export otherwise infringing drugs to territories where we may obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These drugs may compete with our drugs in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so 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, particularly those relating to biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult in those jurisdictions for us to stop the infringement or misappropriation of our patents or other intellectual property rights, or the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights. Proceedings to enforce our patent and other intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, such proceedings could put our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims of infringement or

57

misappropriation 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. Similarly, if our trade secrets are disclosed in a foreign jurisdiction, competitors worldwide could have access to our proprietary information and we may be without satisfactory recourse. Such disclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. In addition, certain developing countries, including China and India, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Trade secrets and confidential information, however, may be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our trade secrets, know-how and confidential information, including our proprietary processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific advisors, contractors, and collaborators. With our consultants, contractors, and outside scientific collaborators, these agreements typically include invention assignment obligations. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes, or that any such agreements will be adequate. Although we seek to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, outside scientific advisors, contractors, and collaborators might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors or otherwise misappropriate our information, and in certain cases third parties who we may share confidential information have negotiated limits on their liability in their agreements with us. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive

58

and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, or misappropriation of our intellectual property by third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results, and financial condition.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed trade secrets or other confidential information of their current or former employers or claims asserting inventorship or ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees, consultants, and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other healthcare, biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. 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 could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

One aspect of the determination of patentability of our inventions depends on the scope and content of the “prior art,” information that was or is deemed available to a person of skill in the relevant art prior to the priority date of the claimed invention.

59

There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the patentability of our patent claims or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for typically a period of 18 months after filing, or may not be published at all, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For U.S. applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the America Invents Act, which brought into effect significant changes to the U.S. patent laws, including new procedures for challenging pending patent applications and issued patents.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, 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, opposed, infringed, circumvented, invalidated, cancelled, declared generic, determined to be not entitled to registration, or determined to be infringing on other marks. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections of our applications by the USPTO or in foreign jurisdictions. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Any trademark litigation could be expensive. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages, disgorgement of profits and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a trademark. We may not be able to protect our exclusive right to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential collaborators 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. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties or Their Actions

We do not have our own manufacturing capabilities and will rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial supplies of our current and any future product candidates. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We have no experience in drug formulation or manufacturing and do not own or operate, and we do not expect to own or operate, facilities for drug manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. We will be dependent on third parties to manufacture the clinical supplies of our product candidates.

Further, we also will rely on third-party manufacturers to supply us with sufficient quantities of our product candidates, to be used, if approved, for commercialization. We do not have long-term supply agreements or commitments with a manufacturer to produce raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients and the finished products of our product candidates or the associated packaging. Furthermore, the raw materials for our product candidates are sourced, in some cases, from a single-source supplier. If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of any of our product candidates or any of our future product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, we could experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. For example, the extent to which adverse macroeconomic or geopolitical developments such as the COVID-19 or another pandemic, or the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, impacts our ability to procure sufficient supplies for the development of our products and product candidates will depend on the severity and duration of the spread of the virus, and the actions undertaken to contain the virus or treat its effects. Any significant delay in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Our reliance on third-party manufacturers entails various risks, some of which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including:

60

We do not have complete control over all aspects of the manufacturing process of, and are dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP regulations for manufacturing both active drug substances and finished drug products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain marketing approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we do not have control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain marketing approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or drugs and harm our business and results of operations.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or drugs may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We intend to rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, it may harm our business.

We do not currently have the ability to independently conduct preclinical studies or clinical trials required to develop our drug candidates. We intend to rely on CROs, clinical trial sites and other third parties to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence over their actual performance. We intend to rely upon CROs and others to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs, as well as the execution of future nonclinical studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our CROs’ and others' activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies or clinical trials are conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs and others does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We, our CROs and other third parties we might engage will be required to comply with the GLPs and GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in the form of International Conference on Harmonization guidelines for any of our product candidates that are in preclinical and clinical development. The regulatory

61

authorities enforce GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. Although we will rely on CROs and others to conduct GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs and others does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. If we, our CROs and other third parties we engage fail to comply with GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Accordingly, if our CROs or others fail to comply with these regulations or fail to recruit a sufficient number of participants, we may be required to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

While we will have agreements governing their activities, our CROs and other third parties we engage will not be our employees, and we will not control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our future clinical and nonclinical programs. These CROs and others may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other drug development activities which could harm our business. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or misappropriation of our intellectual property by CROs and others, which may reduce our trade secret protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. In addition, certain of our agreements with CROs and other third parties provide for monetary and other limitations on their liability. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize any product candidate that we develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product candidate that we develop would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed, decreased or eliminated.

If our relationship with these CROs terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can negatively impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

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

If we or our third-party manufacturers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, by our third-party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical, radioactive and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical, radioactive or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical radioactive or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development, and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations.

Arena was acquired by Pfizer on March 11, 2022, and Arena’s acquisition may negatively impact our development programs and stock price.

On March 11, 2022, Pfizer announced it completed its acquisition of Arena, and Arena became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer. We have licensed our product candidates, including LP352 and LP659, from Arena under the Arena License Agreement, and we will rely on Arena to help protect intellectual property relating to our licensed products. Arena also holds a substantial percentage of our outstanding shares of common stock. We do not know if Pfizer will cooperate with us in protecting the intellectual property

62

relating to our licensed products or hold or sell the shares of our common stock that it owns. We also do not know if Pfizer will view our development programs positively or negatively, or as complimentary or competitive to its development programs. We are also entitled to receive information and milestones and royalty payments under the Royalty Purchase Agreement. If a disagreement between us and Pfizer were to occur, Pfizer might challenge our rights or default on its obligations in the Arena License Agreement, the Royalty Purchase Agreement or another agreement between us, or sell its shares, any of which actions could have an adverse impact on our ability to develop our licensed products or on our stock price.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations, Employee Matters and Managing Growth

We are highly dependent on the services of our senior management team and if we are not able to retain these members of our management team and recruit and retain additional management, clinical and scientific personnel, our business will be harmed.

We are highly dependent on our senior management team. The employment agreements we have with these officers do not prevent such persons from terminating their employment with us at any time. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

In addition, we will need to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified additional management, clinical and scientific personnel. If we are not able to retain our management and to attract, on acceptable terms, additional qualified personnel necessary for the continued development of our business, we may not be able to sustain our operations or grow.

We may not be able to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses. Many of the other pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates and consultants than what we have to offer. This competition has become exacerbated by the increase in employee resignations currently taking place throughout the United States as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is commonly referred to as the “great resignation.” We may also experience employee turnover as a result of the ongoing “great resignation.” In response to competition and adverse macroeconomic and geopolitical developments, including rising inflation rates and labor shortages, we may need to adjust employee cash compensation, which would affect our operating costs and our margins, or equity compensation, which would affect our outstanding share count and cause dilution to existing stockholders. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. If we are unable to continue to attract, retain and motivate high-quality personnel and consultants to accomplish our business objectives, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop product candidates and our business will be limited and we may experience constraints on our development objectives.

Our future performance will also depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate newly hired executive officers into our management team and our ability to develop an effective working relationship among senior management. Our failure to integrate these individuals and create effective working relationships among them and other members of management could result in inefficiencies in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, harming future regulatory approvals, sales of our product candidates and our results of operations. Additionally, we do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees.

We will need to expand our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational inefficiencies, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our current and potential future product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and grow revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance, our ability to commercialize product candidates, develop a scalable infrastructure and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.