​

​

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

OR

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

For the transition period from                 to             

OR

Date of event requiring this shell company report __________

Commission file number: 001-38097

CALLIDITAS THERAPEUTICS AB

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter and translation of Registrant’s name into English)

Sweden

(Jurisdiction of

Incorporation or Organization)

Kungsbron 1, D5

SE-111 22 Stockholm, Sweden

(Address of principal executive offices)

Renée Aguiar-Lucander

Calliditas Therapeutics AB

Kungsbron 1, D5

SE-111 22 Stockholm, Sweden

Tel: +46 (0) 8 411 3005

renee.lucander@calliditas.com

(Name, telephone, e-mail and/or facsimile number and address of company contact person)

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

​

​

* Not for trading, but only in connection with the registration of the American Depositary Shares.

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

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None.

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report:

As of December 31, 2021, 52,341,584 common shares were outstanding, including common shares represented by American Depositary Shares.

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

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b 2 of the Exchange Act.

​

​

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, 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. ☐

† The term "new or revised financial accounting standard" refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

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

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

​

​

If "Other" has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.

Item 17 ☐ Item 18 ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b 2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

​

​

​

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

-i-

​

​

​

​

​

-ii-

​

INTRODUCTION

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, all references in this annual report to the terms “Calliditas Therapeutics AB,” “Calliditas Therapeutics,” “Calliditas,” “the company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Calliditas Therapeutics AB and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

We own various trademark registrations and applications, and unregistered trademarks, including CALLIDITAS (registered in the European Union and filed a United States trademark application), CALLIDITAS THERAPEUTICS (filed a United States trademark application), PHARMALINK (registered in the United States and Sweden), TARPEYO (filed a United States trademark application) and NEFECON (registered in the United States, Sweden and the European Union) and our corporate logo. All other trade names, trademarks and service marks of other companies appearing in this annual report are the property of their respective holders. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this annual report may be referred to without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trademarks, trade names or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

TARPEYO is the commercial name used in the United States for our product Nefecon. In general, in this annual report we use “TARPEYO” to describe the product commercialized in the United States and “Nefecon” for all other purposes.

​

​

​

1

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This annual report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to our management. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the words "may," "might," "will," "could," "would," "should," "expect," "intend," "plan," "is designed to," "objective," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "predict," "potential," "continue," "ongoing or the negative of these and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and opinions contained in this annual report are based upon information available to our management as of the date of this annual report and, while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. Forward-looking statements contained in this annual report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

2

You should refer to the section of this annual report titled "Item 3.D.—Risk Factors" for a discussion of important factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this annual report will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward-looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward-looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame or at all. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

You should read this annual report and the documents that we reference in this annual report and have filed as exhibits to the annual report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

Information regarding market and industry statistics contained in this annual report is included based on information available to us that we believe is accurate. Forecasts and other forward looking information obtained from this available information is subject to the same qualifications and the additional uncertainties accompanying any estimates of future market size, revenue and market acceptance of products and services.

​

3

SUMMARY OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

Our business is subject to numerous material and other risks and uncertainties, including those described in "Item 3.D.—Risk Factors" in this annual report. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

4

​

5

PART I

ITEM 1.    IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

Not applicable.

ITEM 2.    OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not applicable.

ITEM 3.    KEY INFORMATION

A.[Reserved]

B.CAPITALIZATION AND INDEBTEDNESS

Not applicable.

C.REASONS FOR THE OFFER AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Not applicable.

D.RISK FACTORS

Our business faces significant risks. You should carefully consider all of the information set forth in this annual report and in our other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, including the following risk factors which we face and which are faced by our industry. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors including the risks described below and elsewhere in this annual report and our other SEC filings. See "Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" above.

Risks Related to the Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We are substantially dependent on the commercial success of Nefecon. If we are unable to successfully commercialize Nefecon or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

As of December 31, 2021, we had not generated revenue from the sale of any product, and we have only recently begun to sell Nefecon in the United States (marketed under the trade name TARPEYO). We do not know when, if ever, we will achieve a significant amount of revenue from sales of Nefecon, or whether such revenue levels will be maintained in the future. Our success as a company is substantially dependent on our ability to generate revenue from the sales of Nefecon, which will depend on many factors including, but not limited to, our ability to:

6

If we do not achieve or maintain one or more of these factors, many of which are beyond our control, in a timely manner or at all, we may not be able to generate material and continuing revenue from sales of Nefecon, which may materially impact the success of our business.

If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize Nefecon and our product candidates or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Other than Nefecon, which has been approved under accelerated approval only in the United States, we currently have no products approved for commercial sale. We have not completed the clinical development of any other product candidates and we cannot guarantee that they will ever become marketable drug products. We also must successfully complete clinical development of Nefecon in order to achieve full marketing approval in the United States. We are in the process of seeking conditional marketing approval in the EU, which also requires, if granted, the completion of our clinical development of Nefecon.

To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources in the research and development of Nefecon, and to building marketing, sales, market access and medical affairs functions in the United States. Nefecon was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in December 2021 and we submitted a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, for Nefecon to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in May 2021. We continue to evaluate Nefecon in the Phase 3 NefIgArd clinical trial and we plan to complete Part B of the trial in the first half of 2023. There is no guarantee that the results from Part B of the trial will be consistent with those we observed in Part A and reported in November 2020.

We are also developing setanaxib for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis, or PBC, a fibrotic orphan disease. Setanaxib has shown clinically relevant anti-fibrotic activity in a Phase 2 clinical trial in PBC, despite not achieving its primary endpoint. We are currently evaluating setanaxib in the TRANSFORM study, a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial, in which we randomized the first patient in February 2022. We plan to report results of the interim analysis from the TRANSFORM trial in the second or third quarter of 2023, with final data expected in late 2024 or early 2025. Setanaxib was granted fast track designation by the FDA in August 2021. In addition, we plan to initiate a Phase 2 proof-of-concept study in head and neck cancer in the first half of 2022.

7

Our near-term prospects, including our ability to finance our operations and generate revenue, will depend substantially on the successful development and commercialization of Nefecon and, to a lesser degree, setanaxib. The clinical and commercial success of Nefecon and our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

8

Many of these factors are beyond our control. If we are not successful with respect to one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize Nefecon and our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Third-party payors or insurers may also condition or limit reimbursement of our products. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for Nefecon, setanaxib and any other product candidates we develop. If we are not successful in commercializing Nefecon and our product candidates, or are significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

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

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, EMA, European Commission and comparable foreign regulatory 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, laws or 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. Although Nefecon has been approved under accelerated approval by the FDA (marketed in the United States under the brand name TARPEYO), it is possible that we and our licensees may not be able to obtain full marketing approval in the United States, approval for Nefecon outside of the United States, or approval for setanaxib or other product candidates we may seek to develop in the future.

Any of our product candidates, including setanaxib and Nefecon, could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

9

This lengthy process towards approval as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. The FDA, EMA, European Commission and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA, the European Commission or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Additionally, disruptions at the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and agencies may also lengthen the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which could adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Separately, many foreign and domestic inspections by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs in the future, or if the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the operations of regulatory authorities, our ability to obtain approval of our product candidates may be adversely impacted.

Accelerated approval by the FDA, and conditional approval by the European Commission, even if pursued for any future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development process or regulatory review and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval. If we are not successful with this process, the development or commercialization of such product candidates could be delayed, abandoned or become significantly more costly.

In certain circumstances, the FDA selectively allows the use of surrogate endpoints to permit a faster development and an accelerated approval path.

As a condition of approval, regulatory agencies may impose specific obligations, including to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. For Nefecon, Part B of our ongoing NefIgArd trial is intended to serve as such a post-approval confirmatory trial to measure long-term renal benefit and to verify clinical benefit. If the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, does not decide on a positive opinion for approval of Nefecon on the basis of data presented after Part A of the NefIgArd trial, but instead requires the completion of the full Phase 3 clinical trial, or if the European Commission does not approve Nefecon on the basis of the data presented after Part A of the NefIgArd trial, the commercialization timeline of Nefecon in the EU will be delayed. Even if we do receive accelerated approval or conditional approval, we may not ultimately receive full approval from the regulatory agencies. The additional data generated through post-marketing clinical trials may not confirm that the benefit-risk balance of Nefecon or any other future product candidate is positive or the burden to further complete the obligations may become too high.

In the European Union, the conditional marketing authorization is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all specific obligations have been fulfilled. Once all pending study results are provided, the conditional marketing authorization can be converted into a traditional marketing authorization. However, if the obligations are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the European Commission, EMA can take regulatory action, such as suspending or revoking the marketing authorization. Complying with the conditions of the marketing authorization may require financial resources and time. In addition, we may not be able to comply with all required conditions and may need to withdraw the marketing authorization. The European Commission may decide not to renew the conditional marketing authorization, although such measure is rarely applied in practice. An analysis of reimbursement decisions by the competent authorities of the individual EU Member States for conditionally authorized medicines in the European Union has shown some delays in the timeline for reaching a positive health technology recommendation. If this happens for Nefecon or any other future product candidate, it may delay the timing and success of the commercialization of such product.

10

The use of proteinuria as a surrogate endpoint to support initial approvals of Nefecon is a novel approach in nephrology.

There can be no assurances that EMA will ultimately accept the outcome of the NefIgArd trial with regards to proteinuria and eGFR for the approval of Nefecon. The EMA may require us to provide additional data to support our regulatory applications, which may increase the complexity, uncertainty and length of the regulatory approval process for Nefecon. The FDA and European Commission may also withdraw any accelerated approval and any conditional approval granted for Nefecon if Part B, the post-approval confirmatory phase of the NefIgArd trial, does not confirm positive clinical benefit-risk balance of Nefecon in the approved indication.

Clinical trials are difficult to design and implement, and they involve a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes. We may experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our current and future product candidates.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. Confirmatory clinical trials are required to maintain an accelerated approval in the United States or a conditional authorization in the EU. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting an NDA to the FDA, a Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, to the EMA and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for each product candidate and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any product candidates. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

Differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Where a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial is designed to allow enrolled subjects to cross-over from the placebo cohort to the treatment cohort, there may be a risk of inadvertent unblinding of subjects prior to cross-over, which may limit the clinical meaningfulness of those data and may require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

In addition, we may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical trials. We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during our clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize the product candidates we develop, including:

11

Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, supplying, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. For example, we experienced a reduced enrollment rate in our ongoing NefIgArd trial over the last several months of 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we hence completed full enrollment in January 2021, which was later than we originally had anticipated. We could encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs or ethics committees of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, or by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or recommended for suspension or termination by the Data Review Committee, or DRC, or Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial. 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 other comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, including those relating to the class to which our product candidates belong, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or if we terminate, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. From time to time, we may interact with regulatory agencies with the aim of facilitating the development of our product candidates by achieving alignment on an efficient trial design, a modest number of enrolled patients or a relatively expedient timeline. However, there can be no assurances that such alignment will be reached and, even if achieved, that we will realize the intended benefits from these interactions.

Moreover, if we make changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions, which could delay our clinical development plan or marketing approval for our product candidates. Significant clinical trial delays could also allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do or shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates or result in the cessation of development of our product candidates.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our products, product candidates or any future product candidates we may develop, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process, and there is a high risk of failure and we may never succeed in developing marketable products.

Clinical trials that we conduct may not demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. If the results of current or future clinical trials are inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of our product candidates, if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical and clinically meaningful significance, or if there are safety concerns associated with our product candidates, we may be delayed in obtaining marketing approval, if at all.

Even if the trials are successfully completed, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and we cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities will view our product candidates as having efficacy even if positive results are observed in clinical trials. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA, the EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.

12

Some of our clinical trials for our product candidates have been conducted outside the United States, and we may in the future conduct clinical trials for our product candidates, outside the United States, and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

Some of our clinical trials for our product candidates have been, and we may in the future choose to conduct one or more clinical trials, outside the United States, including in Europe. The acceptance of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

The results of early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Initial success in a clinical trial may not be indicative of results obtained when these trials are completed or in later-stage trials.

Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials, including those with larger numbers of enrolled patients, may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. For example, while our ongoing NefIgArd trial of Nefecon has a similar trial design as the Phase 2b clinical trial in terms of the endpoints evaluated, and we reported positive data from Part A of the NefIgArd trial, the results from the earlier trial and Part A of the NefIgArd trial may not necessarily be predictive of results that we may observe in Part B of the NefIgArd trial or other trials we or our commercialization partners outside of the United States may be required to conduct. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates. There is a high failure rate for drugs proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier preclinical studies and clinical trials, and any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interim, topline and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may be impacted  as additional patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the conclusions based on the final data set.

From time to time, we may publish interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical trials. For example, in November 2020, we announced positive topline results from Part A of NefIgArd, which investigated the effect of Nefecon versus placebo in adult patients with IgAN. Conclusions or assumptions based on preliminary and interim data from our clinical trials may change as more patient data become available. Preliminary or interim data from our clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of final results. Preliminary and interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes reported may materially change as patient enrollment continues, more patient data become available and we issue our final clinical trial report. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final outcomes or conclusions being materially different from those based on the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, preliminary, topline and interim data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Material adverse changes in the final data compared to the interim data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Our product candidates, including Nefecon, may have serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects which may delay or prevent marketing approval. If such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidate or following approval we may need to abandon our development of such product candidate, the commercial profile of any approved label may be limited, or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following marketing approval.

Undesirable side effects that may be caused by our product candidates, including Nefecon, could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA, EMA, European Commission or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Budesonide, the active ingredient in

13

Nefecon, is a corticosteroid, a class of drugs that is associated with high blood pressure, weight gain, diabetes, serious infections and osteoporosis.

While budesonide has limited systemic availability due to high first pass metabolism and Nefecon is designed to leverage this inherent characteristic for local, rather than systemic effect, there can be no assurance we will avoid any or all of the side effects that may arise with corticosteroid treatment, whether local or systemic.

Although Nefecon has been generally well tolerated in previous clinical trials, the results from our ongoing or future trials may not replicate these observations. In our Phase 2b clinical trial of Nefecon, there were two drug-related serious adverse events, the first in a patient in the 16 mg treatment cohort who developed a deep venous thrombosis, which was classified by the investigator as possibly being treatment-related, and the second in a patient in the 8 mg treatment cohort who experienced aggravation of renal condition, which was classified by the investigator as possibly being treatment-related. In the placebo cohorts, three patients reported four serious adverse events (two events of proteinuria, sciatica and aggravated condition). Of these, two (proteinuria and aggravated condition) were classified by the investigator as possibly being treatment-related at the time when the safety results were blinded. We also observed adverse events that were generally consistent with those known to be associated with systemic corticosteroids like budesonide and a number of patient discontinuations due to mild to moderate adverse events, most frequently, acne and other transitory cosmetic side effects.

The results of Part B of the NefIgArd trial or any future clinical trials we conduct may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA, the European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates or require postmarketing labeling changes for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

Additionally, if Nefecon, setanaxib or any of our current or future product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us, our collaborators or our potential future partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our products.

14

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials given the relatively smaller patient population who have the diseases for which our product candidates are being developed. If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary marketing approvals could be delayed or prevented.

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 as required by the FDA, the competent authorities of individual EU Member States or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment is a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials. There can be no assurance that we will not experience enrollment challenges in future trials, particularly those for indications with relatively small patient populations. In addition, because we are initially focused on developing product candidates for orphan indications, we may encounter similar challenges for patient enrollment if and when we commence clinical programs for additional product candidates in the future.

Patient enrollment may be affected if our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for product candidates that are under development for the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who would otherwise be eligible for our clinical trial instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates. Patient enrollment may also be affected by other factors, including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials may result in significant delays or may require us to abandon such trial altogether. Even though we were able to enroll the planned number of patients in the NefIgArd clinical trial, there can be no assurance that we will successfully enroll the necessary number of patients in any additional clinical trials we may conduct. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

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

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

15

We have been granted orphan drug designation for IgAN, PBC and AIH and may seek orphan drug designation in other indications for future product candidates we develop. We may be unsuccessful or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

In May 2010, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to Nefecon to slow the progression of IgAN and delay kidney failure in patients affected by the disease. In November 2016, the European Commission granted Nefecon orphan designation for the treatment of primary IgAN. We have also received orphan drug designation for PBC and autoimmune hepatitis, or AIH. In addition, setanaxib received orphan drug designation from the FDA and the European Commission for the treatment of PBC. We may seek orphan drug designations for other future product candidates. There can be no assurances that we will be able to obtain such designations.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, 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 annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers.

Similarly, in the European Union, the European Commission grants orphan designation after receiving the opinion of the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products on an orphan designation application. Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish that: (1) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions; (2) either (a) such conditions affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b)  the product without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product; and (3) there exists no satisfactory authorized method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition that has been authorized in the EU, or even if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure.

Generally in the United States and the European Union, if a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the European Commission, as applicable, from approving another marketing application for the same drug substance and indication in the United States or a similar drug for the same indication in the European Union for that time period, except in limited circumstances. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. This ten year period may be extended by two years for medicinal products in relation to which the marketing authorization holder has complied with a related agreed pediatric investigation plan. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. We obtained a positive opinion from the EMA Pediatric Committee on our Pediatric Investigation Plan for Nefecon for the treatment of IgAN in December 2019.

In the European Union, the period of market exclusivity may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product destination, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, a marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period if: (i) if the applicant consents to a second original orphan medicinal product application, (ii) if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities; or (iii) if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product.

Orphan drug exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different therapies can be approved for the same condition and the same therapies can be approved for different conditions but used off-label. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority can subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, a designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Moreover, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority 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

16

needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan drug designation 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. While we may seek orphan drug designation for other indications for our current and any future product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Further, even with respect to the indications for which we have received orphan designation, we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication due to the uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, and thus, for example, approval of our product candidates could be blocked for seven years if another company previously obtained approval and orphan drug exclusivity in the United States for the same drug and same condition.

The target patient population of Nefecon for the treatment of IgAN is small and has not been definitively determined, and if our estimates of the number of treatable patients is lower than expected, our potential revenues from sales of our product candidates, if approved, and our ability to achieve profitability would be compromised.

Our estimates of both the number of patients who have IgAN, as well as the subset of patients with these diseases in a position to receive Nefecon, are based on our beliefs and estimates, and these estimates may prove to be incorrect. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, input from physicians that treat patients with the diseases we are targeting, patient foundations and secondary market research databases. For example, our estimates of the prevalence of IgAN in certain geographies are based in part on the published prevalence of IgAN among patient populations in the United States split across ethnicities, and in part on our own analyses of prevalence in Europe, and on published disease incidence rates for certain geographies and estimated for the populations of such geographies. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of IgAN, and any regulatory approvals that we may receive for Nefecon may include limitations for use or contraindications that decrease the addressable patient population. Accordingly, our target patient populations may turn out to be lower than expected, in which case the potential revenues from sales of Nefecon would be lower than expected.

We were not involved in the early development of setanaxib; therefore, we are dependent on third parties having properly conducted setanaxib’s preclinical research, manufacturing control and clinical development.

We had no involvement in or control over the preclinical and clinical development or manufacturing of setanaxib, which we acquired upon completion of our acquisition of Genkyotex S.A. We are dependent on third parties having conducted setanaxib research and development in accordance with legal, regulatory and scientific standards and the applicable protocols; having accurately reported the results of all setanaxib preclinical studies and clinical trials; and having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these studies and trials. If these activities were not compliant, accurate or correct, the clinical development, regulatory approval or commercialization of setanaxib products, if pursued, could be adversely affected.

We face significant competition for our drug discovery and development efforts, and if we do not compete effectively, our commercial opportunities will be reduced or eliminated.

The market for biopharmaceutical products is highly competitive. Our competitors include many established pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities and other research or commercial institutions, many of which have substantially greater financial, research and development resources than us. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products. Smaller and 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 and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, the development of our product candidates. The fields in which we operate are characterized by rapid technological change and innovation. See “Item 4.D.—Business Overview—Competition.”

We anticipate that we will continue to face intense and increasing competition as new treatments enter the market and advanced technologies become available. There can be no assurance that our competitors are not currently developing, or will not in the future develop, products that are equally or more effective or are more economically attractive than any of our current or future product candidates. Competing products may gain faster or greater market acceptance than our products and medical advances or rapid technological development by competitors may result in our product candidates becoming non-competitive or obsolete before we are able to recover our development and commercialization expenses. If we, our product candidates do not compete effectively, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

17

Relevant regulatory exclusivities may not be granted or, if granted, may be limited.

The European Union provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to marketing authorizations. Upon receiving a marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until 10 years have elapsed from the initial marketing authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the European Union’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

If we fail to develop and commercialize other product candidates in addition to Nefecon, such as setanaxib, we may be unable to grow our business and our ability to achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired.

Although the development and commercialization of Nefecon for IgAN is our primary focus, as part of our longer-term growth strategy we plan to evaluate its active ingredient budesonide in other potential indications, including AIH, and we are currently evaluating setanaxib for the treatment of PBC and head and neck cancer. We also intend to evaluate additional potential indications for setanaxib, and we may choose to in-license or acquire other product candidates as well as commercial products to treat patients suffering from other orphan diseases with significant unmet medical needs and limited treatment options. For example, we have exclusively in-licensed Budenofalk 3 mg oral capsules, which is a formulation of budesonide originally developed to treat Crohn’s disease, and we are evaluating its potential to treat AIH. Our license covers all indications for the United States market, excluding orphan indications outside of liver targets.

Developing these other product candidates will require additional, time-consuming development efforts prior to commercial sale, including clinical trials and approval by the FDA, the European Commission and/or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. All future potential product candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot assure that any such products that are approved will be manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives. Our current strategy is to in-license or otherwise acquire product candidates for clinical development rather than discovering such candidates ourselves, and therefore our growth objectives are dependent on our ability to enter into in-licensing arrangements or acquisitions. For any such candidates for which we do not intend to conduct preclinical or early-stage clinical research, we may also become reliant on the research efforts of third parties. If we are unsuccessful in identifying and developing additional product candidates, our potential for growth and achieving our strategic objectives may be impaired.

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

Because we have limited financial and management resources, we focus on development programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As such, we are currently primarily focused on completing development and starting commercialization of Nefecon and developing setanaxib, and we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications for Nefecon or our product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

18

Even if our approved products or any future product candidate of ours receives regulatory approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance among physicians, patients, third-party payors and the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Nefecon, approved under accelerated approval in the United States and commercialized under the name TARPEYO, is our only approved product to date, but we and our commercialization partners may have other approved products in the future. Even if approved, they may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and the medical community for commercial success. Despite the studies we have done on the IgAN commercial market opportunity and other pre-commercial activities that we have undertaken, there can be no assurance that we or our commercialization partners will be successful in marketing TARPEYO in the United States or, if approved, in other jurisdictions. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of Nefecon or other approved products may require significant resources and may never be successful which would prevent us from generating significant revenues or becoming profitable. While we believe that the U.S. IgAN market could be adequately covered by a specialized salesforce of approximately 40 field representatives, we may underestimate the number of field representatives that we will actually require. While we believe physicians, patients and other members of the medical community may more readily accept and use our product candidates, if approved, as compared to entirely new chemical entities, our product candidates may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, other healthcare providers and third-party payors. Market acceptance of our future products by physicians, patients and third-party payors will depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits and risks of our products, if approved, may require significant resources and may never be successful.

19

If our products fail to gain market acceptance, this will have a material adverse impact on our ability to generate revenues to provide a satisfactory, or any, return on our investments. Even if some products achieve market acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenues.

The successful commercialization of our products, product candidates or any future product candidates we develop will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish coverage and adequate reimbursement levels, as well as pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, comparable foreign programs, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford Nefecon or any of our future product candidates, if approved. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for our other products by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize, and attract additional collaboration partners to invest in the development of, our product candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require patient out-of-pocket costs that patients find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the European Union or elsewhere will be available for any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available or impose conditions or limitations on reimbursement, limiting the patient population that has access to the drugs. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidate and other therapies as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our product candidate, pricing of existing drugs may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our product candidate. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given drug product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on products that we may develop.

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

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs will be covered. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval or various pre-authorization steps for coverage for new or innovative drug therapies before they will reimburse health care providers who use such therapies. Increasingly, the third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are seeking greater upfront discounts, additional rebates and other concessions to reduce the prices for therapeutics. If the price we are able to charge for any therapeutics we develop, the patient population we can successfully address, or the reimbursement provided for such therapeutics, is inadequate in light of our development and other costs, our return on investment could be adversely affected. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

20

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

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries have and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of healthcare and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most European Union Member States, have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Governments may support small scale pharmacy compounding (preparation of a drug in a pharmacy by a qualified pharmacist for an individual patient) of patented drugs as an alternative for expensive innovative drugs (forming a specific risk for orphan drugs with a small population) and may increasingly consider compulsory licensing of patented drugs to provide alternative options and control pharmaceutical prices. Coupled with European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

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

Recent federal legislation and actions by federal, state and local governments may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States, including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could materially adversely affect our operating results.

We may face competition in the United States for our development candidates and investigational medicines, if approved, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products.

In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, contains provisions that call for the promulgation of regulations that expand pharmacists’ and wholesalers’ ability to import cheaper versions of an approved drug and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. Further, the MMA provides that these changes to U.S. importation laws will not take effect, unless and until the Secretary of the HHS certifies that the changes will pose no additional risk to the public’s health and safety and will result in a significant reduction in the cost of products to consumers. On September 23, 2020, the Secretary of the HHS made such certification to Congress, and on October 1, 2020, the FDA published a final rule that allows for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. The FDA also issued additional guidance providing pathways for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, States and Indian Tribes, and in certain future circumstances pharmacists and wholesalers, may submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and authorization. Since the issuance of the final rule, several industry groups have filed federal lawsuits challenging multiple aspects of the final rule, and authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by States

21

under this rule will not be eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. Separately, the FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code for an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. The regulatory and market implications of the final rulemaking and guidance are unknown at this time.

Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances, but Legislation, or regulation allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted, could decrease the price we receive for our products and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

We have only recently begun commercialization of TARPEYO in the United States and have never previously commercialized a product. We may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize TARPEYO or any other approved products on our own or together with suitable partners.

To achieve commercial success for any approved product, we must successfully develop or acquire a sales and marketing organization, outsource these functions to third parties or enter into partnerships. While we have built a sales and marketing infrastructure to begin commercialization of TARPEYO, we did not previously have a sales and marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale or marketing of biopharmaceutical products. We intend to commercialize TARPEYO in the United States independently, and first reported commercial availability of TARPEYO in January 2022. In other key territories we intend to commercialize Nefecon through either a broad regional partnership or on a country-by-country basis. In Europe, we have entered into a commercialization agreement with STADA Arzneimittel AG, or STADA, to commercialize Nefecon for the treatment of IgAN in the EEA, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, if approved in those jurisdictions. In 2019, we granted a license to Everest to develop and commercialize Nefecon for the treatment of IgAN and other potential indications in Greater China and Singapore and in March 2022, we expanded the territory covered by the agreement to include the Republic of Korea.

There are risks involved in both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. We may fail to launch or market our products effectively because we have no experience in the sales and marketing of biopharmaceutical products. In addition, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. In the event that any such launch is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:

We have arrangements with third parties to perform sales and marketing services, as a result of which our product revenues or the profitability of these product revenues to us could be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. Such collaborative arrangements with partners may place the commercialization of our products outside of our control and would make us subject to a number of risks including that we may not be able to control the amount or timing of resources that our collaborative partner devotes to our products or that our collaborator’s willingness or ability to complete its obligations, and our obligations under our arrangements may be adversely affected by business combinations or significant changes in our collaborator’s business strategy. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our products or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. Acceptable third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively.

22

If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing TARPEYO and any other products that receive approval, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

Among policy makers 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. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% as of January 1, 2019 pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which was signed into law in March 2020 and is designed to provide financial support and resources to individuals and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequent legislation, suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. Additionally, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws and regulations may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

23

In addition, there have been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FYs 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs, or SCODs. The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However,  on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020. Plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court on February 10, 2021. In July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition. The case is currently under review. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, in 2020, former President Trump announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. For example, on November 20, 2020 CMS issued an interim final rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and would have applied to all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2027. However, in response to litigation challenging the MFN model, on December 27, 2021, CMS published a final rule that rescinded the MFN model interim final rule. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. The implementation of this rule has been delayed until January 1, 2026. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, 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. No legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

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, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our product candidates. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In the European Union, the policy debate is focused on the impact of intellectual property protection and regulatory incentives on innovation and patient access. Specifically, the European Commission has gathered information on the experience with the orphan drug regulation and paediatric regulation and may consider proposing changes to incentives such as market exclusivity for orphan drugs, small scale pharmacy compounding and compulsory licensing of patented drugs.

In addition, many EU Member States periodically review their reimbursement procedures for medicinal products, which could have an adverse impact on reimbursement status. We expect that legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the EU Member States will continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures, such as lower maximum prices, lower or lack of reimbursement coverage and incentives to use cheaper, usually generic, products as an alternative to branded products, and/or branded products available through parallel import to keep healthcare costs down. Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process, which is currently governed by national laws in each EU Member State, is the procedure to assess

24

therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. In December June 2021 the European Union Parliament adopted the HTA regulation which, when it enters into application in 2025, will be intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the European Union. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the European Union could be negatively affected.

Legislators, policymakers and healthcare insurance funds in the European Union may continue to propose and implement cost-containing measures to keep healthcare costs down; particularly due to the financial strain that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed on national healthcare systems of the EU Member States. These measures could include limitations on the prices we would be able to charge for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the level of reimbursement available for these products from governmental authorities or third-party payors. Further, an increasing number of European Union and other foreign countries use prices for medicinal products established in other countries as “reference prices” to help determine the price of the product in their own territory. Consequently, a downward trend in prices of medicinal products in some countries could contribute to similar downward trends elsewhere.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States or any other jurisdiction, particularly in light of the recent presidential election. In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

The terms of approvals of our products and product candidates and ongoing regulation of our products may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could impair our ability to generate revenue.

Once regulatory approval has been granted, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulation. We, and any future collaborators, must therefore comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for Nefecon or any of our product candidates for which we or they have or will obtain regulatory approval. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved labeling. Thus, we and any future collaborators will not be able to promote Nefecon or any other products we develop for indications or uses for which they are not approved.

In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMPs, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, our contract manufacturers, any future collaborators and their contract manufacturers could be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, to monitor and ensure compliance with cGMPs. Despite our efforts to audit and verify regulatory compliance, one or more of our third-party manufacturing vendors may be found on regulatory inspection by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities to be not in compliance with cGMP regulations, which may result in shutdown of the third-party vendor or invalidation of drug product lots or processes. In some cases, a product recall may be warranted or required, which would materially affect our ability to supply and market our drug products.

The marketing authorization holder is subject to extensive regulations in relation to the safety monitoring of its marketed products including good vigilance practices, or GVP, and will be subject to monitoring by the FDA, EMA, competent authorities of individual EU Member States, and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities involving inspections of pharmacovigilance systems. Non-compliance with GVP can result in inspection follow-up, actions on the marketing authorization (such as suspensions or restrictions), as well as administrative penalties and civil or criminal liabilities.

Failure to comply with European Union and EU Member State laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, marketing authorization of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the marketing

25

authorization, or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant marketing authorization, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States or any other jurisdiction, particularly in light of the recent presidential election. In addition, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accordingly, assuming we, or any future collaborators, receive regulatory approval for one or more of our product candidates, we, and any future collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control.

If we, and any future collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we, and any future collaborators, could have the regulatory approvals for our products varied, suspended, or withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or any future collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Failure to comply with any related obligations may also result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

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

Obtaining and maintaining marketing approval of our current and future product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain marketing approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining marketing approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the marketing approval process in others. For example, although the FDA granted marketing approval of TARPEYO in the United States (developed under the name of Nefecon), the European Commission and comparable foreign regulatory authorities must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of Nefecon in those jurisdictions. 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 studies 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.

We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our product candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage; and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of biopharmaceutical products. The current and future use of our products or  product candidates by us and our collaborators in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients who use the product, healthcare providers, our collaborators or others selling such products. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially adversely affect the market for our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates. Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a product, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our products or product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval of the product candidate, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

26

Although we believe we maintain adequate product liability insurance for our product candidates, it is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage. We have expanded our insurance coverage to include the sale of our approved products. However, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

Should any of the events described above occur, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Off-label use or misuse of our products may harm our reputation in the marketplace or result in injuries that lead to costly product liability suits.

We may only promote or market our approved products for their specifically approved indications. TARPEYO is currently only approved by the FDA to reduce proteinuria in adults with primary IgAN at risk of rapid disease progression, generally a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, or UPCR, ≥1.5g/g. We will train our marketing and sales force against promoting TARPEYO or any product candidate approved in the future for uses outside of the approved indications for use, known as “off-label uses.” We cannot, however, prevent a physician from using our products off-label, when in the physician’s independent professional medical judgment he or she deems it appropriate. Furthermore, the use of our products for indications other than those approved by the FDA, the European Commission or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not effectively treat such conditions, and may increase the adverse events when compared to use for its approved indication. Any such off-label use could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. There may also be increased risk of injury to patients if physicians attempt to use our products for these uses for which they are not approved, which could lead to product liability suits that that might require significant financial and management resources and that could harm our reputation.

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

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in the United States, the European Union and selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the European Union, the pricing of drugs is subject to governmental control and other market regulations which could put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures.

Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance generally is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU Member States, such as the Bribery Act 2010 in the United Kingdom. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. The Community Code of medicinal products (EU Directive 2001/83/EC), which is the EU Directive governing the authorization of medicinal products for human use, provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This

27

provision has been transposed into the national laws of the individual EU Member States and the UK Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable in the United Kingdom despite its departure from the European Union.

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

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

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and only one recently approved product. Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. We incurred total comprehensive losses of SEK 527.7 million and SEK 444.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated loss of SEK 1,426.6 million. Our losses resulted principally from costs incurred in clinical development of Nefecon and setanaxib and from administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, and we do not know whether or when we will become profitable. Our losses, among other things, will continue to cause our working capital and shareholders’ equity to decrease. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

28

To date, we have funded our operations through public and private placements of equity securities, proceeds from our term loan facility, upfront payments and interest income from the investment of our cash and financial assets. We have also recently begin to fund our operations with the proceeds from sales of TARPEYO in the United States.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing products and product candidates that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including successfully completing Part B of the NefIgArd clinical trial for Nefecon, in-licensing and developing additional product candidates, such as setanaxib in PBC and head and neck cancer and budesonide in indications other than IgAN, obtaining regulatory approval for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials, establishing marketing capabilities and ultimately selling any products which are approved. We are only in the preliminary stages of many of these activities. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenue that is significant enough to achieve or maintain profitability. We anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing our approved products. Our expenses could increase beyond our current expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform clinical trials or studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate, including as a result of any post-approval commitments or trial requirements. Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

Even if we 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 common shares and ADSs and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our common shares or ADSs could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will need substantial additional funding in order to fund our operations. Failure to obtain this necessary capital at acceptable terms and when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate certain or all of our operations and pursuit of our growth strategy.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. Unless and until we are able to successfully commercialize Nefecon and achieve significant revenue from sales, we will require substantial additional funding in the future to sufficiently finance our operations and advance the clinical development, seek regulatory approval for and potentially commercialize our approved products or product candidates, or potentially acquire or in-license additional product candidates.

As of December 31, 2021, we had SEK 955.5 million in cash. Based on our current operating plan, we expect that our existing cash, and amounts available to us under our loan facility, will be sufficient to fund our planned operations and capital expenditure requirements until we are cash flow positive, which is expected in the first half of 2023, subject to Nefecon being successfully commercialized. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

29

Until we can generate sufficient product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements.

Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and market conditions and other factors, over which we may have no or limited control. Market volatility resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine or other factors could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as necessary. If adequate funds are not available on commercially acceptable terms when needed, we may be forced to delay, reduce or terminate the development or commercialization of all or some of our product candidates or research programs or we may be unable to take advantage of future business opportunities.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to holders of our common shares or ADSs, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Other than our term loan facility with Kreos Capital VI (UK) Limited and Kreos Capital 2020 Opportunity (UK) Limited, together referred to as Kreos, we do not have any committed external source of funds or other support for our development efforts and we cannot be certain that additional external funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Until we can generate substantial product revenues from sales of Nefecon or other approved products, if any, we expect to finance our operations predominantly through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and other marketing or distribution arrangements.

Under the loan agreement with Kreos, or the Loan Agreement, Kreos has agreed to make available to us certain term loans in an aggregate principal amount of up to $75.0 million. The loan facility is divided into three tranches of $25 million each. Drawdown of the first $25 million tranche was made in September 2021. Drawdown of the second tranche of $25 million can be made until June 30, 2022 and will be available subject to accelerated approval of Nefecon by the FDA, which occurred in December 2021. Drawdown of the third and final $25 million tranche can be made until December 31, 2022 and will be available subject to certain revenue milestones and coverage metrics. The Loan Agreement does not contain any financial covenants. See Item 5.B., Liquidity and Capital Resources, for more details on the Loan Agreement.

If we undertake additional financing arrangements in the future, the terms of any such financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of holders of our common shares or ADSs and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common shares or ADSs to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our existing shareholders and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of ADSs. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt,

30

limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from its day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize Nefecon and our product candidates.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our development programs or the commercialization of Nefecon or any of our product candidates, if approved, or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a limited operating history as a commercial company, which may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We began operations in 2004. Prior to our commercialization of TARPEYO, with commercial availability in January 2022, we had not obtained marketing approvals for any product candidates, manufactured products on a commercial scale, or arranged for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer history of successfully developing and commercializing 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 activity or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval, secure market access and reimbursement and become commercially viable.

Given our limited operating history as a commercial company, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. Additionally, we expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. We have transitioned from a company with solely a research and development focus to a company also capable of undertaking commercial activities. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications and delays, and may not be successful in such a transition.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent clinical investigators and contract research organizations, or CROs, to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon, and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators and third-party CROs, to conduct our clinical trials and to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our clinical trials, and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we, our investigators or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process.

Further, these investigators and CROs are not our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to our product candidates and clinical trials. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard or not in conformance with our clinical trial protocols or GCP regulations, it may delay or compromise the prospects for approval and

31

commercialization of any product candidates that we develop. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated.

Our CROs have the right to terminate their agreements with us in the event of an uncured material breach. In addition, some of our CROs have an ability to terminate their respective agreements with us if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the safety of the subjects participating in our clinical trials warrants such termination, if we make a general assignment for the benefit of our creditors or if we are liquidated.

The COVID-19 pandemic and government measures taken in response may also have an impact on our CRO, including due to travel or quarantine policies or prioritization of resources toward the pandemic, and any disruption in their performance would affect our ability to complete our clinical trials. Although we are not currently conducting any clinical trials in Ukraine, the war in Ukraine could cause disruption in the region which could affect our CRO’s operations, which in turn could impact our own clinical trials.

There is a limited number of third-party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or clinical investigators terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or investigators or to do so on commercially reasonable terms. If CROs or clinical investigators do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they cannot perform their contractual duties or obligations due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their operations or at the sites they are overseeing, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for 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 our product candidates. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs or investigators involves additional 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 materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, clinical investigators may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection by the FDA. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing our clinical-stage product candidates or any future product candidates.

We rely on third parties to manufacture Nefecon and setanaxib, and we expect to continue to rely on third parties for the clinical and commercial supply of Nefecon, setanaxib and other future product candidates. The development of Nefecon, setanaxib or such other product candidates, and the commercialization of any approved products, could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if any such third party fails to provide us with sufficient clinical or commercial quantities of such product candidates or products, fails to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices or fails to achieve or maintain satisfactory regulatory compliance.

We do not currently have, and we do not plan to build, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture Nefecon, setanaxib or any other product candidate for use in the conduct of our clinical trials or, if approved, for commercial supply. We rely on, and expect to continue to rely on, contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs. Reliance on third-party providers may expose us to more risk than if we were to manufacture our product candidates ourselves. We do not control the manufacturing processes of the CMOs we contract with and are dependent on those third parties for the production of our product candidates in accordance with relevant regulations such as cGMP, which includes, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation.

If we were to experience an unexpected loss of supply of or if any supplier were unable to meet our clinical or commercial demand for any of our product candidates, we could experience delays in our planned clinical studies or commercialization. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact our ability to procure sufficient future supplies for Nefecon, setanaxib and our other product candidates, and the extent of any impacts will depend on the severity and duration of the spread of the virus, and the actions undertaken to contain COVID-19 or treat its effects. Supply could also be negatively impacted by the ongoing war in Ukraine. We could be unable

32

to find alternative suppliers of acceptable quality that can produce appropriate volumes at an acceptable cost. Moreover, our suppliers are often subject to strict manufacturing requirements and rigorous testing requirements, which could limit or delay production. The long transition periods necessary to switch manufacturers and suppliers, if necessary, would significantly delay our clinical studies and the commercialization of our products, if approved, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation. Additionally if any CMO with whom we contract fails to perform its obligations, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different CMO, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trials supply could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another comparable foreign regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a CMO may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such CMO owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such CMO or require us to obtain a license from such CMO in order to have another CMO manufacture our product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

In complying with the manufacturing regulations of the FDA, the EU and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we and our third-party suppliers must spend significant time, money and effort in the areas of design and development, testing, production, record-keeping and quality control to assure that the products meet applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements. The failure to comply with these requirements could result in an enforcement action against us, including the seizure of products and shutting down of production. We and any of these third-party suppliers may also be subject to audits by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. If any of our third-party suppliers fails to comply with cGMP or other applicable manufacturing regulations, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates could suffer significant interruptions. We face risks inherent in relying on a single CMO, as any disruption, such as a fire, natural hazards, pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak of an infectious disease or vandalism at the CMO could significantly interrupt our manufacturing capability. We currently do not have alternative production plans in place or disaster-recovery facilities available. In case of a disruption, we will have to establish alternative manufacturing sources. This would require substantial capital on our part, which we may not be able to obtain on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Additionally, we would likely experience months of manufacturing delays as we build or locate replacement facilities and seek and obtain necessary regulatory approvals. If this occurs, we will be unable to satisfy manufacturing needs on a timely basis, if at all. Also, operating any new facilities may be more expensive than operating our current facility. Further, business interruption insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses that may occur and we would have to bear the additional cost of any disruption. For these reasons, a significant disruptive event of the manufacturing facility could have drastic consequences, including placing our financial stability at risk.

We only recently began manufacturing Nefecon on a commercial scale and expect to rely on third parties to produce and process commercial quantities of our approved products or any future product candidates, if approved.

We expect to continue to rely on third-party manufacturers for our approved products or future product candidates, if approved. To the extent that we enter into future manufacturing arrangements with third parties for commercial supply of our approved products or any future product candidates, if approved, we will depend on these third parties to perform their obligations in a timely manner consistent with contractual and regulatory requirements, including those related to quality control and assurance.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities following inspections that will be conducted after we submit an application to such regulatory authorities. We do not directly control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP requirements for the manufacture of our product candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no direct 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

33

of our product candidates or if it withdraws any approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

We have entered into agreements with third parties to develop and commercialize Nefecon outside the United States, if approved, and we plan to enter into similar agreements in the future with respect to any of our product candidates that receive approval. If we are unable to establish and maintain such collaborations, we may not be successful in our commercialization efforts.

In order to market and successfully commercialize any product candidate we develop, if approved, we must build our sales and marketing capabilities or enter into collaborations with third parties for these services. We only recently began sales, marketing and distribution of Nefecon and as a company have little experience in marketing products. We are currently commercializing TARPEYO in the United States independently and, if approved, we plan to commercialize setanaxib in the United States independently as well. Regarding other key territories, we will decide on setanaxib commercialization structures at a later stage. For Nefecon we decided to enter into partnerships outside of the United States and, in 2019, we entered into an agreement pursuant to which we granted Everest an exclusive license to develop and commercialize Nefecon for the treatment of IgAN in Greater China and Singapore, and in March 2022, we expanded the territory covered by the agreement to include the Republic of Korea. In July 2021, we entered into a license agreement with STADA to commercialize Nefecon for the treatment of IgAN in the EEA, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, if approved in those territories. In other key territories, we intend to commercialize Nefecon through either a broad regional partnership or on a country-by-country basis.

Our existing collaborations and any future collaborations that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, including, for example, that the collaborators may not: adequately perform their obligations under the collaboration agreement; devote sufficient resources to the collaboration to ensure success; or agree with us on the strategy or tactical aspects of the collaboration.

To the extent that we depend on collaborators for sales and marketing activities, any revenues we receive will depend upon the success of those collaborators’ sales and marketing teams and the collaborators’ prioritization of our product and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, and there can be no assurance that the collaborators’ efforts will be successful. If any existing or future collaborations do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates, or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, the development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. In addition, if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization apply to the activities of our existing and future collaborators.

If we are unable to enter into a collaboration for the commercialization of product candidates we develop, if approved, we may be forced to delay the commercialization of our product candidates or reduce the scope of our sales or marketing activities in such jurisdictions, which would have an adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

If our third-party providers, including our CMOs and CROs, fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

Our third-party manufacturers are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations.

Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

34

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological waste or hazardous waste insurance coverage, workers compensation or property and casualty and general liability insurance policies that include coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

We rely on patents and other intellectual property rights to protect Nefecon, setanaxib and our other product candidates, the enforcement, defense and maintenance of which may be challenging and costly. Failure to enforce or protect these rights adequately could harm our ability to compete and impair our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on obtaining and maintaining patents and other forms of intellectual property rights for Nefecon, setanaxib and our other product candidates, methods used to manufacture those products and the methods for treating patients using those products, or on licensing in such rights. Patent law relating to the scope of claims in the fields in which we operate is complex and uncertain, and we cannot make any assurances that we will be able to obtain or maintain patent or other intellectual property rights, or that the patent and other intellectual property rights we may obtain will be valuable, provide an effective barrier to competitors or otherwise provide competitive advantages. For example, although we co-own a single patent family relating to the formulation of Nefecon, which expires in 2029, such rights may not provide adequate protection against competitors. Failure to protect or to obtain, maintain or extend adequate patent and other intellectual property rights could materially adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products and product candidates. Patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology at issue. We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to future patent applications, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable. The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations.

The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, the European Patent Office or EPO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biopharmaceutical patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from future patent applications and the claim scope achieved may vary across territories.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we and our future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or our future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Further, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our and our current or future licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ patent rights are highly uncertain. Our future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our current or future licensors, licensees or collaboration partners fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. The patent examination process may require us or our licensors, licensees or collaboration partners to narrow the scope of the claims of our or our licensors’, licensees’ or collaboration partners’ future patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. We cannot assure you that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. If such prior art exists, it can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application.

Even if patents do successfully issue, third parties may initiate an opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices, or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. For example, opposition proceedings at the EPO are increasingly common, and are costly and time consuming to defend. Furthermore, it is possible that we will need to defend other patents outside the EPO from challenges by others from time to time. It is possible that one or more of our U.S. patents may be challenged by parties who file a request for post-grant review or inter partes review or ex parte reexamination.

35

Post-grant proceedings are increasingly common in the United States and are costly to defend. Our patent rights may not provide us with a proprietary position or competitive advantages against competitors. We may seek to modify or supplement relevant patent claims through reissuance proceedings, in the course of which patentability will be re-assessed. This may result in limitations to the legal scope of protection or the refusal of our application for a re-issued patent. Furthermore, even if the outcome is favorable to us, the enforcement of our intellectual property rights can be extremely expensive and time consuming.

Because patent applications are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications on or before March 15, 2013, an interference proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. If third parties have filed such applications after March 15, 2013, a derivation proceeding can be initiated by such third parties to determine whether our invention was derived from theirs. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing our invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license.

Issued patents covering Nefecon, setanaxib or our future product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

To protect our competitive position, we may from time to time need to resort to litigation in order to enforce or defend any patents or other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to us, or to determine or challenge the scope or validity of patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties. Enforcement of intellectual property rights is difficult, unpredictable and expensive, and many of our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors or collaboration partners can. Accordingly, despite our or our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ efforts, we or our licensors or collaboration partners may not have sufficient resources or ability to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating intellectual property rights we own or control, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States and Europe. We may fail in enforcing our rights, in which case our competitors may be permitted to use our technology without being required to pay us any license fees. In addition, litigation involving our patents carries the risk that one or more of our patents will be held invalid (in whole or in part, on a claim-by-claim basis) or held unenforceable. Such an adverse court ruling could allow third parties to commercialize our product candidates, and then compete directly with us, without payment to us.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party who we considered to be infringing a patent covering one of our products, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States or in Europe, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. A claim for a validity challenge may be based on failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. A claim for unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or the EPO or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. Further, litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, regardless of the outcome, and this could harm our business and financial results. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, such litigation could be costly and time consuming and could prevent or delay us from developing or commercializing our product candidates.

Our commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell Nefecon or future product candidates without being sued for infringement of the intellectual property and other proprietary rights of third parties. However, our development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Third parties may have U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications relating to compounds, methods of manufacturing compounds and/or methods of use for the treatment of the disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. If any third-party patents or patent applications are found to cover our product candidates or their methods of use or manufacture, we may not be free to manufacture or market our product candidates as planned without obtaining a license, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

36

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products candidates, including patent infringement lawsuits in Europe, United States or abroad, as well as interference, derivation, inter partes review, and post-grant proceedings before the USPTO and opposition or other proceedings before the EPO and other foreign patent offices. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the composition, use or manufacture of our product candidates. We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses including, but not limited to, 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 patent and pending application in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may be accused of infringing. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Accordingly, third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on intellectual property rights that exist now or arise in the future. The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use or manufacture. The scope of protection afforded by a patent is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could significantly harm our business and operating results. In addition, parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources, and we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing or commercializing the infringing product candidate or product. Alternatively, we may be required to obtain a license from such third party in order to use the infringing technology and continue developing, manufacturing or marketing the infringing product candidate or product. If we were required to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market the affected product, we may be required to pay substantial royalties or grant cross-licenses to our patents. We cannot, however, be certain that any such license will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations as a result of claims of patent infringement or violation of other intellectual property rights, Further, the outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance, including the demeanor and credibility of witnesses and the identity of any adverse party. This is especially true in intellectual property cases that may turn on the testimony of experts as to technical facts upon which experts may reasonably disagree. Furthermore, 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 access to the same technologies licensed to us; alternatively or additionally it could include terms that impede or destroy our ability to compete successfully in the commercial marketplace. 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. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could 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. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Our former, present and future employees may have had prior employment at universities or at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Some of these employees may have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure, non-competition or other similar agreements, in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed third-party intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may sustain damages or lose key personnel, valuable intellectual property rights or the personnel’s work product, which could hamper or prevent

37

commercialization of our technology, which could materially affect our commercial development efforts. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the 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 develops intellectual property that we regard as our own, which may result in claims by or against us related to the ownership of such intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our senior management and scientific personnel.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patent, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are 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. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patent could limit our ability to assert those 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. 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 trademarks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

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 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 adversely affect the price of our common shares. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, 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.

Additionally, for certain of our existing and future in-licensed patent rights, we may not have the right to bring suit for infringement and may have to rely on third parties to enforce these rights for us. If we cannot or choose not to take action against those we believe infringe our intellectual property rights, we may have difficulty competing in certain markets where such potential infringers conduct their business, and our commercialization efforts may suffer as a result.

Our ability to compete may be adversely affected if we are unsuccessful in defending against any claims by competitors or others that we are infringing upon their intellectual property rights.

The various markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, biopharmaceutical companies have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. As a result, we may be required to defend against claims of intellectual property infringement that may be asserted by our competitors against us and, if the outcome of any such litigation is adverse to us, it may affect our ability to compete effectively.

Our involvement in litigation, and in any interference, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review opposition or post-grant proceedings or other intellectual property proceedings inside and outside of the United States or Europe may divert management time

38

from focusing on business operations, could cause us to spend significant amounts of money and may have no guarantee of success. Any current and potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following:

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, we could have a substantial adverse effect on our share price. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce our resources available for development activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

We may become dependent on intellectual property licensed from third parties for certain of our product candidates, and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would substantially harm our business.

If we in-license additional product candidates in the future, we might become dependent on proprietary rights from third parties with respect to those product candidates. Any termination of such licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and would cause material adverse harm to our ability to develop and commercialize any product candidates subject to such licenses.

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

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

39

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

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Because our programs may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire or in-license such proprietary rights. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain a license to third-party intellectual property rights necessary for the development of a product candidate or program, we may have to abandon development of that product candidate or program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

If our trademarks and various brand elements are not adequately protected, then our business may be adversely affected in our markets of interest.

Our registered and unregistered trademarks, trade dress, get-up and trade names (collectively, brand elements) may be challenged, infringed, invalidated, declared generic or determined to be infringing on other registered or unregistered trademarks, unless adequate steps are taken to clear them before use, register them and then enforce them. It is vital that we are able to build brand recognition in these brand elements, to maximize the value to potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish brand recognition based on our various brand elements, then we may not be able to compete effectively, or indeed at all, and our business may be adversely affected.

If other entities use trademarks similar or identical to ours in different jurisdictions, or have senior rights to ours, we could be prevented from using our brand elements in certain jurisdictions, which may of course interfere with our use of our current trademarks throughout the world. Both the FDA and EMA have indicated that we will not be able to use the name Nefecon for our product candidate. Any goodwill and recognition that we have built for the name Nefecon will therefore be lost.

We enjoy only limited geographical protection with respect to certain patents and may face difficulties in certain jurisdictions, which may diminish the value of intellectual property rights in those jurisdictions.

We often file our first patent application (i.e., priority filing) with the USPTO, the EPO, or more typically, in the national office of a European country (e.g., in the United Kingdom or Sweden). International applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, are filed within twelve months after the priority filing, with equivalent applications being filed simultaneously in territories not bound by the PCT, if any such territories are of sufficient commercial interest. From the PCT filing, we have the option to file national and regional patent applications  in any of the 155 jurisdictions party to the PCT where we believe protection of our product candidates may be commercially valuable. We have filed for patent protection in territories that are of current commercial interest to us and have achieved grant in at least some of these territories. However, our commercial interests may extend beyond these territories meaning we may enter into markets in the future where we do not have patent protection or pending patent applications. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national/regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant patent offices, while granted by others. It is also quite common that depending on the country, the scope of patent protection may vary for the same product candidate or technology.

Competitors may use our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we and our licensors or collaboration partners have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and Europe. These

40

products may compete with our product candidates, and our and our licensors’ or collaboration partners’ patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States and Europe, and companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our licensors encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

41

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological complexity and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the America Invents Act, or the AIA, has been enacted in the United States, resulting in significant changes to the U.S. patent system.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. The AIA 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.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have ruled on 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 decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and protect other proprietary information.

We consider proprietary trade secrets, confidential know-how and unpatented know-how to be important to our business. We may rely on trade secrets or confidential know-how to protect our technology, especially where patent protection is believed to be of limited value. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to maintain as confidential.

To protect this type of information against disclosure or appropriation by competitors, our policy is to require our employees, consultants, contractors and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements with us. However, current or former employees, consultants, contractors and advisers may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party obtained illegally and is using trade secrets or confidential know-how is expensive, time consuming and unpredictable. The enforceability of confidentiality agreements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, if a competitor lawfully obtained or independently developed any of our trade secrets, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Failure to obtain or maintain trade secrets or confidential know-how trade protection could adversely affect our competitive position. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and may even apply for patent protection in respect of the same. If successful in obtaining such patent protection, our competitors could limit our use of our trade secrets or confidential know-how.

42

Under certain circumstances, we may also decide to publish some know-how to attempt to prevent others from obtaining patent rights covering such know-how.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees, including our senior management, were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed confidential information or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel or sustain damages. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we successfully prosecute or defend against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distract management.

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

Periodic maintenance and annuity fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, the EPO and national patent offices in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO, the EPO and various foreign governmental patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentaries, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors or collaboration partners fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Our Employee Matters, Managing Our Growth and Other Risks Relating to Our Operations

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, could adversely impact our business, including our clinical trials.

In December 2019, a novel strain of the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The COVID-19 pandemic is evolving, and to date has led to the implementation of various responses, including government-imposed quarantines, travel restrictions and other public health safety measures. The COVID-19 pandemic and responses to its spread have negatively impacted the global economy, disrupted global supply chains, and created significant volatility and disruption of financial markets. This significant disruption of the global financial markets could reduce our ability to access equity or debt capital on attractive terms if at all, which in turn could negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our business and the value of our common shares or ADSs. The extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our operational and financial performance, including our ability to execute our business strategies and initiatives, will depend on future developments, including the duration and spread of the pandemic and related restrictions on travel and transports, all of which are uncertain and cannot be predicted.

The continued spread of COVID-19 could also adversely impact our clinical trial operations. To date, the COVID-19 pandemic has not significantly impacted the ongoing clinical activities related to NefIgArd, our Phase 3 pivotal trial of Nefecon in IgAN; however, we experienced a reduced enrollment rate in our ongoing NefIgArd trial over the last several months of 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we hence completed full enrollment in January 2021, which was later than we originally had anticipated.

The COVID-19 pandemic may impair our commercialization of TARPEYO and the spread of COVID-19 may reduce access to TARPEYO. In response to regional quarantines, health professionals may reduce staffing and reduce or postpone appointments with

43

patients, or patients may cancel or miss appointments, resulting in fewer prescriptions of TARPEYO than projected, thereby adversely affecting our revenues. COVID-19 restrictions may also impact our ability to meet with healthcare professionals as we seek to gain market acceptance of TARPEYO. Moreover, restrictions on travel and transport may result in disruptions in TARPEYO distribution. Such events may result in a period of business disruption, and in reduced operations, any of which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The COVID-19 outbreak continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which the outbreak impacts our business, including our commercial results and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence. To the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and results of operations, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks and uncertainties described in this “Risk Factors” section.

Terrorist attacks and international hostilities and instability in any region could adversely affect our business.

Terrorist attacks, the outbreak of war, or the existence of international hostilities could damage the world economy, adversely affect the global supply chain and adversely affect both our ability to sell our products to certain regions or purchase supplies from such regions. In particular, the warfare and political turmoil in Ukraine could adversely impact our financial condition, result of operations and cash flows. In February 2022, Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Although the severity and duration of the ongoing military action are highly unpredictable, the conflict in Ukraine could materially disrupt our operations in Europe and/or increase their costs. In addition, Russia’s prior annexation of Crimea, recent recognition of two separatist republics in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine and subsequent military interventions in Ukraine have led to sanctions being levied by the European Union, the United States and other countries against Russia, with additional potential sanctions threatened and/or proposed. Russia’s military incursion and the resulting sanctions could adversely affect the global economy and financial markets and thus could affect our business, operations, operating results and financial condition as well as, potentially, the price of our common shares and ADSs.

We also work with a global network of collaborators, suppliers, CROs and commercial partners, any of which may be directly or indirectly negatively impacted by the war in Ukraine and unrest in the region. Such negative impacts could indirectly affect our own business and operations. The extent and duration of the military action, sanctions and resulting market disruptions are impossible to predict, but could be substantial. Any such disruptions caused by Russian military action or resulting sanctions may magnify the impact of other risks described in this annual report.

Our business depends on retaining our key personnel and recruiting additional qualified personnel.

Our success depends upon the continued contributions of our key management, scientific and technical personnel, including Renée Aguiar-Lucander, Fredrik Johansson, Richard Philipson, Katayoun Welin-Berger, Frank Bringstrup and Andrew Udell, who have been instrumental for us and have substantial experience with Nefecon and our other product candidates. The loss of key managers and senior scientists could delay our development activities, and we do not carry key person insurance. In addition, our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified management, scientific and medical personnel. Many other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions that we compete with for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. Therefore, we might not be able to attract new qualified personnel or retain our key persons on conditions that are economically acceptable. Furthermore, we will need to recruit new managers and qualified scientific personnel to develop our business if we expand into fields that will require additional skills. Our inability to attract qualified personnel and retain our key persons could prevent us from achieving our objectives and implementing our business strategy, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects. Given the stage of our programs and our plans to expand operations, our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior personnel across our organization.

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

We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs and sales and marketing. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management

44

and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

As a company incorporated and based in Sweden, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business in Sweden, the United States and internationally. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union may have a negative effect on global economic conditions, financial markets and our business, which could reduce the price of our common shares.

Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit. Pursuant to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the

45

United Kingdom, or the UK, was subject to a transition period until December 31, 2020, or the Transition Period, during which European Union rules continued to apply.

The United Kingdom and the European Union have signed a EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, which became provisionally applicable on January 1, 2021 and entered into force on May 1, 2021. This agreement provides details on how some aspects of the United Kingdom and European Union’s relationship will operate going forwards however there are still many uncertainties. The TCA primarily focuses on ensuring free trade between the European Union and the UK in relation to goods, including medicinal products. Although the body of the TCA includes general terms which apply to medicinal products, greater detail on sector-specific issues is provided in an Annex to the TCA. The Annex provides a framework for the recognition of Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP, inspections and for the exchange and acceptance of official GMP documents. The regime does not, however, extended to procedures such as batch release certification.

Among the changes that will now occur are that Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) will be treated as a “third country,” a country that is not a member of the European Union and whose citizens do not enjoy the European Union right to free movement. Northern Ireland will continue to follow many aspects of the European Union regulatory rules, particularly in relation to trade in goods. As part of the TCA, the European Union and the UK will recognize GMP inspections carried out by the other party and the acceptance of official GMP documents issued by the other party. The TCA also encourages, although it does not oblige, the parties to consult one another on proposals to introduce significant changes to technical regulations or inspection procedures. Among the areas of absence of mutual recognition are batch testing and batch release. The UK has unilaterally agreed to accept European Union batch testing and batch release for a period of at least 2 years until January 1, 2023. However, the European Union continues to apply European Union laws that require batch testing and batch release to take place in the European Union territory. This means that medicinal products that are tested and released in the UK must be retested and re-released when entering the European Union market for commercial use. As it relates to marketing authorizations, Great Britain will have a separate regulatory submission process, approval process and a separate national marketing authorization. Northern Ireland will, however, continue to be covered by the marketing authorizations granted by the European Commission. For example, the scope of a marketing authorization for a medicinal product granted by the European Commission or by the competent authorities of EU Member States will no longer encompass Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales). In these circumstances, a separate marketing authorization granted by the UK competent authorities will be required to place medicinal products on the market in Great Britain. Northern Ireland will, however, continue to be covered by the marketing authorizations granted by the European Commission.

Harmonization of the current EU regulatory environment for clinical trials will increase following entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation on January 31, 2022. It is currently unclear to what extent the United Kingdom will seek to align its regulations with the EU. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from the EU Clinical Trials Directive (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). A decision by the United Kingdom not to closely align its regulations with the Clinical Trials Regulation may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek an MA in the EU for our product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the UK.

In the short term there may be few changes to clinical trials that only have sites in the United Kingdom. The MHRA has confirmed that the sponsor of a clinical trial can be based in the EU for an initial period following Brexit. Furthermore, it was possible to supply investigational medicinal products directly from the EU to a trial site in Great Britain without further oversight until January 1, 2022, and is still possible to Northern Ireland beyond this date. In light of the fact that the United Kingdom is now a “third country” for the purpose of clinical trials that have sites in the EU either the sponsor or the sponsor’s legal representative must now be established in the EU, and the trial must be registered on the EU Clinical Trials Register.

Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom applicable to our business and our product candidates is currently derived from European Union Directives and Regulations, Brexit, following the Transition Period, could materially impact the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, approval and commercialization of our product candidates in the United Kingdom and importation from the United Kingdom into the European Union, now that United Kingdom legislation has the potential to diverge from European Union legislation. All of these changes could increase our costs or otherwise adversely affect our business. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing our products in the United Kingdom or the European Union and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. In addition, we may be required to pay taxes or duties or be subjected to other hurdles in connection with the importation of our product candidates into the European Union from the United Kingdom, or we may incur expenses in establishing a manufacturing facility in the European Union in order to circumvent such hurdles. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom or the European Union for our product candidates, or incur significant additional expenses to operate our business, which could significantly and materially harm or delay our

46

ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability of our business. Any further changes in international trade, tariff and import/export regulations as a result of Brexit or otherwise may impose unexpected duty costs or other non-tariff barriers on us. These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, may significantly reduce global trade and, in particular, trade between the impacted nations and the United Kingdom. It is also possible that Brexit may negatively affect our ability to attract and retain employees, particularly those from the European Union.

Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets, earnings and cash flows are affected by fluctuations in the exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the Swedish Krona, the U.S. dollar, the Swiss franc and the Euro. The functional currency of Calliditas Therapeutics AB and our consolidated subsidiaries is the Swedish Krona and a significant portion of our operating expenses are paid in Swedish Krona and Swiss francs. The operating currency of our French and Swiss subsidiaries is the Swiss franc.

Additionally, although we are based primarily in Sweden, we may receive payments from our business partners in U.S. dollars and Euros, and we regularly acquire services, consumables and materials in U.S. dollars and Euros. Further, potential future revenue may be derived from the United States, countries within the Euro zone and various other countries around the world. These future revenues may also be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates which may, in turn, have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period. As a result, to the extent we continue our expansion on a global basis, we expect that increasing portions of our revenue, cost of revenue, assets and liabilities will be affected by fluctuations in currency valuations. We may, therefore, experience economic loss and a negative impact on earnings or net assets solely as a result of currency exchange rate fluctuations.

If our information technology systems or data, or those of third parties upon which we rely, are or were compromised, we could experience adverse consequences resulting from such compromise, including but not limited to regulatory investigations or actions, litigation, fines and penalties, disruptions of our business operations, reputational harm, loss of revenue or profits, and other adverse consequences.

In the ordinary course of our business, we may collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, processing) proprietary, confidential, and sensitive data, including personal data (such as health-related data), intellectual property, and trade secrets (collectively, sensitive information). We may rely upon third-party service providers and technologies to operate critical business systems to process sensitive information in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, third-party providers of cloud-based infrastructure, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, content delivery to customers, quality assurance, medical affairs and pharmaceutical promotion compliance tools and other functions. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. We may share or receive sensitive information with or from third parties.

Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, and online and offline fraud are prevalent and continue to increase. These threats are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. These threats come from a variety of sources, including traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation states, and nation-state-supported actors. Some actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber-attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities. During times of war and other major conflicts, we and the third parties upon which we rely may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including cyber-attacks, that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our goods and services. For example, we have operations and third parties upon which we rely to support our business located in unstable regions and regions experiencing (or expected to experience) geopolitical or other conflicts, including Ukraine which was attacked by Russia in February 2022 through various means, including cyberattacks. We and the third parties upon which we rely may be subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service attacks (such as credential stuffing), personnel misconduct or error, ransomware attacks, supply-chain attacks, software bugs, server malfunctions, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, adware, and telecommunications failures.

Ransomware attacks, including by organized criminal threat actors, nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors, are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, loss of data and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. Similarly, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties and infrastructure in our supply

47

chain or our third-party partners’ supply chains have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach of or disruption to our information technology systems or the third-party information technology systems that support us and our services. The COVID-19 pandemic and our partially remote workforce poses increased risks to our information technology systems and data, as more of our employees work from home, utilizing network connections outside our premises. Future or past business transactions (such as acquisitions or integrations) could expose us to additional cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, as our systems could be negatively affected by vulnerabilities present in acquired or integrated entities’ systems and technologies.

Any of the previously identified or similar threats could cause a security incident or other interruption. A security incident or other interruption could result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to our sensitive information. A security incident or other interruption could cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their information technology systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any security incident or interruption were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our future product candidates could be delayed.

While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. We may be unable in the future to detect vulnerabilities in our information technology systems because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature, and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred. Despite our efforts to identify and address vulnerabilities, if any, in our information technology systems, our efforts may not be successful. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities.

Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders of security incidents. Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. If we (or a third party upon whom we rely) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences. These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing sensitive information (including personal data); litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business.

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

We are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign laws, regulations, rules, contractual obligations, policies and other obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to government enforcement actions, including civil or criminal penalties, private litigation, and adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

In the ordinary course of business, we process personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials, and sensitive third-party data. We and any potential collaborators may be subject to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts, and other obligations that govern the processing of personal data by us and on our behalf.

In the United States, numerous federal and state data privacy and security laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, including Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes specific requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information. We may obtain health information from third parties, including research

48

institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data, that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH. To the extent that we act as a business associate to a healthcare provider engaging in electronic transactions, we may also be subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which restricts the use and disclosure of patient-identifiable health information, mandates the adoption of standards relating to the privacy and security of patient-identifiable health information, and requires the reporting of certain security breaches to healthcare provider customers with respect to such information. Additionally, many states have enacted similar laws that may impose more stringent requirements on entities like ours. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we violate HIPAA.

As another example, the California Consumer Protection Act, or CCPA, imposes obligations on covered businesses. These obligations include, but are not limited to, providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording California residents certain rights related to their personal data. The CCPA allows for statutory fines for noncompliance (up to $7,500 per violation). Although the CCPA exempts some data processed in the context of clinical trials as well as protected health information that is subject to HIPAA, for any personal information we process that is not subject to those exemptions, the CCPA may increase compliance costs and potential liability. In addition, it is anticipated that the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, effective January 1, 2023, will expand the CCPA. The CPRA establishes a new California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the CPRA, which could increase the risk of enforcement. Other states have also enacted data privacy laws. For example, Virginia passed the Consumer Data Protection Act, Colorado passed the Colorado Privacy Act, and Utah passed the Consumer Privacy Act, all of which become effective in 2023. In addition, data privacy and security laws have been proposed at the federal, state, and local levels in recent years, which could further complicate compliance efforts.

Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards apply to data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, and the United Kingdom’s GDPR, or UK GDPR, impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the EU GDPR, government regulators in the EU Member States and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein may impose temporary or definitive bans on data processing, as well as fines up to €20 million or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. There has been limited enforcement of the GDPR to date, particularly in biopharmaceutical development, so we face uncertainty as to the exact interpretation of the new requirements on our trials and we may be unsuccessful in implementing all measures required by data protection authorities or courts in interpretation of the new law. In the UK, non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. The relationship between the UK and the European Union in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is unclear how UK data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term, and how data transfers to and from the UK will be regulated in the long term. These changes may lead to additional costs and increase our overall risk exposure.

In addition to data privacy and security laws, we may be contractually subject to data privacy and security obligations, including industry standards adopted by industry groups and may become subject to new data privacy and security obligations in the future. For example, certain privacy laws, such as the GDPR and the CCPA, require our customers to impose specific contractual restrictions on their service providers.

Certain jurisdictions have enacted data localization laws and cross-border personal data transfer laws, which could make it more difficult to transfer information across jurisdictions (such as transferring or receiving personal data that originates in the EU or in other foreign jurisdictions). Existing mechanisms that facilitate cross-border personal data transfers may change or be invalidated. For example, absent appropriate safeguards or other circumstances, the EU GDPR generally restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the European Economic Area, or EEA, that the European Commission does not consider to provide an adequate level of data privacy and security, such as the United States. The European Commission released a set of “Standard Contractual Clauses,” or SCCs, that are designed to be a valid mechanism to facilitate personal data transfers out of the EEA to these jurisdictions. Currently, these SCCs are a valid mechanism to transfer personal data outside of the EEA, but there exists some uncertainty regarding whether the SCCs will remain a valid mechanism. Additionally, the SCCs impose additional compliance burdens, such as conducting transfer impact assessments to determine whether additional security measures are necessary to protect the at-issue personal data. In addition, Switzerland and the UK similarly restrict personal data transfers outside of those jurisdictions to countries such as the United States that do not provide an adequate level of personal data protection, and certain countries outside Europe (e.g. Russia) have also passed or are considering laws requiring local data residency or otherwise impeding the transfer of personal data across borders, any of which could increase the cost and complexity of doing business.

If we cannot implement a valid compliance mechanism for cross-border data transfers, we may face increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines, and injunctions against processing or transferring personal data from Europe or other foreign

49

jurisdictions. The inability to import personal data to the United States could significantly and negatively impact our business operations, including by limiting our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and elsewhere; limiting our ability to collaborate with parties that are subject to such cross-border data transfer or localization laws; or requiring us to increase our personal data processing capabilities and infrastructure in foreign jurisdictions at significant expense.

Compliance with U.S. and international data privacy and security obligations 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. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data privacy and security 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.

Obligations related to data privacy and security are quickly changing in an increasingly stringent fashion, creating some uncertainty as to the effective future legal framework. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf. Although we endeavor to comply with all applicable data privacy and security obligations, we may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) to do so.

Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties upon whom we rely may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. For example, any failure by a third-party processor to comply with applicable law, regulations, or contractual obligations could result in adverse effects, including inability to or interruption in our ability to operate our business and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others.

If we or our third-party processors fail to comply or are perceived to have failed to comply with data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences. These consequences may include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions or private lawsuits. Any associated claims, inquiries, or investigations or other government actions could lead to unfavorable outcomes that have a material impact on our business including through significant penalties or fines, monetary judgments or settlements including criminal and civil liability for us and our officers and directors, increased compliance costs, delays or impediments in the development of new products, negative publicity, increased operating costs, diversion of management time and attention, or other remedies that harm our business, including orders that we modify or cease existing business practices.

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

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

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may be subject, directly or indirectly, to U.S. federal and state, European Union or foreign jurisdictions’

50

healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, and other healthcare laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our current and future operations may be directly, or indirectly through our relationships with investigators, health care professionals, customers and third-party payors, subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Healthcare providers, including physicians and others play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain our business and financial arrangements and relationships with third-party payors, healthcare professionals and others who recommend, purchase, or provide our approved products, and other parties through which we research as well as market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Finally, our current and future operations are subject to additional healthcare-related statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

51

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

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal and state enforcement bodies have continued their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.

It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices 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 sanctions, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participating in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or comparable foreign healthcare programs, 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, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, that person or entity may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

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 or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

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

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, vendors, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violate the regulations of the FDA, the European Commission and

52

comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad; or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, and other anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, import and customs laws, trade and economic sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, or the FCPA, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. §201, the U.S. Travel Act, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business. The FCPA and these other laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, a financial or other advantage to government officials or other persons to induce them to improperly perform a relevant function or activity (or reward them for such behavior).

We, along with those acting on our behalf and our commercial partners, operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential FCPA violations, and we participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose corrupt or illegal activities could potentially subject us to liability under the FCPA or local anti-corruption laws, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

Compliance with the FCPA and these other laws is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, anti-corruption laws present particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of Sweden, Norway and the United States, and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the Trade Control laws.

There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses. Such liabilities could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition. Further, the failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting.

53

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters or our development operations, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. Disaster recovery and business continuity plans may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. As part of our risk management approach, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to the Ownership of our Securities

The price of our equity securities may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors beyond our control.

The price of the securities of publicly traded clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies has been highly volatile and is likely to remain highly volatile in the future. The price of the securities of publicly traded clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies has been highly volatile and is likely to remain highly volatile in the future. Since the ADSs were sold at our initial U.S. public offering in June 2020 at a price of $19.50 per ADS, the price per ADS has ranged as low as $14.22 and as high as $38.00 through December 31, 2021. The market price of the ADSs and our common shares may fluctuate significantly due to a variety of factors, including:

54

COVID-19 has spread rapidly around the world since December 2019 and has negatively affected the stock market and investor sentiment. The stock market in general, and The Nasdaq Global Select Market and biotechnology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. Due to the potential volatility of our stock price, we may therefore be the target of securities litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

These and other market and industry factors may cause the market price and demand for our securities to fluctuate substantially, regardless of our actual operating performance, which may limit or prevent investors from readily selling their ADSs at or above the price paid for the ADSs and may otherwise negatively affect the liquidity of the ADSs. In addition, the stock market in general, and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies.

We will continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a U.S.-listed public company, and our board of directors will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a U.S.-listed public company we will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a public company listed on Nasdaq Stockholm, including costs as we transition into large accelerated filer status. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market, or Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on non-U.S. reporting public companies, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our board of directors and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, which in turn could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

However, these rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report on our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, starting with this annual report, we are required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to

55

improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404.

We have no present intention to pay dividends on our common shares in the foreseeable future and, consequently, your only opportunity to achieve a return on your investment during that time is if the price of the ADSs or common shares, as applicable, appreciates.

We have no present intention to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. Any recommendation by our board of directors to pay dividends will depend on many factors, including our financial condition (including losses carried-forward), results of operations, legal requirements and other factors. Furthermore, pursuant to Swedish law, the calculation of amounts available for distribution to shareholders, as dividends or otherwise, must be determined on the basis of our non-consolidated statutory accounts prepared in accordance with Swedish accounting rules. If the price of the ADSs or the common shares declines before we pay dividends, you will incur a loss on your investment, without the likelihood that this loss will be offset in part or at all by potential future cash dividends.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If our remediation of these material weaknesses is not effective, or if we experience additional material weaknesses or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls in the future, we may not be able to accurately report our financial condition or results of operations.

In connection with our preparation and the audits of our financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, we have identified material weaknesses as defined under the Exchange Act and by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Material weaknesses arose during fiscal year 2021, primarily because of the growth of the company, the increased complexity of our business transactions and the increased decentralization of our operations. A number new IT-systems were implemented to support the growth of the company, including a new ERP system. These changes were not supported by a sufficient increase in employee headcount, including the retention of a sufficient number of highly qualified accounting, finance and information technology personnel, or by other elements of our system of internal control over financial reporting. All of these material weaknesses are described in detail in Item 15.B, “Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.”

We have identified and begun to implement several steps, as further described in Item 15.B, to remediate the material weaknesses and to enhance our overall control environment. We intend to continue to implement measures designed to remediate these material weaknesses, including augmenting and hiring additional knowledgeable and qualified IT, accounting and finance resources and professionals, enhancing the robustness and effectiveness of our IT systems and control environment, improving related policies and procedures and implementing new and/or enhancing the existing controls, and assessing and improving the skills of the process owners. However, the implementation of these measures may not fully address these material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in which case we would not be able to conclude that they have been fully remedied. Our failure to correct these material weaknesses or our failure to discover and address any other control deficiencies could result in inaccuracies in our financial statements and could also impair our ability to comply with applicable financial reporting requirements and make related regulatory filings on a timely basis. As a result, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, as well as the trading price and listing of our ADSs may be materially and adversely affected. We cannot assure you that all of our existing material weaknesses have been identified, or that we will not identify additional material weaknesses in the future.

We are subject to reporting obligations under U.S. securities laws and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we include a report from management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in this annual report. As a result of the material weaknesses identified above, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2021. This conclusion could adversely impact the market price of our ADSs due to a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our reporting processes.

56

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

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, including as a result of remote working policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of the ADSs. For example, we have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting related to our financial statement closing process, primarily related to the lack of sufficient skilled personnel with SEC reporting knowledge and experiences for purposes of timely and reliable financial reporting. Specifically, the material weaknesses identified relate to a lack of resources sufficient to prepare and review our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures in accordance with the requirements set forth by the SEC.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we are now required to perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow our management to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and we are also required, as of this annual report, to have our independent registered public accounting firm issue an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. Based upon our evaluation, as of December 31, 2021, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures, in accordance with the Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e), as a result of the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, as discussed below, were not effective. We may in the future discover additional weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Moreover, our internal controls over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected. Moreover, we are aware that the remote working arrangements implemented in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic potentially present new areas of risk, and we are carefully monitoring any impact to our internal controls and procedures.

If we continue to be unable assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, the market price of our common shares could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by The Nasdaq Global Market, the SEC or other regulatory authorities.

Concentration of ownership of our common shares (including common shares in the form of ADSs) among our existing executive officers, directors and principal shareholders may prevent new investors from influencing significant corporate decisions.

Our executive officers, directors, greater than five percent shareholders and their affiliates beneficially own approximately 46% of our outstanding common shares (including common shares in the form of ADSs) as of February 28, 2022. Depending on the level of attendance at our general meetings of shareholders, these shareholders either alone or voting together as a group may be in a position to determine or significantly influence the outcome of decisions taken at any such general meeting. Any shareholder or group of shareholders controlling more than 50% of the share capital present and voting at our general meetings of shareholders may control any shareholder resolution requiring a simple majority, including the appointment of board members, certain decisions relating to our capital structure, and the approval of certain significant corporate transactions. Among other consequences, this concentration of ownership may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals that you may believe are in your best interest as one of our shareholders. Some of these persons or entities may have interests different than yours. For example, to the extent certain shareholders purchased their shares or ADSs at prices below those at which other shareholders purchased theirs and have held their common shares for a longer period, they may be more interested in selling our company to an acquirer than other investors or they may want us to pursue strategies that deviate from the interests of other shareholders.

Currently, we are not aware that any of our existing shareholders have entered or will enter into a shareholders’ agreement with respect to the exercise of their voting rights. Nevertheless, depending on the level of attendance at our general meetings of shareholders, or the General Meeting, these significant shareholders could, alone or together, have the ability to determine the outcome of decisions

57

taken at any such General Meeting. Any such voting by these shareholders may not be in accordance with our interests or those of our shareholders. Among other consequences, this concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control and might therefore negatively affect the market price of the ADSs.

Fluctuations in exchange rates may increase the risk of holding ADSs and common shares.

Due to the international scope of our operations, our assets, earnings and cash flows are influenced by movements in exchange rates of several currencies, particularly the Swedish Krona, U.S. dollar, Swiss franc and Euro. Our functional currency is the Swedish Krona, and some of our operating expenses are paid in Swedish Krona, but we also receive payments and pay expenses in U.S. dollars and Euro. The operational currency of our French and Swiss subsidiaries is the Swiss franc. Further, potential future revenue may be derived from abroad, particularly from the United States. As a result, our business and the price of the ADSs and common shares on The Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Stockholm, respectively, may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates between these currencies, which may also have a significant impact on our reported results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we hold foreign exchange call options on the Euro.

Moreover, because our common shares currently trade on Nasdaq Stockholm in Swedish Krona, and the ADSs trade on The Nasdaq Global Select Market in U.S. dollars, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the Swedish Krona may result in temporary differences between the value of the ADSs and the value of our common shares, which may result in heavy trading by investors seeking to exploit such differences.

Holders of ADSs are not treated as holders of our common shares.

Holders of ADSs are not treated as holders of our common shares unless they withdraw the common shares underlying their ADSs in accordance with the deposit agreement and applicable laws and regulations. The depositary is the holder of the common shares underlying the ADSs. Holders of ADSs therefore do not have any rights as holders of our common shares, other than the rights that they have pursuant to the deposit agreement. See “Item 12.D.—American Depositary Shares.”

Holders of ADSs may be subject to limitations on the transfer of their ADSs and the withdrawal of the underlying common shares.

ADSs are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary think it is advisable to do so because of any requirement of law, government or a governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement, or for any other reason, subject to the right of ADS holders to cancel their ADSs and withdraw the underlying common shares. Temporary delays in the cancellation of your ADSs and withdrawal of the underlying common shares may arise because the depositary has closed its transfer books or we have closed our transfer books, the transfer of common shares is blocked to permit voting at a shareholders’ meeting or we are paying a dividend on our common shares. In addition, ADS holders may not be able to cancel their ADSs and withdraw the underlying common shares when they owe money for fees, taxes and similar charges and when it is necessary to prohibit withdrawals in order to comply with any laws or governmental regulations that apply to ADSs or to the withdrawal of common shares or other deposited securities. See “Item 12.D.—American Depositary Shares.”

Holders of ADSs will not have the same voting rights as the holders of our common shares and may not receive voting materials in time to be able to exercise your right to vote.

Except as described in this annual report and the deposit agreement, which was filed as an exhibit to the registration statement filed in connection with the initial public offering of our ADSs, holders of the ADSs will not be able to exercise voting rights attaching to the common shares represented by the ADSs. Under the terms of the deposit agreement, holders of the ADSs may instruct the depositary to vote the common shares underlying their ADSs. Otherwise, holders of ADSs will not be able to exercise their right to vote unless they withdraw the common shares underlying their ADSs to vote them in person or by proxy in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and our articles of association. Even so, ADS holders may not know about a meeting far enough in advance to withdraw those common shares. If we ask for the instructions of holders of the ADSs, the depositary, upon timely notice from us, will notify ADS holders of the upcoming vote and arrange to deliver our voting materials to them. Upon our request, the depositary will mail to holders a shareholder meeting notice that contains, among other things, a statement as to the manner in which voting instructions may be given. We cannot guarantee that ADS holders will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that they can instruct the depositary to vote the common shares underlying their ADSs. A shareholder is only entitled to participate in, and vote at, the meeting of shareholders, provided that it holds our common shares as of the record date set for such meeting and otherwise complies with our articles of

58

association. In addition, the depositary’s liability to ADS holders for failing to execute voting instructions or for the manner of executing voting instructions is limited by the deposit agreement. As a result, holders of ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to give voting instructions or to vote in person or by proxy and they may not have any recourse against the depositary or us if their common shares are not voted as they have requested or if their shares cannot be voted.

Claims of U.S. civil liabilities may not be enforceable against us.

We are incorporated under Swedish law. Certain members of our board of directors and senior management are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible to serve process on such persons or us in the United States or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them or us based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them or us, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.

The United States and Sweden do not currently have a treaty providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters. Consequently, a final judgment for payment given by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized or enforceable in Sweden. In addition, uncertainty exists as to whether the courts in Sweden would entertain original actions brought in Sweden against us or our directors or senior management predicated upon the securities laws of the United States or any state in the United States. Any final and conclusive monetary judgment for a definite sum obtained against us in U.S. courts would not be automatically recognized. Instead, new proceedings would need to be initiated before the competent court in Sweden. However, a judgment obtained in the U.S may still have a strong evidentiary weight in the Swedish proceedings, depending on the circumstances and the assessment of the court. If a Swedish court gives judgment for the sum payable under a U.S. judgment, the Swedish judgment will be enforceable by methods generally available for this purpose. These methods generally permit the Sweden court discretion to prescribe the manner of enforcement. As a result, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against us or certain of our directors any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

We qualify as a foreign private issuer and, as a result, we are not subject to U.S. proxy rules and are subject to reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that, to some extent, permit less detailed and frequent reporting than that of a U.S. domestic public company.

We report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (i) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act, (ii) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time and (iii) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8-K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from the Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. As a result of the above, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

As a foreign private issuer and as permitted by the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we will rely on certain home country governance practices rather than the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

We are entitled to rely on a provision in Nasdaq’s corporate governance rules that allows us to follow Swedish law with regard to certain aspects of corporate governance. This allows us to follow certain corporate governance practices that differ in significant respects from the corporate governance requirements applicable to U.S. companies listed on Nasdaq. For example, we are exempt from Nasdaq regulations that require a listed U.S. company and intend to follow home country practice with respect to (i) the minimum quorum requirement for a meeting of shareholders, (ii) the requirement that non-management directors to meet on a regular basis without management present and (iii) the composition of the nominating and corporate governance committee.

In accordance with our Nasdaq listing, our audit committee is required to comply with the provisions of Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act. Because we are a foreign private issuer, however, our audit committee is not

59

subject to additional Nasdaq requirements applicable to listed U.S. companies, including an affirmative determination that all members of the audit committee are “independent” using more stringent criteria than those applicable to us as a foreign private issuer. Furthermore, Nasdaq’s corporate governance rules require listed U.S. companies to, among other things, seek shareholder approval for the implementation of certain equity compensation plans and issuances of common shares, which we are not required to follow as a foreign private issuer. Therefore, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would have under corporate governance listing standards applicable to U.S. domestic issuers.

We may in the future lose our foreign private issuer status which would then require us to comply with the Exchange Act’s domestic reporting regime and cause us to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses.

We are a foreign private issuer and therefore we are not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. In order to maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, either (a) a majority of our common shares must be either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States or (b)(i) a majority of our executive officers or directors may not be U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of our assets cannot be located in the United States and (iii) our business must be administered principally outside the United States. We are required to evaluate our foreign private issuer status as of June 30 of each year. If we lose foreign private issuer status, we would be required to comply with the Exchange Act reporting and other requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, which are more detailed and extensive than the requirements for foreign private issuers. We may also be required to make changes in our corporate governance practices in accordance with various SEC and Nasdaq rules. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws if we are required to comply with the reporting requirements applicable to a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than the cost we would incur as a foreign private issuer. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time consuming and costly. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our management team.

If securities or industry analysts cease coverage of us, or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of the ADSs and our trading volume could decline.