UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

Commission File Number 001-39926

Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 525-5535

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The approximate aggregate market value of the Registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates based upon the last sale price of the common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market as of June 30, 2021 was $225,321,170. Common stock held by our executive officers, directors and certain stockholders as of such date has been excluded from this calculation because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 20, 2022 was 25,269,271.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

i

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements concerning our business, operations and financial performance and condition, as well as our plans, objectives and expectations for our business, operations and financial performance and condition. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties related to the global COVID 19 pandemic and other important factors that are in some cases beyond our control and may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “aim,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “due,” “estimate,” “expect,” “goal,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “positioned,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” and other similar expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events and future trends, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

ii

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Company Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing a portfolio of small-molecule single-agent and combination therapy candidates to address serious diseases, such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and obesity. Our approach is to develop drug candidates based on mechanisms of action that have achieved proof-of-concept in clinical trials. Our most advanced drug candidates are under development for the treatment of NASH using clinically-validated and complementary mechanisms of action to drive meaningful clinical benefits for patients. In our NASH programs, these mechanisms have demonstrated significant improvements on histological and non-invasive markers of the disease, though no drug has been approved for the treatment of NASH in the United States or Europe. In addition, by developing combination therapies, we are aiming to expand the reach of our single-agent drug candidates through improved response rates, better tolerability and improved compliance as compared to monotherapy regimens. We also have an oral small-molecule glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist in pre-clinical development that may target metabolic diseases such as obesity as well as NASH. Beyond NASH, we plan to explore other indications with high unmet need using our pipeline drug candidates.

Our most advanced program is TERN-101, a liver-distributed, non-bile acid Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR) agonist that has demonstrated sustained liver FXR activation, as well as a favorable tolerability profile across multiple clinical trials. In June 2021, we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 2a LIFT Study of TERN-101 in NASH patients. In the LIFT Study, TERN-101 was generally well-tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events (AEs) across treatment groups. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no patient discontinued TERN-101 due to any adverse event, including pruritus, or itching. Multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints were also evaluated, including changes in liver fibro-inflammation measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) corrected T1 (cT1), liver fat content by MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), pharmacodynamic parameters, and serum NASH biomarkers. We believe TERN-101 is the first FXR agonist product candidate to show significant improvements in cT1, an imaging marker of liver inflammation and fibrosis linked to clinical outcomes, in a 12-week placebo-controlled clinical trial. In light of the positive results, we plan to initiate a Phase 2a clinical trial in NASH patients including both monotherapy and combination arms of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in the first half of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2023.

Our second clinical stage program, TERN-201, is a highly selective inhibitor of Vascular Adhesion Protein-1 (VAP-1). We expect to announce top-line data from Part 1 of our Phase 1b AVIATION trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in March 2022. We initiated Part 2 of our AVIATION trial in the first quarter of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2022. We are also evaluating the potential to co-administer TERN-201 in combination with a metabolically active NASH treatment.

Our third clinical stage program is TERN-501, a Thyroid Hormone Receptor beta (THR-β) agonist with high metabolic stability, enhanced liver distribution and greater selectivity for THR-β compared to other THR-β agonists in development. In November 2021, we announced positive top-line data from a Phase 1 clinical trial of TERN-501 in healthy volunteers with mildly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. In the single ascending dose (SAD) and multiple ascending dose (MAD) cohorts, TERN-501 was generally well-tolerated with a similar incidence of AEs across all TERN-501 treatment groups and placebo. All AEs were mild to moderate with no apparent dose relationship, with no treatment-emergent serious AEs and no discontinuations of study or study drug due to any AE. Significant effects on sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), a key pharmacodynamic marker of THR-β engagement linked to NASH histologic efficacy, were observed following treatment with TERN-501. The SHBG increases observed with 14 days of TERN-501 treatment were significant, dose dependent and have been associated with robust reductions in MRI-PDFF and NAFLD Activity Score in a precedent late-stage clinical NASH trial of another THR-β agonist. Preliminary pharmacokinetic results support the co-administration of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in NASH patients, with no apparent need for dose adjustment. We plan to initiate a Phase 2a clinical trial in NASH patients including both monotherapy and combination arms of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in the first half of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2023.

5

We are also developing an oral small-molecule GLP-1R agonist. Synthetic GLP-1 peptides have been approved for diabetes and obesity, which are conditions that often accompany NASH. We designated a development candidate for our GLP-1R program as TERN-601 in the fourth quarter of 2021. We plan to engage in IND-enabling activities for TERN-601 with the goal of initiating a first-in-human clinical trial in 2023.

NASH is a severe form of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, that affects up to 20 million people in the United States, and up to 5% of the global population, and for which there is currently no approved therapy in the United States or Europe. In a study published in Hepatology in 2018, lifetime costs of treating and managing NASH patients in the United States in 2017 were estimated to be over $220 billion, in the absence of approved therapies. NASH is a multifaceted disease that involves three distinct pathogenic hepatic disease processes: steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. In addition to these three disease processes, NASH patients often exhibit elevated levels of glucose and atherogenic lipids, are overweight or obese and accumulate excessive lipotoxic fat. Severe progression of NASH can lead to cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease and increased risk for hepatic carcinoma and liver-related mortality.

Obesity is caused by weight gain resulting from an energy imbalance in the body driven by a greater consumption of calories than those expended. Declared a global epidemic by the World Health Organization over 20 years ago, obesity has continued to rise significantly around the world. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, a third of U.S. adults 20 years of age and older are obese. Obesity has been shown to increase the risks of many diseases and conditions, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, arthritis, sleep apnea and some cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon). According to a recent study, obesity was associated with an estimated $260 billion in annual healthcare expenditures in the United States. GLP-1 receptor agonists, which have been shown to address insulin resistance, a hallmark of metabolic syndrome, represent an emerging class of therapies used to achieve weight loss. Consensus estimates forecast worldwide sales of GLP-1 therapeutics and its combinations to exceed $16 billion in 2021 and grow to over $30 billion by 2026.

Our Pipeline Programs

Our most advanced wholly owned, single-agent drug candidates are under development for the treatment of NASH using complementary mechanisms of action to drive meaningful clinical benefits for patients. We also have a wholly owned drug candidate in pre-clinical development that may target metabolic diseases such as obesity as well as NASH. In addition to our single-agent drug candidates, our wholly owned pipeline includes combination therapy candidates that are intended to address each of the distinct pathogenic disease processes of NASH, while improving the overall metabolic profile of patients. Beyond NASH and obesity, we plan to explore other indications with high unmet need using our wholly owned drug candidates. In addition to our wholly owned drug candidates, we have an allosteric BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor with an active IND in China, which is being developed in the greater China region by our development partner.

6

Pipeline Candidates for NASH and Metabolic Diseases:

7

Combinations for NASH:

Several prior clinical trials evaluating single-agent therapies for NASH have shown only moderate histological improvements and exhibited tolerability issues with some of these agents at high doses. We believe that developing combination therapies that target multiple mechanistic pathways and improve the overall metabolic profile of NASH patients will drive improved outcomes for NASH patients while mitigating potential tolerability concerns and improving compliance as compared with monotherapy regimens. We are well-positioned to develop multiple combination therapies for NASH with our extensive experience in combination drug development and the ability to leverage our pipeline of wholly owned single-agents that we believe are suitable for orally administered combination development.

8

We believe that therapies targeting steatosis (TERN-101 and TERN-501), inflammation (TERN-101 and TERN-201) and fibrosis (TERN-101 and TERN-201) in tandem, have the potential to provide greater resolution of NASH and improvement in related clinical outcomes. Clinical trials of GLP-1 agonists (TERN-601) in NASH patients have shown that a greater proportion of patients achieved NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis and experienced improvement of other metabolic outcomes such as weight loss and glycemic control as compared to placebo.

We expect to initiate a Phase 2a clinical proof-of-concept trial evaluating a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in NASH patients in the first half of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2023. We are also assessing the potential utility of combinations of TERN-201 with assets inside and outside of our pipeline. Given the strength of our internal resources and capabilities, we have the flexibility to independently advance our combination therapies without the need for a co-development partner at this time.

Other Pipeline Candidates

TRN-000632 is a potent, allosteric BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting the ABL myristoyl pocket that is in development for chronic myeloid leukemia, or CML. We out-licensed TRN-000632 to Hansoh Pharmaceuticals for development in the greater China region, while retaining all rights worldwide outside of greater China. TRN-000632 is referred to by Hansoh Pharmaceuticals as HS-10382. In January 2022, the National Medical Products Administration of the People’s Republic of China granted a clinical trial notice (equivalent to an IND in the United States) for TRN-000632 tablets in CML. We intend to explore strategic and partnership options for the development and commercialization of TRN-000632 outside of greater China.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop and commercialize differentiated monotherapies and combination therapies for serious diseases such as NASH and obesity. Key elements of our strategy to achieve this goal include:

9

Background on NASH

NASH is a severe form of NAFLD, a common liver disease characterized by the accumulation of excess fat in the liver (steatosis). When hepatic steatosis results in liver inflammation and, in many cases, fibrosis, it results in NASH, a multifaceted disease that involves three distinct pathogenic hepatic disease processes: steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. In addition to these three disease processes, many NASH patients exhibit broader concomitant metabolic issues such as insulin resistance, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity and excess lipotoxic fat. Severe progression of NASH leads to cirrhosis and decompensated liver disease, with the associated risks for hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death. NASH was recently identified as the second leading etiologic indication for liver transplantation in the United States, and it is projected to become the leading cause of liver transplantation in the coming years.

NAFLD is the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the United States, affecting 80 to 100 million individuals. Among persons with NAFLD, approximately 20% will progress to NASH, which is currently estimated to affect 20 million adults in the United States. Progression of liver fibrosis ultimately leads to cirrhosis in an estimated 20% of patients with NASH. With an aging population and the markedly increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia/metabolic syndrome worldwide, NAFLD and NASH have increased greatly in prevalence, posing a significant healthcare challenge. Currently, no drug has been approved for the treatment of NASH in the United States or Europe. In a study published in Hepatology in 2018, lifetime costs of treating and managing NASH patients in the United States in 2017 were estimated to be over $220 billion, in the absence of approved therapies.

10

Etiology of NASH

NAFLD and NASH are classified as progressive metabolic diseases, often correlated with chronic excess caloric intake, obesity and metabolic syndrome. Physiologically, hepatocytes in the liver can act as a repository for excess energy stored by the body. As humans consume disproportionate amounts of calories relative to those burned on a consistent basis, the body becomes overweight, and organs, including the liver, become burdened by fatty tissue. With the liver acting as the hub for excess energy and energy conversion, an imbalance develops with more delivery of fats and triglycerides to the liver, an increase in hepatic fatty acid synthesis, and impaired hepatic fatty acid oxidation and removal of liver fat, resulting in NAFLD.

Within the steatotic liver, fat deposits can create lipotoxic effects to the surrounding liver tissue, resulting in hepatocyte stress and injury. Local increases in reactive oxygenation species can induce hepatocytes to undergo cell death and create an inflammatory response within the organ. VAP-1 is over expressed in affected areas of the liver, serving as an attachment point for white blood cells and triggering their recruitment from the bloodstream into the liver. These white blood cells are stimulated by local lipotoxic effects and the presence of reactive oxygenation species, producing cytokines which further exacerbate local inflammatory cascades.

Inflammatory cascades in the liver activate hepatic stellate cells to excrete extracellular matrix resulting in liver fibrosis. Over time, fibrosis progresses, increasingly replacing diseased and normal liver tissue with scar tissue. Eventually, most of the liver is replaced by fibrotic tissue, which histologically is categorized as cirrhosis. While some cirrhotic patients have enough functional liver tissue to maintain hepatic activity, over time, the liver fails, resulting in decompensated liver disease and the need for liver transplantation to avoid liver related death. Furthermore, cirrhosis is a key risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma.

NASH is currently diagnosed by histological findings on liver biopsy. In clinical trials, recommended scoring systems assess (i) liver fibrosis and (ii) steatosis and inflammation using the NAFLD Activity Score, or NAS, a composite score that grades the degree of three non-fibrotic histologic features of NASH: steatosis, hepatocyte ballooning, and lobular inflammation. Efficacious responses to treatment in NASH clinical trials are usually considered to be either an improvement in fibrosis score without worsening of the NAS, or an improvement of the NAS without worsening of fibrosis.

Increasingly, non-invasive blood and imaging tests are being used in clinical practice to diagnose NASH. MRI-derived biomarkers proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and iron-corrected T1 mapping (cT1) are gaining traction as emerging alternatives to biopsy for NASH. cT1 measures free-water content in liver tissue, which has shown a strong correlation with inflammation and fibrosis histology. An estimated difference of 88 milliseconds in cT1 relaxation time has been related to a two-point difference in overall NAS. While MRI-PDFF and cT1 both correlate with NAS, only cT1 correlates with fibrosis. Further, liver cT1 has been shown to predict clinical outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease. As data from these non-invasive assessments continue to accumulate—for initial diagnosis of NASH, monitoring of disease progression over time, and monitoring response to treatment—these approaches may replace liver biopsy, both in clinical practice and clinical trials. In its December 2018 draft NASH guidance, the FDA encouraged sponsors to include non-invasive biomarkers in clinical studies of experimental NASH treatments in order to accelerate development and supplant liver biopsy. More recently, at The Liver Meeting in November 2021, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) issued practice guidelines recommending blood and imaging-based non-invasive assessments to determine fibrosis staging prior to considering a liver biopsy. To accelerate the usage of NITs as surrogate endpoints for NASH, we joined the steering committee of the NAIL-NIT Consortium, a multi-stakeholder effort to link non-invasive testing directly to outcomes. NAIL-NIT’s preliminary planned activities include a prospective six-year study of NASH patients and, separately, a retrospective analysis of NASH patient cases to establish the best utilization of the growing array of non-invasive testing methods in the treatment, diagnosis and monitoring of NASH patients.

11

Treatment of NASH

There currently are no FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of NASH, and available treatment options are limited to control of metabolic dysfunction, including weight loss, as well as lifestyle modifications such as exercise and dietary changes. However, many patients are unable to achieve or maintain significant weight loss or comply long-term with the dietary and lifestyle changes required to reverse NASH. In order to optimally treat NASH and reduce the risk of liver cancer and liver-related mortality, the three distinct disease processes may each need to be addressed–steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. In addition to these three disease processes, we believe an ideal NASH therapy will also aim to improve the overall metabolic profile of NASH patients such as improvements in glycemic control, atherogenic lipid improvement, weight loss, and reduction of lipotoxic fat. Single agents focusing on specific mechanisms contributing to one of these three processes, each involving multiple pathways, have demonstrated only modest results to date. As such, combination therapies have the potential to better address the multitude of desired properties for the treatment of NASH.

The following table summarizes some of the treatment approaches for NASH currently in clinical development, together with limitations observed and Terns’ differentiated approach. Among the small-molecule programs with validated mechanisms, we believe FXR agonism, VAP-1 inhibition, THR-β agonism, and GLP-1 agonism have great potential, not only as targets for single-agent therapy, but also as key components in combination therapies.

12

Our Clinical Stage Programs in NASH

We are developing a portfolio of small-molecules that address the multiple hepatic disease processes of NASH in order to drive meaningful clinical benefits. Our most advanced program, TERN-101, is a liver-distributed, non-bile acid FXR agonist that has demonstrated sustained liver FXR activation, as well as a favorable tolerability profile across multiple clinical trials. We announced positive top-line data from our Phase 2a LIFT clinical trial of TERN-101 in NASH in June 2021. Our second clinical stage program, TERN-201, is a highly selective inhibitor of VAP-1, which directly addresses hepatic inflammation. We expect to announce top-line data from Part 1 of our Phase 1b AVIATION trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in March 2022. We initiated Part 2 of our AVIATION trial in the first quarter of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2022. Our third clinical stage program is TERN-501, a THR-β agonist with high metabolic stability, enhanced liver distribution and greater selectivity for THR-β compared to other THR-β agonists in development. In November 2021, we announced positive top-line data from a Phase 1 clinical trial of TERN-501 in healthy volunteers with mildly elevated low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol. We are also pursuing two combination therapy programs to address the multiple disease processes of NASH and expect to initiate a Phase 2a clinical proof-of-concept trial evaluating a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in the first half of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2023. We believe developing combination therapies that target multiple mechanistic pathways and improve the overall metabolic profile of NASH patients will drive improved outcomes for NASH patients while mitigating potential tolerability concerns associated with other drugs in development.

TERN-101—a liver-distributed FXR agonist

Drug candidate summary

TERN-101 is a liver-distributed, non-bile acid FXR agonist that has demonstrated a differentiated tolerability profile and improved target engagement; likely due to its sustained FXR activation in the liver but only transient FXR activation in the intestine. FXR is a nuclear receptor primarily expressed in the liver, intestine and kidneys. FXR regulates hepatic expression of various genes involved in lipid metabolism, inflammation and fibrosis. Clinical studies of other FXR agonists have demonstrated significant histological NASH improvements but have also resulted in pruritus and adverse lipid changes. These tolerability issues have generally been observed in Phase 1 clinical trials as well as later phase studies of other FXR agonists in development and have been regarded as dose-limiting toxicities, which are suboptimal for patients and can lead to treatment discontinuation.

In June 2021, we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 2a LIFT Study of TERN-101 in NASH patients. In the LIFT Study, TERN-101 was generally well-tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events, or AEs, across treatment groups. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no patient discontinued TERN-101 due to any adverse event including pruritus. Multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints were also evaluated, including changes in liver fibro-inflammation measured by MRI corrected T1, or cT1, liver fat content by MRI proton density fat fraction, or MRI-PDFF, pharmacodynamic parameters, and serum NASH biomarkers. We received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-101 for the treatment of NASH in October 2019. Fast Track designation does not guarantee an accelerated review by the FDA.

FXR agonists may address NASH in different liver cell types

FXR is a nuclear receptor primarily expressed in the liver, intestine and kidneys. FXR regulates hepatic expression of various genes involved in lipid metabolism, inflammation and fibrosis. In the hepatocyte, FXR activation induces small heterodimer partner, or SHP, a key metabolic regulator. The upregulation of SHP by FXR reduces the expression of sterol-regulatory element-binding protein 1C, or SREBP1C, a master regulator of triglyceride synthesis. FXR-mediated inhibition of SREBP1C and subsequent reduction in triglyceride levels could result in reduced hepatic steatosis. FXR also plays a role in modulating hepatic inflammation. Activation of FXR in the hepatocyte represses nuclear factor-kB, or NF-kB, via induction of SHP, thereby reducing hepatic inflammation. FXR activation is also directly associated with reduction in hepatic inflammation in Kupffer cells. In hepatic stellate cells, FXR activation reduces fibrogenic markers such collagen type 1 alpha 1, or Col1a1, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1, or TIMP1. Inhibition of Col1a1 and TIMP1 reduces collagen synthesis and increases the degradation of the extracellular matrix, or ECM, thereby reducing liver fibrosis.

13

A liver-distributed FXR agonist has the potential to address NASH

by acting on the three key disease processes and cell types

Clinical validation of FXR agonists

FXR agonism has been investigated in large-scale clinical trials and has shown clinically relevant improvements in NASH. In these clinical trials, FXR agonists have shown significant histological NASH improvements in fibrosis, as well as improvement in markers of liver function.

Limitations of other FXR agonists: pruritus and adverse lipid changes

Clinical trials of other FXR agonists have demonstrated significant histological NASH improvements but have also resulted in pruritus and adverse lipid changes. These tolerability issues have been observed in Phase 1 clinical trials as well as later phase studies for other FXR agonists as shown in the table below and have been regarded as dose-limiting toxicities, which are suboptimal for patients and can lead to treatment discontinuation. However, our Phase 2a LIFT Study of TERN-101 was the first 12 week controlled clinical trial of an FXR agonist to demonstrate no discontinuations due to any adverse event, including pruritus. An FXR agonist that can demonstrate improved liver health with minimal adverse effects would have great potential benefits for NASH patients.

14

FXR agonists: comparison of Phase 1b or Phase 2 controlled clinical trials in NASH patients with a treatment duration of 12 to 24 weeks

We believe the liabilities from the other FXR agonists may be due to their activation of FXR outside the liver, particularly in the intestine. FXR activation in intestinal enterocytes results in the secretion of Fibroblast Growth Factor 19, or FGF19, which has been associated with increased serum low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol in published studies. Pruritus has been observed in clinical studies of other FXR agonists known to activate intestinal FXR. On the other hand, the use of bile acid sequestrants (such as cholestyramine or colesevelam) or ileal bile acid transporter, or IBAT, inhibitors has been demonstrated in several clinical studies to reduce plasma LDL, cholesterol in patients with hyperlipidemia and also to mitigate pruritus in patients with cholestatic liver disease, potentially through prevention of FXR activation. Therefore, we believe that an FXR agonist with sustained activity in the liver, but only minimal or transient intestinal or other extrahepatic FXR activity, would likely not be associated with pruritus or adverse lipid changes.

Our solution: TERN-101, a liver-distributed FXR agonist

We believe TERN-101 has been well-tolerated in completed clinical trials to date because of its high liver distribution, thereby minimizing activation of intestinal pathways that may be associated with pruritus and adverse lipid changes. The figure on the left below demonstrates in a preclinical model that administration of TERN-101 results in significantly higher distribution to the liver compared to other FXR agonists. The figure on the right below demonstrates that administration of TERN-101 is also associated with much higher activation of liver-related FXR gene expression, in contrast to intestinally-directed FXR agonists that have greater FXR gene activation in the intestine than in the liver. Studies have demonstrated that there is minimal overlap between liver and intestine FXR binding sites, indicating potentially a high degree of tissue-specific FXR function.

15

TERN-101 preferentially distributes to liver and induces liver-specific genes

Figure: The information from the figure above (left) represents preclinical data derived from a rat model conducted by Terns (2 mg/kg of TERN-101, cilofexor or tropifexor); and data disclosed in regulatory filings for the 30 mg/kg of OCA. The information from the figure above (right) represents preclinical data derived from a mouse study model of SHP gene expression conducted by Terns after 7 days of dosing with TERN-101 (10 mg/kg), OCA (30 mg/kg) and tropifexor (0.3 mg/kg). SHP functions to inhibit bile acid synthesis.

TERN-101 administration demonstrates sustained FXR activation in the liver

The liver-distributed profile of TERN-101 has been demonstrated in a Phase 1 clinical trial of the pharmacodynamics of TERN-101 in 36 human subjects. Sustained liver FXR activation in human subjects was demonstrated by dose-dependent decreases in 7 alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, or C4, concentrations that are among the most potent demonstrated with an FXR agonist to date. A decrease in C4 is a surrogate marker for FXR activation in the liver. In contrast to sustained liver FXR activation, repeated administration of TERN-101 over seven days resulted in only a transient increase of FGF19, suggesting transient intestinal FXR activation while the drug is being absorbed. Data from other FXR agonists in development demonstrate a much more sustained increase in FGF19 that persists through repeat administrations, which may indicate that sustained intestinal FXR activation is associated with their underlying tolerability issues.

16

TERN-101 induces sustained suppression of C4 but only transient increases of FGF19

Figure: Change in C4 relative to baseline (Day 1) on Day 7. FGF19 figure represents the mean FGF19 plasma concentration on Day 7.

Phase 2 clinical development of TERN-101

In June 2021, we announced positive top-line data from our Phase 2a LIFT Study of TERN-101 in NASH patients. Based on these positive results, we plan to initiate a Phase 2a clinical trial of TERN-101 co-administered with our thyroid hormone receptor beta agonist TERN-501 in the first half of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2023.

The LIFT Study is a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 100 patients with phenotypic or biopsy-diagnosed NASH, identified either by prior biopsy or clinical diagnosis (liver stiffness measured by transient elastography of 7.6—25 kPa and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) > 300). Clinical trial participants received once-daily oral administration of placebo or TERN-101 tablet doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events. Multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints were also evaluated including changes in liver fibro-inflammation measured by cT1, liver fat content by MRI-PDFF, pharmacodynamic parameters, and serum NASH biomarkers.

TERN-101 Phase 2a LIFT trial design

17

TERN-101 was generally well-tolerated with a similar incidence of AEs across treatment groups. All treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate with no apparent dose relationship. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no patient discontinued TERN-101 due to any adverse event, including pruritus.

All pruritus-related AEs were mild or moderate. The patient incidence of pruritus was generally balanced across TERN-101 treatment groups. Most pruritus AEs were mild and resolved during continued TERN-101 treatment.

* CTCAE: common terminology criteria for adverse events

In the Phase 1 study in healthy subjects, administration of TERN-101 resulted in sustained C4 suppression but only transient effects on FGF19 induction, possibly reflecting higher levels of FXR target engagement in the liver compared to intestine. Data from the Phase 2a LIFT Study were consistent with the prior study and showed statistically significant suppression of trough C4 levels in the 10 mg and 15 mg groups but only transient increases in FGF19.

No change in LDL cholesterol was observed in patients in the 5 mg and 10 mg TERN-101 arms as compared to placebo. Statistically significant LDL changes were observed only in the 15 mg arm. Significant decreases in HDL cholesterol were observed in all TERN-101 dose groups at Week 4 and Week 8 but returned toward baseline in the 5 mg and 10 mg dose groups without differences from placebo at Week 12. Decreases in HDL were significantly different from placebo for the 15 mg group at all observed timepoints through Week 12.

18

p-value: * < 0.05, **<0.01

Multiple efficacy biomarkers of NASH, including cT1 and MRI-PDFF, were evaluated in the LIFT Study. Mean changes in cT1 at Week 12 were -0.8 msec for placebo, -38.0 msec (p=0.033) for the 5 mg arm, -57.7 msec (p=0.002) for the 10 mg arm, and -74.0 msec (p<0.001) for the 15 mg arm. Improvements of at least 80 msec in cT1 were observed in a significant proportion of patients in the 5 mg and 10 mg groups at Week 12 as compared to placebo. Significant decreases in cT1 were also observed at Week 6 for all dose groups. cT1 is a magnetic resonance-based imaging test measuring free-water content in liver tissue, which has shown a strong correlation with inflammation and fibrosis histology and clinical outcomes in patients with liver disease. Mean relative changes in MRI-PDFF were -8.4% (placebo), -15.1% (5 mg), -19.7% (10 mg), and -12.9% (15 mg) at Week 12. Mean relative changes in MRI-PDFF were significant at Week 6 for the 10 mg and 15 mg dose groups compared to placebo, although these changes were not statistically significant at Week 12. MRI-PDFF is an imaging marker that measures liver fat content. No discernable trends were observed in initial analyses of the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score, CK-18 and Pro-C3.

Prior to the LIFT Study, we evaluated TERN-101 across four completed Phase 1 clinical trials in 136 subjects, including 119 subjects in whom TERN-101 was administered. In the Phase 1 trials, TERN-101 was generally well-tolerated with no confirmed dose-related tolerability signals. AEs tended to be mild to moderate, with no dose-related increases in AEs. In all four Phase 1 clinical trials of TERN-101, none of the 119 subjects who received TERN-101 reported pruritus, and the serum lipid profiles among TERN-101 recipients were similar to placebo recipients even at high doses.

TERN-201 – a highly selective VAP-1 inhibitor

Drug candidate summary

TERN-201 is a highly selective, irreversible, covalent inhibitor of VAP-1. In our Phase 1a first-in-human (SAD/MAD) clinical trial across 61 healthy subjects, TERN-201 was shown to fully suppress plasma VAP-1 activity at all of the doses that we evaluated and VAP-1 suppression was evident up to days after a single dose. In preclinical studies, TERN-201 reduced fibrosis in a model of liver injury in a dose-dependent manner, with inflammation and fibrosis significantly reduced after treatment. TERN-201 exhibits high selectivity for VAP-1 and enhanced liver distribution. Importantly, TERN-201 does not inhibit human MAO-A and MAO-B, thereby avoiding risks associated with MAO inhibition. We believe the sustained activity of TERN-201, with its VAP-1 selectivity and anticipated low therapeutic dose, make it suitable for coadministration with therapies directed at steatosis and other metabolic processes involved in NASH. We expect to announce top-line data from Part 1 of our Phase 1b AVIATION trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in March 2022. We initiated Part 2 of our AVIATION trial in the first quarter of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2022. We received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-201 for the treatment of NASH in August 2020. Fast Track designation does not guarantee an accelerated review by the FDA.

19

Overview of VAP-1 biology in NASH

As liver damage accumulates in NAFLD and NASH patients, VAP-1 becomes increasingly expressed on the endothelium of blood vessels within the liver. Through its function as an adhesion molecule, VAP-1 facilitates the deceleration, binding and transmigration of white blood cells (leukocytes) from the blood stream into the liver. VAP-1 ligands on white blood cells include Siglec-9 and Siglec-10, which may stimulate VAP-1 enzymatic activity leading to production of aldehyde and hydrogen peroxide, a reactive oxygenation species (ROS). White blood cells respond to local liver tissue damage releasing cytokines and other factors that may further exacerbate liver inflammation. Together, the cytokine cascades resulting from white blood cell liver penetration and local ROS-mediated oxidative stress and tissue damage, result in fibrosis through the activation of hepatic stellate cells to produce collagen. The following graphic illustrates this process.

VAP-1 recruits white blood cells to the liver and increases inflammation and fibrosis

Clinical validation of VAP-1 inhibition in NASH

VAP-1 inhibition has the potential to address the inflammatory process in NASH patients. Preclinical data have demonstrated that VAP-1 inhibition improves liver histology and serum biomarkers. VAP-1 has been shown to be over-expressed in the livers of NASH patients in response to local lipotoxicity and liver injury. Increased levels of soluble VAP-1 in the plasma is also associated with the presence of NASH, and with increasing liver fibrosis. In a Phase 2a clinical trial, administration of a different VAP-1 inhibitor over 12 weeks in NASH patients demonstrated significant, dose dependent decreases from baseline in AST, GGT, CK-18 and ALT, markers of liver injury and inflammation and cell death compared to placebo. Improvements in these markers provide clinical proof-of-concept for VAP-1 inhibition as a treatment approach in NASH.

Limitations of other VAP-1 inhibitors in development

A clinical trial of another VAP-1 inhibitor in NASH patients demonstrated improvements in markers of liver injury, inflammation and cell death. However, other VAP-1 inhibitors currently in development for NASH are associated MAO inhibition due to their lack of specificity for binding VAP-1. Drugs that inhibit MAO create the risk of life-threatening serotonin syndrome and hypertensive crisis when administered with commonly prescribed serotonergic drugs and with tyramine-containing foods. Therefore, we believe a VAP-1 inhibitor with improved selectivity for VAP-1 inhibition that lacks the potential to inhibit MAO-A or MAO-B could provide meaningful clinical benefit to NASH patients in reducing inflammation and liver fibrosis without risks related to MAO inhibition.

20

Our solution for VAP-1 inhibition: TERN-201

TERN-201 was selected over other discovery candidates because it is highly specific for VAP-1 inhibition and has minimal potential to inhibit MAO-A or MAO-B at clinically relevant concentrations. Preclinical studies showed that TERN-201 was greater than 7000-fold more selective for VAP-1 than for MAO-A or MAO-B. In clinical studies, TERN-201 has shown strong VAP-1 inhibition at all doses studied, and plasma TERN-201 concentrations, or Cmax, after 7 days of dosing were more than 300 times lower than the IC50 concentrations for MAO-A and MAO–B inhibition at the highest dose level studied. The graph below illustrates the selectivity of TERN-201 for VAP-1 inhibition over MAO inhibition shown in preclinical studies.

TERN-201 shows no apparent MAO inhibition

Fold selectivity for VAP-1 over

MAO-A or MAO-B

Clinical development of TERN-201

We are conducting an ongoing Phase 1b clinical trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients, known as the AVIATION trial. The AVIATION trial is a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in approximately 60 patients who have presumed non-cirrhotic NASH based on clinical characteristics or prior biopsy and a baseline cT1 reading of greater than 800 ms. The AVIATION trial is evaluating TERN-201 in two parts – Part 1 is evaluating a 10 mg dose of TERN-101 against placebo and Part 2 is evaluating a 20 mg dose of TERN-201 against placebo. The primary endpoint of this trial is the assessment of the safety and tolerability of TERN-201. Other endpoints include the assessment of pharmacokinetic measures as well as the evaluation of cT1, CK-18, ALT and plasma VAP-1 activity. We expect to announce top-line data from Part 1 of our Phase 1b AVIATION trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in March 2022. We initiated Part 2 of our AVIATION trial in the first quarter of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2022. Following this clinical trial, we will consider subsequent trials of TERN-201 as monotherapy or potentially in combination with a metabolically active NASH treatment.

21

Prior to initiating our AVIATION trial, we completed a first-in-human, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 clinical trial (SAD/MAD) of TERN-201 which assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, or PK, and pharmacodynamics, or PD, in 61 healthy subjects. Single oral TERN-201 doses of 1, 3, 6 or 10 mg and repeat doses of 1 mg and 4 mg (once-daily for 7 days) and 10 mg (once-daily for 14 days) were administered. In the trial, TERN-201 target engagement was assessed by measuring decreases from baseline in the semi-carbazide sensitive amine oxidase, or SSAO, activity which results from VAP-1 enzymatic activity, and by changes from baseline in methylamine, a biomarker that increases in concentration in the blood as its metabolism by VAP-1 is inhibited.

TERN-201 demonstrated robust and sustained VAP-1 target engagement. Near complete inhibition of VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity was observed at four hours post-dose on Day One in all single and multiple dose groups. There was evidence of dose dependent sustained decreases in VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity for one week after completion of single and repeat dosing due to covalent binding of TERN-201 to VAP-1 and the rate of regeneration of VAP-1 over several days after completion of TERN-201 dosing. Near complete suppression of VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity persisted to 7 days after completion of a single TERN-201 dose of 10 mg and repeat doses of 4 mg and 10 mg. Changes from baseline in methylamine were also dose dependent, with the greatest increases from baseline observed in the TERN-201 10 mg dose group in both single and multiple dose cohorts.

TERN-201 demonstrates near complete inhibition of VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity in single ascending dose Phase 1 trial

22

In the Phase 1 SAD/MAD clinical trial, TERN-201 administered for up to 14 days was generally well-tolerated with no tolerability signals based on AEs, safety laboratory testing and electrocardiogram monitoring. Clinical and preclinical studies indicate that TERN-201 is not extensively metabolized and is unlikely to inhibit or induce major drug metabolism pathways or MAOs; therefore, it has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. This profile as well as its pharmaceutical properties and anticipated low therapeutic dose make it a very attractive candidate for co-formulation with other drugs as part of a single-tablet, fixed-dose combination treatment for NASH.

TERN-501 – a selective THR-β agonist with enhanced metabolic stability and liver distribution

Drug candidate summary

TERN-501 is a selective THR-β agonist with enhanced metabolic stability and liver distribution, characteristics that are intended to improve safety and efficacy in NASH patients. THR-β is the major form of thyroid hormone receptor in the liver and regulates key aspects of energy metabolism, including fatty acid and lipid synthesis and removal of liver fat through induction of fatty acid oxidation. THR-β stimulation has been identified as a target for NASH on the basis of its potential to reduce hepatic steatosis and improve serum lipid parameters in NASH patients. For any THR agonist, a key concern is toxicity from excess systemic THR-α stimulation. TERN-501 is 23-fold more selective for THR-β than for THR-α activation, thereby minimizing the risk of cardiotoxicity through THR-α stimulation. TERN-501 has high metabolic stability and a low projected clinical dose, which we believe makes it an attractive candidate for fixed-dose combination co-formulations. In November 2021, we announced positive top-line data from a Phase 1 clinical trial of TERN-501 in healthy volunteers. We received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-501 for the treatment of NASH in June 2021. Fast Track designation does not guarantee an accelerated review by the FDA.

THR-β agonists for NASH

Thyroid hormone plays a central role in regulating metabolism, through its actions in multiple tissues, including fat, skeletal muscle, pancreas, and liver. THR-α and THR-β are nuclear receptors widely expressed in the body, but the two different isoforms are differentially expressed in different tissue types. THR-β is the major form of thyroid hormone receptor in the liver and regulates key aspects of energy metabolism, including fatty acid and lipid synthesis and removal of liver fat through induction of fatty acid oxidation. THR-α is the major form of thyroid hormone receptor in cardiac muscle, skeletal muscle and bone. Selective agonism of THR -β in the liver has been identified as a target for NASH and validated in clinical trials on the basis of its potential to improve hepatic steatosis and lipid profiles in NASH patients.

Clinical validation of THR-β agonism

Data from other NASH clinical studies validate the potential of THR-β agonism as a NASH treatment (the data from other NASH clinical studies described in this paragraph are from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Phase 2 Study of MGL-3196 and Viking Therapeutics, Inc.’s Phase 2 Study of VK2809). In these clinical studies, two different THR-β agonists showed significant reductions in liver fat measured by MRI-PDFF, as well as reduction in lipid levels in serum, which may offer additional benefits to NASH patients who are at high risk of cardiovascular comorbidities. One of these clinical trials correlated reductions in liver fat measured by MRI-PDFF with histological responses including NAS reduction, NASH resolution and fibrosis resolution. In addition, this same clinical trial showed increases in sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), a key pharmacodynamic marker of THR-β engagement, are correlated with significant reductions in MRI-PDFF and NAS reduction. These types of histological responses may be suitable for accelerated approval under current draft guidance from the FDA titled “Noncirrhotic Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis With Liver Fibrosis: Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry.”

23

THR-β regulates key aspects of energy metabolism (e.g., fatty acid & lipid synthesis, liver fat removal through fatty acid oxidation)

Limitations of THR-β targeting

For THR agonists, a key safety concern is the potential for adverse effects from off-target thyroid hormone receptor stimulation that may stem from either lack of selectivity for THR-β or high variations in pharmacokinetics due to the lack of metabolic stability. Selectivity for THR-β over THR-α is key to modulating the metabolic activities in the liver without triggering the unwanted effects of THR-α activation outside of the liver. Stimulation of THR-α can adversely affect the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal system through increases in heart rate, cardiac arrhythmias, muscle wasting, and reduced bone mineral density. Therefore, the identification of a selective THR-β agonist particularly with enhanced liver distribution, would have the potential to improve hepatic steatosis and serum lipid profiles while potentially avoiding adverse effects of THR-α activation. However, the use of a liver-targeted pro-drug approach to overcome THR selectivity has not completely avoided cardiac adverse events in clinical trials.

In addition to THR-β selectivity, metabolic stability and predictable pharmacokinetics are important considerations in the development of thyroid hormone activators. In a Phase 2 clinical trial of another selective THR-β agonist, lack of metabolic stability resulted in significant inter-patient variability in drug exposure that required PK monitoring and dose adjustments. Dose adjustments in widespread clinical practice present potential challenges in terms of patient compliance, safety monitoring and additional burden on the healthcare system. Additionally, highly variable pharmacokinetics and unpredictable drug concentrations would hinder the potential for combination treatment in NASH patients.

24

Our solution for THR-β agonism: high THR-β-selectivity and improved metabolic stability

TERN-501 was selected over other discovery candidates because of its high selectivity for THR-β over THR-α, its improved metabolic stability and its enhanced liver-distribution, all of which are characteristics that are intended to improve efficacy and safety in NASH patients. TERN-501 has a similar structural backbone to other THR-β agonists in late stage development that are selective for THR-β. Furthermore, the TERN-501 chemical structure incorporates certain changes designed to enhance metabolic and pharmacokinetic stability, thereby limiting the need for individualized dose adjustments implemented in studies with other THR-β agonists. In a head-to-head comparison, TERN-501 has shown a 23-fold selectivity for THR-β over THR-α stimulation in a cell-free assay, which is higher than the selectivity for two other THR agonists currently in development. TERN-501 is not a pro-drug and does not rely on a metabolic process to make it pharmacologically active. The following chart illustrates the selectivity of TERN-501 as compared to a reference drug and the active metabolite of a pro-drug in clinical development for NASH.

TERN-501 demonstrates higher selectivity for THR-β over THR-α

Non-clinical tissue distribution studies show that TERN-501 demonstrates enhanced liver distribution relative to plasma and other organs. From non-clinical studies, TERN-501 is projected to have a predictable human PK profile due to its improved metabolic stability. Due to its metabolic stability, we believe that TERN-501 is unlikely to require PK monitoring and individualized clinical dose adjustment in NASH patients, as was done in a certain clinical trial of another THR-β agonist in development that lacks metabolic stability and has variable PK in humans. As a result, TERN-501 may not have the potential challenges associated with monitoring and dose adjustment in clinical practice, including patient compliance, safety monitoring and additional burden on the healthcare system. Further, TERN-501 is projected to have a low clinically efficacious dose range which, along with its metabolic stability, makes it attractive for long-term NASH treatment and for co-formulation as part of a fixed-dose combination.

Clinical development of TERN-501

In November 2021, we announced positive top-line data from a Phase 1 clinical trial of TERN-501 in healthy volunteers with mildly elevated LDL cholesterol. Following the Phase 1 clinical trial, we plan to initiate a Phase 2a clinical trial in NASH patients including both monotherapy and combination arms of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in the first half of 2022 with top-line data expected in the second half of 2023.

25

The Phase 1 clinical trial of TERN-501 included SAD, MAD and drug-drug interaction, or DDI, cohorts evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of TERN-501. Healthy volunteers with mildly elevated LDL cholesterol were randomized to placebo (n=2) or TERN-501 (n=6) in each cohort. Volunteers randomized to TERN-501 received single doses of 3, 10, 30 or 60 mg of TERN-501 in the SAD portion of the study or multiple doses of 1, 3, 6 or 10 mg of TERN-501 once daily for 14 days in the MAD portion of the study. In the DDI portion of the study, volunteers received open label TERN-501 co-administered with TERN-101, our liver-distributed FXR agonist also in development for the treatment of NASH.

In the SAD and MAD cohorts, single and multiple doses of TERN-501 were generally well-tolerated with a similar incidence of AEs across all TERN-501 treatment groups and placebo. All AEs were mild to moderate with no apparent dose relationship, with no treatment-emergent serious AEs and no discontinuations of study or study drug due to any AE. There were no cardiac safety signals, no incidence of diarrhea and no differences between TERN-501 groups and placebo in change from baseline in heart rate, blood pressure or other vital signs. Thyroid function test results were consistent with THR-β agonists currently in clinical development, and there were no findings of clinical hyper- or hypo-thyroidism. There were no differences between placebo and any TERN-501 dose group in liver function abnormalities or mean change from baseline in liver transaminases at Day 15 in the MAD cohorts.

TERN-501 demonstrated a predictable pharmacokinetic profile with low variability: study drug plasma exposures were linear and approximately dose-proportional with no overlap between dose strengths. There was no significant accumulation of drug over 14 days of dosing. TERN-501 plasma half-life was greater than 13 hours in all single and repeat dose cohorts, supporting once-daily dosing. The overall PK profile indicates TERN-501 is well-suited for co-formulation with other small-molecule NASH agents as an oral, once-daily fixed dose combination.

Significant effects on sex hormone binding globulin, or SHBG, a key PD marker of THR-β engagement linked to NASH histologic efficacy, were observed following treatment with TERN-501. As further described in the table below, SHBG increases observed with 14 days of TERN-501 treatment were significant, dose dependent, and have been associated with robust reductions in MRI-PDFF and NAFLD Activity Score in a precedent late-stage clinical NASH trial.

In addition, significant reductions were observed in atherogenic lipids including LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B, or Apo-B, comparable to or greater than those observed in Phase 1 studies of other THR-β agonists being studied in late-stage clinical trials. All TERN-501 dose groups demonstrated significant decreases in LDL cholesterol compared to placebo during the dosing period. The maximum mean LDL cholesterol decreases over the treatment period were -13%, -22%, -28% and -27% for 1, 3, 6 and 10 mg doses, respectively, compared to placebo (-8%).

The PD results from these MAD cohorts are summarized below:

Note: Day 15 represents 24 hours following the last dose of TERN-501

* p-value vs. placebo: <0.05

26

In the SAD cohorts, single doses of TERN-501 up to 60 mg resulted in significant and dose-dependent reductions in Apo-B and LDL cholesterol and significant increases in SHBG relative to placebo. In the DDI cohort, the combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 was well-tolerated. Preliminary PK results support the co-administration of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in NASH patients, with no apparent need for dose adjustment.

NASH Combination Therapy Programs

Several prior clinical trials evaluating single-agent therapies for NASH have shown only moderate histological improvements and exhibited tolerability issues with some of these agents at high doses. We believe developing combination therapies that target multiple mechanistic pathways and improve the overall metabolic profile of NASH patients will drive improved outcomes for NASH patients while mitigating potential tolerability concerns and improving compliance as compared with monotherapy regimens. We are well-positioned to develop multiple combination therapies for NASH with our extensive experience in combination drug development and the ability to leverage from within our pipeline of wholly owned single-agents that we believe are attractive candidates for combination development. We are focused on developing combination therapies with clinically-validated mechanisms of action to address the multifaceted nature of NASH, while improving the overall metabolic profile of patients. We believe that therapies targeting steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis in tandem, have the potential to provide greater resolution of NASH and improvement in related clinical outcomes. Given the strength of our internal resources and capabilities, we have the flexibility to independently advance our combination therapies without the need for a co-development partner at this time.

Preclinical data for combination therapies

We believe that a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 has the potential for improved therapeutic benefit for NASH patients. As a liver-distributed FXR agonist, TERN-101 is expected to have effects on multiple facets of NASH, including potential improvements in steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. TERN-501 is a THR-β agonist that is expected to potently and rapidly reduce hepatic steatosis and normalize plasma lipid parameters through the modulation of metabolic pathways that are distinct from those modulated by liver FXR activation. A combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 would therefore be expected to significantly reduce steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis in NASH patients through their complementary effects without the need to use maximal dose levels of either agent. The combination may also result in a positive serum lipid profile since TERN-501 is expected to reduce LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels in NASH patients where FXR agonists have generally not demonstrated potentially therapeutic decreases in plasma cholesterol or triglycerides.

As seen in the charts below, the combination of the FXR agonist TERN-101 and the THR-β agonist TERN-501 showed robust efficacy in an in vivo mouse model of NASH by profoundly reducing steatosis and significantly improving fibrosis, serum triglycerides, serum total cholesterol and ALT. The combination treatment of TERN-101 and TERN-501 also resulted in the expression of more than 800 additional distinct genes as compared to either agent alone, supporting our hypothesis that additional biological processes are activated by combination treatment. Together these results suggest that the combination of the FXR agonist TERN-101 and the THR-β agonist TERN-501 may provide additional benefits for NASH patients than either treatment alone.

27

Combination of TERN-101 + TERN-501 demonstrates improvements in liver histology and serum biomarkers in an in vivo NASH mouse model

Figure: Data from a NASH mouse model. TERN-101 dose 3 mg/kg; TERN-501 dose 1 mg/kg. Liver steatosis (upper left), inflammation (upper middle) and fibrosis (upper right) were quantified by histological analysis for degree of steatosis, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis. Serum was collected at termination and analyzed for triglycerides, or TG (lower left), total cholesterol, or TC, (lower middle) and a biomarker of liver damage, alanine aminotransferase, or ALT (lower right). Data for individual animals (dots) and mean (dashed line) are presented; **p <0.01, ***p <0.001, ****p <0.

We are also evaluating the potential to combine our VAP-1 inhibitor, TERN-201, with a metabolically active NASH treatment. We believe the anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects, sustained target engagement, VAP-1 selectivity and anticipated low therapeutic dose of TERN-201 make it suitable for co-administration with therapies directed at steatosis and other metabolic processes involved in NASH. For example, the combination of our FXR agonist TERN-101 and TERN-201 demonstrated histological improvements in inflammation and GGT, a biomarker of hepatic oxidative stress, in an in vivo rodent model of NASH.

28

Clinical development plan for NASH combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501

Our approach for developing a differentiated NASH combination regimen is to discover and develop promising drug candidates targeting clinically-validated mechanisms of action, advance them first as monotherapies to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers and subsequently conduct Phase 1b or 2a trials to assess safety in NASH patients and potentially efficacious dose ranges using known non-invasive biomarkers of efficacy for these mechanisms of action. Subsequently, we intend to proceed to Phase 2a studies with the coadministration of two or more complimentary mechanisms of action—such as the FXR agonist TERN-101 and the THR-β agonist TERN-501—to assess the potential for combinations to generate additive or synergistic effects on these same non-invasive biomarkers relative to monotherapy and inform dose selection for later phase studies of the agents in combination. We then plan to proceed to longer duration Phase 2b and Phase 3 trials that can evaluate our individual monotherapies as well as promising combinations within the same trials to confirm treatment effects using surrogate endpoints. We believe this approach maximizes the chance of achieving higher NASH response rates compared to treatment approaches that rely exclusively on single-agent therapeutics and creates efficiencies through the evaluation of our individual monotherapies and combination treatments, allowing us to proceed to marketing authorization applications for those single-agent drug candidates and combination therapies that offer the clearest advantages to patients.

Background on Obesity

Obesity is a chronic disease that is increasing in prevalence in adults, adolescents and children and is often defined by having an elevated body mass index (BMI). Mechanisms that contribute to increased weight include sedentary lifestyles, increased calorie intake and medications such as insulins and antipsychotics. Insulin resistance, a hallmark of metabolic syndrome, also plays a key role in obesity.

Obesity is major health epidemic that has been declared a disease by the American Medical Association and affects populations worldwide. The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) estimates that nearly 93 million Americans struggle with obesity, and it is predicted to increase to 120 million Americans within the next five years. In addition, the U.S. Center for Disease Control, or CDC, estimates that 42 percent of adults over the age of 20 years old are obese.

According to the OAC, there are over 40 medical conditions associated with obesity. The most prevalent obesity-related diseases include heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, gallbladder disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, some forms of cancer, sleep apnea or respiratory problems and a variety of other conditions. According to the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy, the aggregate medical cost due to obesity among adults in the United States was $260.0 billion in 2016. A prior study examining the future health care costs attributable to obesity projected these annual expenditures to double every decade to approximately $780 billion by 2030, representing 14% of total United States health care costs. As a result, public and private stakeholders worldwide are taking steps to address obesity.

Despite the rising obesity rate, increased public awareness of the obesity epidemic and significant pharmacoeconomic costs associated with obesity, there remains an unmet need for safe and effective pharmacological interventions. While nearly half of Americans meet the criteria for medical obesity pharmacotherapy, only 2% of adults receive medications for weight loss. Barriers to adequately prescribing weight loss medications may include inadequate training to prescribing such medications, misconceptions that excess body weight is due to lack of willpower, or that obesity is not a disease that should be treated with medications and surgery, even when indicated. We believe that the obesity epidemic continues to be a significant cause of morbidity, mortality and rising health care costs in the United States and represents an underserved therapeutic category for obesity patients.

Treatment for Obesity

Treatments for obesity include lifestyle modification (diet and exercise), pharmaceutical therapies, surgery and device implantation. Modifications to diet and exercise are the preferred initial treatment for obesity. However, demands of sustained lifestyle modification for long periods of time tends to lead to attrition, often resulting in regained weight. When lifestyle modification alone has failed, pharmaceutical therapies are generally recommended.

29

The global pharmaceutical market for obesity was approximately $1 billion in 2020. With the recent launch of semaglutide for the treatment of obesity in 2021, the obesity market is expected to grow beyond $5 billion by 2025. Longer term estimates forecast the worldwide obesity market to exceed $27 billion by 2031, with the anticipated launches of tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptor dual agonist, and other novel injectable compounds. Several older approved agents, including amphetamine-like compounds such as naltrexone-bupropion and phentermine-topiramate, are indicated for short-term administration and not expected to contribute significantly to the obesity market.

TERN-601 - a pre-clinical oral GLP-1 for obesity and NASH

Drug Candidate Summary

TERN-601 is an oral, small-molecule glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonist. Internal discovery of TERN-601 was driven by computational interaction mapping, chemical synthesis and in vitro characterization of approximately 100 GLP-1R agonist compounds. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we nominated TERN-601 as our GLP-1R agonist development candidate for obesity and NASH. We plan to engage in IND-enabling activities for TERN-601 with the goal of initiating a first-in-human clinical trial in 2023.

GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity and NASH

GLP-1R agonists are intended to address metabolic processes involved in the pathogenesis of obesity, NAFLD, NASH and other metabolic indications. Mechanisms that contribute to increased weight include sedentary lifestyles, increased calorie intake and medications such as insulins and antipsychotics. Insulin resistance, a hallmark of metabolic syndrome, also plays a key role in obesity. The natural endogenous ligand GLP-1 promotes insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells in a glucose-dependent-manner following food ingestion. GLP-1 has also been shown to reduce glucagon secretion in the liver, slow gastric emptying in the gut, create a sense of satiety in the brain, reduce inflammation and improve cardiac function. As a result, synthetic GLP-1 peptides have been approved for obesity and diabetes, which are conditions often accompanying NASH.

Clinical validation of GLP-1 receptor agonists

The recently approved once-weekly injection of semaglutide for chronic weight management demonstrated an average weight loss of approximately 15% at 68 weeks when used with a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity. Study participants also experienced improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar. Semaglutide also had positive effects on LDL and total cholesterol levels, although benefits were limited primarily to triglyceride reductions.

Activation of the GLP-1 pathway has shown to be effective in driving NASH resolution in recent studies. In a 72-week Phase 2 trial of once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide, 320 biopsy-confirmed NASH patients were randomized to receive 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, 0.4 mg semaglutide or placebo. The percentage of patients achieving NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was 40%, 36% and 59% in the 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg, and 0.4 mg group, respectively, compared to 17% in the placebo group. The mean percentage weight loss was 13% in the 0.4 mg group compared to 1% in the placebo group. The Phase 2 trial showed treatment with semaglutide resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients achieving NASH resolution compared to placebo. A meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of NAFLD or NASH was published in Metabolites in 2021. The systemic review assessed 11 placebo- or active-controlled Phase 2 clinical trials that used GLP-1 receptor agonists including liraglutide, exenatide, dulaglutide or semaglutide for the treatment of NAFLD or NASH. Compared to placebo or reference therapy, treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists for a median of 26 weeks was associated with significant reductions in the absolute percentage of liver fat content on magnetic resonance-based techniques (pooled weighted mean difference: −3.9%) and serum liver enzyme levels, as well as with greater histological resolution of NASH without worsening of liver fibrosis (pooled random-effects odds ratio 4.1). Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a promising treatment option for NAFLD or NASH warranting further investigation.

30

The development landscape for GLP-1 compounds is varied, including single agonists, multi-agonists, an agonist-antagonist combination, and can be generally grouped by route of administration. Injectable candidates under development may target GLP-1 and glucagon (ALT-801, BI 456906, cotadutide, and efinopegdutide), GLP-1 and GIP (tirzepatide), GLP-1 agonism and GIP antagonism (AMG 133) or GLP, GIP and glucagon (LY3437943), amongst others. Oral development candidates singly targeting GLP-1 and include LY3502970, danuglipron, PF-07081532 and semaglutide tablets, amongst others.

Limitations of GLP-1 receptor agonists

Approved agents are synthetic peptides and potentially require higher doses administered by frequent subcutaneous injections for the potential treatment of obesity and NASH. The injectable route of administration is likely to limit their use in obesity and NASH patients, particularly if efficacious oral treatments become available. Although an oral GLP-1 peptide formulation is available for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, it requires high doses, is associated with adverse effects and lacks NASH efficacy data. A non-peptidic small-molecule oral GLP-1 receptor agonist may offer advantages over currently available peptide GLP-1R agonists that have been studied for the treatment of obesity and NASH.

Our solution for GLP-1 receptor agonists

Our GLP-1R program has identified several potentially suitable small-molecule scaffolds. We have optimized these series of compounds and identified structures that are suitable for oral administration, once-daily dosing, and combination or coformulation with other NASH drug candidates within our pipeline. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we nominated a development candidate for our GLP-1R program, designated as TERN-601, and plan to engage in IND-enabling activities for TERN-601 with the goal of initiating a first-in-human clinical trial in 2023.

Other Pipeline Candidate(s)

TRN-000632 is a potent, allosteric BCR-ABL inhibitor targeting the ABL myristoyl pocket that is in development for chronic myeloid leukemia, or CML. In October 2021, Novartis’ asciminib became the first FDA-approved CML treatment that works by binding to the ABL myristoyl pocket. However, in the Phase 3 CML trial of asciminib, over half of patients experienced Grade 3 or greater adverse events, with approximately one third of patients experiencing AEs leading to dose interruption or adjustment. The main efficacy outcome measure, major molecular response (MMR) after 24 weeks of treatment, was achieved in 25.5% of asciminib patients. Based on preclinical studies, we believe TRN-000632 may have superior anti-tumor activity and improved PK properties when compared to asciminib. We out-licensed TRN-000632 to Hansoh Pharmaceuticals for development in the greater China region, while retaining all rights worldwide outside of greater China. TRN-000632 is referred to by Hansoh Pharmaceuticals as HS-10382. In January 2022, the National Medical Products Administration of the People’s Republic of China granted a clinical trial notice (equivalent to an IND in the United States) for TRN-000632 in CML. We intend to explore strategic and partnership options for the development and commercialization of TRN-000632 outside of Greater China.

Manufacturing and supply

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of our drug candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party contract manufacturers for manufacturing all our drug candidates for preclinical research and clinical trials. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these third parties.

If any of our drug candidates are approved by any regulatory agency, we intend to enter into agreements with a third-party contract manufacturer and one or more back-up manufacturers for the commercial production of those drugs. Development and commercial quantities of any drugs that we develop will need to be manufactured in facilities, and by processes, that comply with the requirements of the FDA and the regulatory agencies of other jurisdictions in which we are seeking approval.

31

Sales and Marketing

Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization. We intend to establish a targeted commercial infrastructure in key geographies at the appropriate time prior to regulatory approval of our single-agent drugs and fixed-dose combination therapies. We expect to manage sales, marketing and distribution through internal resources and third-party relationships.

In addition, we will opportunistically explore commercialization partnerships in territories outside the United States. As our drug candidates progress through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. Clinical data, the size of the development programs, the size of our target markets, the size of a commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence our commercialization strategies.

Competition

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We believe that our pipeline, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages. However, we face potential worldwide competition from many different sources, including large multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, and smaller or earlier stage biotechnology companies. In addition, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private organizations conducting research may seek patent protection with respect to potentially competitive products or technologies. Given the high incidence of NASH and obesity, it is likely that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies for the treatment of liver metabolic diseases, including NASH and obesity, will increase.

We are aware of both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development programs in NASH. Large pharmaceutical companies that have recently participated in or are participating in the development of NASH treatments include, but are not limited to, AbbVie, Inc., Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca PLC/MedImmune LLC, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eisai, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Roche Holding AG, Sanofi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

We are also aware of both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development programs in obesity. Large pharmaceutical companies that have recently participated in or are participating in the development of obesity treatments include, but are not limited to, Amgen, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Eli Lilly and Co., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Johnson & Johnson, LG Chem, Ltd., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc. and Shionogi & Co. Ltd.

In relation to TERN-101, companies who have recently conducted or are currently conducting clinical trials with FXR agonists in the context of NASH include AbbVie, Inc., Ascletis Pharma, Inc., Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ENYO Pharma SA, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Hepagene Therapeutics, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metacrine, Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

TERN-201, our VAP-1 inhibitor, is a relatively novel mechanism for the treatment of NASH, and thus has little competition we are aware of. The companies who have recently engaged in the development of or are currently developing a VAP-1 inhibitor with NASH as a lead indication are Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, LG Chem Ltd. and Novo Nordisk A/S.

With regards to TERN-501, companies who have recently conducted or are currently conducting clinical trials targeting THR-β in the context of NASH include Ascletis Pharma Inc., Aligos Therapeutics, Inc., Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Viking Therapeutics, Inc.

32

In relation to TERN-601, companies who have recently conducted or are currently conducting clinical trials targeting GLP-1 or combinations with GLP-1 in the context of obesity, NASH, Type 2 diabetes or other metabolic syndromes include 9 Meters Biopharma, Inc., Amgen Inc., Altimmune, AstraZeneca plc, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., CinRx Pharma, Cyrus Therapeutics, Inc., D&D Pharmatech, Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., ImmunoForge, Co. Ltd., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Invex Therapeutics Inc., Longevity Biotech Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Opko Health, Oramed Pharmaceuticals, PegBio Co Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Pharmaxis, Regor Therapeutics Group, Sanofi, Sciwind Biosciences Co., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Viking Therapeutics, Inc., vTv Therapeutics Inc. and Zealand Pharma A/S.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who have recently engaged in the development of or are developing clinical-stage drugs to treat NASH or obesity using mechanisms not mentioned above include 89Bio, Inc., Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc., Akero Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella Health, Inc., Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Cirius Therapeutics, Inc., CohBar, Inc., Coherus Biosciences Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Currax Pharmaceuticals LLC, CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., CytoDyne Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Gila Therapeutics, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Inventiva Pharma SA, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Norgine B.V., NorthSea Therapeutics, Inc., Pliant Therapeutics, Inc., Poxel SA, Saniona AB, Sagimet Biosciences, Inc., T3D Therapeutics, Inc., Vivus, Inc., and Zydus Cadila Healthcare.

Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, human and other resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market technologically superior products. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking preclinical studies and human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products and in obtaining regulatory approvals of human therapeutic products. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA approval for superior products. Many of our competitors have established distribution channels for the commercialization of their products, whereas we have no such channel or capabilities. In addition, many competitors have greater name recognition and more extensive collaborative relationships. Smaller and earlier-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

Although we believe our drug and combination therapy candidate programs possess appealing attributes, we cannot guarantee that our products will achieve regulatory or market success. Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we do, or obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our drug candidate or any future drug candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used, and less costly, or have a better tolerability profile than our drugs. These competitors may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their products. Should we not be able to compete with the aforementioned companies or others, it may hinder our ability to bring our product to market as planned.

Intellectual Property

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our drug candidates and our discovery programs, processes and know-how are important to our business. For our patent portfolio for pipeline drug candidates, we seek to pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter and methods of use and manufacture. Our policy is to pursue, maintain, defend and enforce patent rights in strategic areas, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties, and to protect the technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, confidential information and other proprietary know-how that may be important to the development of our business.

33

As of February 4, 2022, our owned and exclusively licensed patent portfolio includes:

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection of our current and future drug candidates, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our drugs depends in large part on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities. We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our owned or licensed pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed or licensed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to, or licensed by, us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our drug candidates, discovery programs and processes. Moreover, we cannot be sure that any of our owned or licensed patents will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology.

34

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, the patent term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug, in certain cases, may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term extension as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits such patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent, but patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension may be extended and the amount of available extension to any extension-eligible patent which claims a product, a method of using a product or a method of manufacturing a product, depends on a variety of factors, including the date on which the patent issues and certain dates related to the regulatory review period. Provisions are available in Europe and some other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our drugs receive FDA or analogous foreign approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those drugs from the applicable authorities where patent term extension is available, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. There is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trademark registration, trade secrets, know how, other proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information of our business that is not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We take steps to protect our proprietary information, including trade secrets and unpatented know-how, by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors. However, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Moreover, third parties may still obtain this proprietary information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that information to compete with us. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets and know how the value of this information may be greatly reduced, and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent or other intellectual property or other proprietary right would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or any of our drug candidates or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or our failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights required to develop or commercialize our future drugs may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. For more information regarding the risks related to intellectual property, please see Item 1A. “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

35

Licensing and Other Intellectual Property-Related Agreements

TERN-101 License Agreement with Eli Lilly

In February 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Eli Lilly, or the TERN-101 License Agreement, pursuant to which we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable (subject to certain conditions), royalty-bearing license under certain intellectual property rights, including patents applications filed in both the United States and foreign jurisdictions claiming the composition of the compound Eli Lilly has designated as LY2562175 and methods of using the same and certain know-how related to the manufacture of LY2562175 owned or controlled by Eli Lilly to develop, manufacture and commercialize therapeutic products containing LY2562175, or TERN-101 Products, for all uses and indications in humans. Eli Lilly also has the right, on a country-by-country and TERN-101 Product-by-TERN-101 Product basis, to negotiate an agreement governing the co-promotion of TERN-101 Products if we, or our sublicensees, decide to commercialize a TERN-101 Product in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan.

Pursuant to the terms of the TERN-101 License Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, apply for regulatory approval of and commercialize TERN-101 Products in the People’s Republic of China. In addition, Eli Lilly provided us, at its expense, certain support in connection with the transfer of the licensed materials.

As consideration for the exclusive license, we are required to pay Eli Lilly up to an aggregate of $56 million upon the achievement of pre-specified clinical, regulatory and commercial milestone events for TERN-101 Products. No such milestones have been achieved to date under the TERN-101 License Agreement.

We are also required to pay tiered royalties calculated on a calendar year basis, ranging from mid-single digit to mid teen percentages, on annual net sales of TERN-101 Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on certain generic competition to a TERN-101 Product and amounts paid to any third party under a necessary license to such third party’s patent rights in order to develop, manufacture, commercialize or use a TERN-101 Product. The royalty term will terminate on a country-by-country, TERN-101 Product-by-TERN-101 Product basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights infringed by the sale of such TERN-101 Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such TERN-101 Product in such country, and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such TERN-101 Product in such country.

Any intellectual property or inventions developed solely by either party in connection with activities conducted pursuant to the TERN-101 License Agreement shall be owned solely by that party, and any jointly-developed intellectual property or inventions shall be jointly owned (although no joint development activities are anticipated). We have the sole responsibility to prosecute and maintain and the first right (but no obligation) to defend and enforce certain patents licensed under the TERN-101 License Agreement, including any patents that are solely and directly related to LY2562175 or TERN-101 Products.

The TERN-101 License Agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for the TERN-101 Products on a country-by-country basis. Upon expiration of the TERN-101 License Agreement, the license granted to us shall be considered fully paid-up, irrevocable, perpetual and non-exclusive. Either we or Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-101 License Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement or defaults in the performance thereunder and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. We may terminate the TERN-101 License Agreement in its entirety or on a country-by-country and TERN-101 Product-by-TERN-101 Product basis upon 180 days’ prior written notice. Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-101 License Agreement if we, our affiliates or our sublicensees challenge the licensed patents or if we assist any third party in challenging such patents.

36

TERN-201 License Agreement with Eli Lilly

In March 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Eli Lilly, or the TERN-201 License Agreement, pursuant to which we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable (subject to certain conditions), royalty-bearing license under certain intellectual property rights, including patents applications filed in both the United States and foreign jurisdictions claiming the composition of the compound Eli Lilly has designated as LY3379274, and methods of using the same and certain know-how related to the manufacture of LY3379274 owned or controlled by Eli Lilly to develop, manufacture, and commercialize therapeutic products containing LY3379274, or TERN-201 Products, for all uses and indications in humans. Eli Lilly has a right of first negotiation to negotiate an agreement covering the commercialization of any TERN-201 Product before we negotiate the same with a third party. Eli Lilly also has the right, on a country-by-country and TERN-201 Product-by- TERN-201 Product basis, to negotiate an agreement governing the co-promotion of TERN-201 Products if we, or our sublicensees, decide to commercialize a TERN-201 Product in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan.

Pursuant to the terms of the TERN-201 License Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, apply for regulatory approval of and commercialize TERN-201 Products in the People’s Republic of China, the United States, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. In addition, Eli Lilly provided us, at its expense, certain support in connection with the transfer of the licensed materials.

As initial consideration for the license under the TERN-201 License Agreement, we paid Eli Lilly a non-refundable, upfront payment of $4 million. As additional consideration for the exclusive license, we are required to pay Eli Lilly up to an aggregate of $104 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestone events for TERN-201 Products. No such milestones have been achieved to date under the TERN-201 License Agreement.

We are also required to pay tiered royalties, ranging from mid-single digit to mid-teen percentages, on annual net sales of TERN-201 Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on certain generic competition to a TERN-201 Product and amounts paid to any third party under a necessary license to such third party’s patent rights in order to develop, manufacture, commercialize or use a TERN-201 Product. The royalty term will terminate on a country-by-country, TERN-201 Product-by-TERN-201 Product basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights infringed by the sale of such TERN-201 Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such TERN-201 Product in such country, and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such TERN-201 Product in such country.

Any intellectual property or inventions developed solely by either party in connection with activities conducted pursuant to the TERN-201 License Agreement shall be owned solely by that party, and any jointly-developed intellectual property or inventions shall be jointly owned (although no joint development activities are anticipated). We have the sole responsibility to prosecute and maintain and the first right (but no obligation) to defend and enforce certain patents licensed under the TERN-201 License Agreement, including any patents that are solely and directly related to LY3379274 or TERN-201 Products.

The TERN-201 License Agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for the TERN-201 Products on a country-by-country basis. Upon expiration of the TERN-201 License Agreement, the license granted to us shall be considered fully paid-up, irrevocable, perpetual and non-exclusive. Either we or Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-201 License Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement or defaults in the performance thereunder and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. We may terminate the TERN-201 License Agreement in its entirety or on a country-by-country and TERN-201 Product-by-TERN-201 Product basis upon 180 days prior written notice. Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-201 License Agreement if we, our affiliates or our sublicensees challenge the licensed patents or if we assist any third party in challenging such patents.

37

THR-β Agonist Assignment Agreement with Vintagence Biotechnology Ltd.

In June 2019, we entered into an assignment agreement with Vintagence Biotechnology Ltd., or Vintagence, pursuant to which Vintagence assigned to us certain worldwide intellectual property rights and know-how directed to THR-β agonists. In particular, we have been assigned all rights, title and interest in and to a Chinese patent application and any patents or patent applications resulting or derived therefrom in any country, know-how, and potentially certain other patents or patent applications relating to our THR-β program. We are also entitled to license the rights granted to us under the assignment agreement to our affiliates, licensees or contractors. We will be responsible for all regulatory activities, including the obtaining of regulatory approvals for a product. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a product based on the assigned intellectual property in each of several major market territories.

During the term of the assignment agreement, Vintagence and its affiliates may not develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit any compound covered by any of the assigned patent rights. In the event Vintagence develops a THR-β agonist not covered by the assigned patent rights, we will have the first right (but no obligation) to negotiate an assignment or license to exclusively develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit such agonist worldwide.

As initial consideration for the assignment, we paid Vintagence an upfront payment of CNY 5 million ($0.7 million). As additional consideration, we are required to pay Vintagence up to an aggregate of CNY 205 million (approximately $32 million) upon the achievement of specified developmental, clinical and regulatory milestone events with respect to products covered by the agreement.

We have the sole responsibility and decision-making authority to prosecute the assigned patents. However, if we decline to pay the prosecution costs for any assigned patent, Vintagence shall have the right to prosecute such assigned patent. If Vintagence takes over prosecution of such assigned patent, we must assign such assigned patent back to Vintagence. We also have the first right (but no obligation) to enforce the assigned patents and know-how. If we do not take any steps to enforce any of the assigned patents or know-how against any infringing third party, Vintagence has the right to take any actions necessary to abate such infringement.

The assignment agreement will continue on a country-by-country basis until we have paid all milestone payments. We may terminate the assignment agreement in its entirety or on a covered product-by-covered product and country-by-country basis without cause with 60 days’ prior written notice. Either party may terminate the assignment agreement for the other party’s material breach that remains uncured for 90 days or for the other party’s bankruptcy, insolvency or similar arrangement for the benefit of creditors. If we terminate the assignment agreement without cause or if Vintagence terminates the assignment agreement for our uncured material breach, we must transfer the assigned intellectual property back to Vintagence.

TRN-000632 Exclusive Option and License Agreement with Hansoh Pharmaceuticals

In July 2020, we, along with our subsidiaries, CaspianTern LLC and Terns, Inc., entered into an exclusive option and license agreement with Hansoh pursuant to which we granted an exclusive option to Hansoh to obtain an exclusive, sub-licensable and royalty-bearing license under certain patent and other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by us, including patents claiming the composition of TRN-000632, our small-molecule allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL fusion gene, and methods of using the same, to research, develop, manufacture, use, distribute, sell and otherwise exploit therapeutic products containing TRN-000632, or Hansoh Products, for all prophylactic, palliative, therapeutic and/or diagnostic uses in human diseases and disorders in the field of oncology in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, or the Hansoh Territory. In November 2021, Hansoh exercised its option to in-license TRN-000632 in accordance with the terms of the exclusive option and license agreement. We retain co-exclusive rights under certain know-how licensed to Hansoh and all rights under the patent rights outside of the field of oncology and Hansoh Territory. At our request, the parties will enter into a manufacturing and technology transfer agreement under which Hansoh will provide technical assistance and support related to the manufacture of Hansoh Products containing TRN-000632 as the sole active ingredient, at our cost. Pursuant to the terms of the option and license agreement, Hansoh must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a Hansoh Product in the Hansoh Territory and Hansoh may not exploit any other product in the Hansoh Territory with the same primary mechanism of action as the Hansoh Products.

38

As consideration for the exclusive option, we received an upfront, refundable payment of $1 million, which became non-refundable upon Hansoh’s exercise of its option in November 2021. Under the license, Hansoh has agreed to pay us up to an aggregate of $67.0 million upon the achievement of pre-specified clinical, regulatory and sales milestones with respect to the Hansoh Products. No such milestones have been achieved to date under this option and license agreement. Hansoh must also pay us royalties of a mid-single digit percentage on net sales of all Hansoh Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on generic competition to the Hansoh Products and royalties paid to any third party under a license to such third party’s rights necessary to commercialize a Hansoh Product. The royalty term will terminate on a Hansoh Product-by-Hansoh Product and country-by-country basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights covering such Hansoh Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such Hansoh Product in such country, and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such Hansoh Product in such country.

Intellectual property developed out of the activities under this option and license agreement, and that is necessary or useful to exploit TRN-000632 or Hansoh Products, solely developed by one party shall be owned by that party, and jointly-developed intellectual property shall be jointly-owned. Hansoh will have the first right to prosecute, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patent rights in the Hansoh Territory.

The option and license agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for the Hansoh Products in the Hansoh Territory. Upon expiration of the option and license agreement, the license under our know-how granted to Hansoh shall be considered fully paid-up, perpetual and co-exclusive. Either we or Hansoh may terminate the option and license agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. Hansoh may terminate the option and license agreement upon 180 days’ prior written notice. Hansoh may also terminate the option and license agreement upon 60 days’ prior written notice if we undergo certain change of control events. If Hansoh terminates the option and license agreement upon such change of control events, we must negotiate with Hansoh the terms of an assignment of our entire right, title and interest in and to TRN-000632 and the Hansoh Products, including all intellectual property rights therein, in the Hansoh Territory and Hansoh shall provide us the fair market value of such assignment.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Among others, the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements on companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our drug and combination therapy candidates. Any drug candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in those foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in the European Union, or EU, are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

39

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

40

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

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

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

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

41

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

While the IND is active, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted. The actual review time may be significantly longer, depending on the complexity of the review, FDA requests for additional information and the sponsor’s submission of additional information.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

42

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional clinical trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may contain limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

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

The FDA may also designate a product candidate as a “Breakthrough Therapy” if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a Fast Track designation or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. An NDA for a product candidate is eligible for priority review if the product candidate has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

43

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

Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our drug and combination therapy candidates as appropriate.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use.

Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

44

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures.

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

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Marketing Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

45

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Foreign Government Regulation

Our product candidates will be subject to similar laws and regulations imposed by jurisdictions outside of the United States, and, in particular, the European Union, or EU, which may include, for instance, applicable clinical trial, marketing authorization and post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in foreign jurisdictions. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Regulations Governing Marketing Authorization of Medicinal Products in the EU

Non-clinical studies and clinical trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new biological substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, or GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU member states, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

46

While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with good manufacturing practice, or GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Marketing Authorization

In order to market our future product candidates in the EU and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate in the EU, we must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

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

47

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed for an unlimited period on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Adaptive pathways

The EMA has adaptive pathways programs which allow for early and progressive patient access to a medicine. The adaptive pathways concept is an approach to medicines approval that aims to improve patients’ access to medicines which have potential to address unmet medical needs. To achieve this goal, several approaches are envisaged: identifying small populations with severe disease where a medicine’s benefit-risk balance could be favorable; making more use of real-world data where appropriate to support clinical trial data; and involving health technology assessment bodies early in development to increase the chance that medicines will be recommended for payment and ultimately covered by national healthcare systems. The adaptive pathways concept applies primarily to treatments in areas of high medical need where it is difficult to collect data via traditional routes and where large clinical trials would unnecessarily expose patients who are unlikely to benefit from the medicine. The approach builds on regulatory processes already in place within the existing EU legal framework. These include: scientific advice; compassionate use; the conditional approval mechanism (for medicines addressing seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases or rare diseases); patient registries and other pharmacovigilance tools that allow collection of real-life data and development of a risk-management plan for each medicine.

The adaptive pathways program does not change the standards for the evaluation of benefits and risks or the requirement to demonstrate a positive benefit-risk balance to obtain MA.

PRIME scheme

In July 2016, the EMA launched the PRIME scheme. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is however not guaranteed. The benefits of a PRIME designation includes the appointment of a rapporteur from the Committee for Medicinal Product candidates for Human Use before submission of an MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify product candidates for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Data and marketing exclusivity

The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving MA, or reference medicinal products qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA 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 EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

48

Post-approval requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAA must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

Failure to comply with the aforementioned EU and member state laws 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 MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims and transparency laws and regulations with respect to drug pricing and payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and individual imprisonment.

49

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.

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

Government Drug Price Reporting

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the 340B drug pricing program, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule program, and other governmental drug pricing programs require participating manufacturers to report certain product and pricing data to the government. Pricing calculations vary among products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by manufacturers, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts, which can change and evolve over time. Manufacturers may be held liable for errors associated with submission of data under these programs, including potential civil monetary penalties per item of falsely reported or misrepresented drug pricing information. Such failure also could be grounds for other sanctions, such as termination from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Further, a growing number of states have enacted drug price transparency laws requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information to certain state agencies and other parties. Many of these laws provide for civil monetary penalties and other enforcement mechanisms if manufacturers are found to have violated requirements.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. By way of example, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented 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; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; creates a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

50

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, the ACA has been challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times since its enactment. While the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA, there may be other efforts to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2030 absent additional congressional action, with the exception of a temporary suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic from May 1, 2020 through July 1, 2021 (with a 1% payment reduction from April 1 to June 30, 2022). Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would introduce substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. If the Build Back Better Act is not enacted, similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation.

In addition, individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and other transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or FTC Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information, and could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. For example, the GDPR imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Employees and Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2021, we had 41 employees, all of whom were full-time, all of whom are engaged in research and development activities, operations, or finance and administration. 14 of our employees hold doctorate degrees (Ph.D., M.D. or Pharm.D.). None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

51

Our key human capital management objectives include, among others: (i) attracting, developing, and retaining a diverse and talented workforce; (ii) providing opportunities for learning, development, career growth, and movement within our company; (iii) evaluating compensation and benefits, and rewarding performance; (iv) investing in physical, emotional, and financial health of team members; (v) obtaining team member feedback; (vi) maintaining and enhancing our culture and mission; and (vii) communicating with our board of directors on a routine basis on key topics. We have implemented and continue to develop many programs designed to achieve these priorities.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands on December 9, 2016. On December 29, 2020, we effected a de-registration under the Cayman Islands Companies Law (2020 Revision) and a domestication under Section 388 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (by means of filing a certificate of domestication with the Secretary of State of Delaware), pursuant to which our jurisdiction of incorporation was changed from the Cayman Islands to the State of Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 1065 East Hillsdale Boulevard, Suite 100, Foster City, California 94404, and our telephone number is (650) 525-5535.

Our website address is www.ternspharma.com. We make available on or through our website certain reports and amendments to those reports that we file with or furnish to the SEC in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. These include our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available on or through our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC. The SEC maintains a site on the worldwide web that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at www.sec.gov.

52

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations and the market value of our common stock.

Summary of Principal Risks Associated with Our Business

53

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

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale. We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, which, together with our limited operating history, makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, and we have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from sales of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in December 2016. We have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. In addition, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

We have had significant operating losses since our inception. Our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 was approximately $50.2 million and $29.4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $182.1 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to develop our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, conduct clinical trials and pursue research and development activities. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

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

Since our inception, we have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in research and development activities. Our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will require additional clinical development, and we intend to conduct additional research and development activities to discover and develop new single-agent and combination therapy candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, all of which will require substantial additional funds. We will continue to expend significant resources for the foreseeable future in connection with these activities. These expenditures will include costs associated with conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing and supply, as well as marketing and selling any drugs approved for sale. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of any preclinical study or clinical trial is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

54

As of December 31, 2021, we had capital resources consisting of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of approximately $166.0 million. We expect our existing capital resources will fund our planned operating expenses into 2024. However, our operating plans may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned through public or private equity offerings or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. Such financing may result in dilution to our stockholders, imposition of burdensome debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

55

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by global economic conditions and the disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to:

We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or single-agent and combination therapy candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own. We do not expect to realize revenue from sales of products or royalties from licensed products in the foreseeable future, if at all, and unless and until our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are clinically tested, approved for commercialization and successfully marketed. To date, we have primarily financed our operations through the sale of equity and debt securities. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to do so through public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities, collaborations or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders. Debt financing, if available, is likely to involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities received any distribution of our corporate assets.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we must prioritize development of certain single-agent and combination therapy candidates and/or certain disease indications, with our current clinical-stage drug candidates focused on NASH. We may expend our limited resources on candidates or indications that do not yield a successful product and fail to capitalize on single-agent and combination therapy candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Our clinical-stage programs are currently focused on developing a portfolio of small-molecule single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH. We seek to maintain a process of prioritization and resource allocation among our programs to maintain a balance between advancing our three clinical-stage programs, TERN-101, TERN-201 and TERN-501, in identified indications and exploring additional indications or mechanisms such as our GLP-1R agonist, TERN-601, which is in preclinical development, as well as developing future single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We also aim to conduct combination trials of our single-agent drug candidates. However, due to the significant resources required for the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we must focus on specific diseases and disease pathways and decide which single-agent and combination therapy candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each such single-agent or combination therapy candidate.

56

Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, development, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular single-agent and combination therapy candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of any viable commercial drug and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, any decision to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain programs may subsequently also prove to be suboptimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the viability or market potential of any of our programs or single-agent and combination therapy candidates or misread trends in NASH or other indications or in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or biotechnology industry, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. As a result, we may fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities, be required to forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other single-agent and combination therapy candidates or other diseases and disease pathways that may later prove to have greater commercial potential than those we choose to pursue, or relinquish valuable rights to such single-agent and combination therapy candidates through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been advantageous for us to invest additional resources to retain development and commercialization rights.

Our business has been and could continue to be adversely affected by the evolving and ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing facilities, concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business operations. The COVID-19 pandemic could adversely affect our operations, as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers or other third parties with whom we conduct business.

Our business has been affected and could in the future be adversely affected by the effects of the COVID-19 global pandemic. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, we may experience ongoing disruptions that could severely impact our business and clinical trials, including:

57

These and other disruptions in our operations and the global economy could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our clinical trials have been, and may in the future be, affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact patient enrollment, visits or continued participation in our ongoing trials, including our Phase 1b AVIATION Trial of TERN-201, and our planned trials, such as our Phase 2a clinical trial of TERN-501 and TERN-101. In particular, some sites have in the past or may in the future pause enrollment to focus on, and direct resources to, COVID-19, while at other sites, patients may choose not to enroll or continue participating in the clinical trial as a result of the pandemic. In addition, patient visits to medical providers in the United States have slowed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people who have serious chronic medical conditions are at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID-19. As a result, potential patients in our ongoing or planned clinical trials may choose to not enroll, not participate in follow-up clinical visits or drop out of the trials as a precaution against contracting COVID-19. Further, some patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupts healthcare services.

We are unable to predict with confidence the duration of such patient enrollment delays and difficulties. If patient enrollment is delayed for an extended period of time, our clinical trials could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be adversely impacted.

In addition, ongoing or planned clinical trials may also be impacted by interruptions or delays in the operations of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We have also made certain adjustments to the operation of our trials in an effort to ensure the monitoring and safety of patients and minimize risks to trial integrity during the pandemic in accordance with the guidance issued by the FDA, and may need to make further adjustments in the future. For example, we have initiated our clinical trial protocols to enable remote visits to mitigate any potential impacts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these adjustments are new and untested, may not be effective, may affect the integrity of data collected, and may have unforeseen effects on the progress and completion of our clinical trials and the findings from such clinical trials.

In addition, we may encounter a shortage in supplies of, or in delays in shipping, our study drug or other components of the clinical trial vital for successful conduct of the trial. Further, the successful conduct of our clinical trials depends on retrieving laboratory, imaging and other data from patients. Any failure by the vendors with which we work with to send us such data could impair the progress of such clinical trials. These events could delay our clinical trials, increase the cost of completing our clinical trials and negatively impact the integrity, reliability or robustness of the data from our clinical trials.

In addition, quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur, related to COVID-19 or other infectious diseases could impact personnel at our study sites or third-party manufacturing facilities upon which we rely, or the availability or cost of materials, which could disrupt the supply chain for our drug and combination therapy candidates or other goods or services used in our clinical trials. To the extent our suppliers and service providers are unable to comply with their obligations under our agreements with them or they are otherwise unable to deliver or are delayed in delivering goods and services to us due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our ability to continue meeting clinical supply demand for our drug and combination therapy candidates or otherwise advancing development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may become impaired.

The spread of COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread may also materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, there could be a significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity and financial position. In addition, the trading prices for other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock or such sales may be on unfavorable terms.

58

COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread continue to rapidly evolve. The extent to which COVID-19 may impede the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, reduce the productivity of our employees, disrupt our supply chains, delay our clinical trials, reduce our access to capital or limit our business development activities, will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence.

In addition, 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 Item 1A. “Risk Factors” section.

Risks related to the discovery and development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We are early in our development efforts. Our business is heavily dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our current and future single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We have no drugs or combination therapies approved for sale, and our clinical-stage programs are in early stages of clinical development. The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and, in particular, the advancement of our current clinical-stage programs, which are in early stages of clinical development. Given our stage of development, it may be many years, if we succeed at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization. We cannot be certain that our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.

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

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

59

In the future, we may also become dependent on other single-agent and combination therapy candidates that we may develop or acquire. The clinical and commercial success of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and future single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

60

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

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

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in nonclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier nonclinical or clinical studies. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, nonclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies, including previously unreported adverse events. The results of preclinical, nonclinical and early clinical studies of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Single-agent and combination therapy candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and initial clinical trials. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

61

We may experience delays in initiating our clinical trials and we cannot be certain that the trials or any other future clinical trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed or terminated for a variety of reasons, including delay or failure related to:

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting, or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions at which such trials are being conducted, by a data monitoring committee, or DMC, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

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

62

If we experience delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or the termination of any such clinical trial, the commercial prospects of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate drug revenues from any of these single-agent and combination therapy candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our single-agent and combination therapy candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence drug sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. 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 single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

Our most advanced drug candidates are under development for the treatment of NASH, an indication for which there is currently no approved therapy in the United States or Europe. For indications where there is no approved therapy, there is a heightened risk that we will not be able to gain agreement with regulatory authorities regarding an acceptable development plan, that the outcome of our clinical trials will not be favorable or that, even if favorable, regulatory authorities may not find the results of our clinical trials to be sufficient for marketing approval. This may make it difficult to predict the timing and costs of the clinical development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

Our most advanced single-agent and combination therapy candidates are under development for the treatment of NASH, an indication for which there is currently no approved therapy in the United States or Europe. The regulatory approval process for novel drug candidates can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied drug candidates. As other companies are in later stages of clinical trials for their potential NASH therapies, we expect that the path for regulatory approval for NASH therapies may continue to evolve as these other companies refine their regulatory approval strategies and interact with regulatory authorities. Such evolution may impact our future clinical trial designs, including trial size and approval endpoints, in ways that we cannot predict today.

63

In the United States, the FDA generally requires two adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trials to approve an NDA. Furthermore, for full approval of an NDA, the FDA requires a demonstration of efficacy based on a clinical benefit endpoint. The FDA may grant accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Even though our pivotal clinical trials for a specific indication may achieve their primary endpoints and are reasonably believed by us to be likely to predict clinical benefit, the FDA may not accept the results of such trials or approve our single-agent and combination therapy candidates on an accelerated basis, or at all. It is also possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for filing and review any regulatory application we submit for regulatory approval in the United States. Even if our regulatory application is accepted for review, there may be delays in the FDA’s review process and the FDA may determine that such regulatory application does not contain adequate clinical or other data or support the approval of the single-agent and combination therapy candidate. In such a case, the FDA may issue a complete response letter that may require that we conduct and/or complete additional clinical trials and preclinical studies or provide additional information or data before it will reconsider an application for approval. Any such requirements may be substantial, expensive and time-consuming, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to pursue such application or that the FDA will ultimately decide that any such application supports the approval of the single-agent or combination therapy candidate. As an example, the FDA recently returned a complete response to an NDA submitted by Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the drug candidate obeticholic acid, or OCA, for the treatment of NASH. The efficacy of OCA for the treatment of NASH was based on the surrogate histologic endpoint of improvement of fibrosis as shown by liver biopsy with no worsening of NASH in lieu of clinical outcomes in the NASH patients enrolled in the trial, such as overall survival and time to liver transplant. Such decisions may impact our future NASH clinical trial designs, including trial size and approval endpoints, in ways that we cannot predict today. Furthermore, the FDA may also refer any regulatory application to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether, and under what conditions, the application should be approved. While the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient revenue to maintain our business. Similar risks may apply in foreign jurisdictions.

Even if we receive accelerated approval for any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates, we anticipate we will be required to conduct or complete a post-approval clinical outcomes trial to confirm the clinical benefit of such single-agent and combination therapy candidates by demonstrating the correlation of the surrogate endpoint therapeutic response in patients with a significant reduction in adverse clinical outcomes over time. There can be no assurance that the clinical outcomes trial will confirm that the surrogate endpoint used as the basis of the regulatory submissions we make will eventually show an adequate correlation with clinical outcomes.

Our anticipated development costs would likely increase if development of any current or future single-agent or combination therapy candidate is delayed because we are required by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities to perform studies or trials in addition to, or different from, those that we currently conduct or anticipate. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of any increase in our anticipated development costs.

We also may evaluate our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in combination with one or more therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. We may not be able to market and sell any single-agent or combination therapy candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved therapy if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our single-agent and combination therapy candidates currently in development, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA or EMA approval. If the FDA, EMA or similar foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other therapies or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any such single-agent or combination therapy candidate.

We may also evaluate our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or develop new drug candidates for indications outside of NASH which do not have approved therapies or do not have a clearly defined regulatory pathway. For such indications, we may face similar challenges as the ones described above for our NASH drug candidates.

64

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

We may not be able to initiate or continue our planned clinical trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates if we are unable to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the single-agent or combination therapy candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

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

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for single-agent and combination therapy candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We face significant competition for our drug discovery and development efforts in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, will face significant competition, which may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration. Many of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do, and we may not be able to successfully compete.

The pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries in particular are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of healthcare products competitive with those that we are developing. We face competition from a number of sources, such as pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies and academic and research institutions.

65

We are aware of both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development programs in NASH. Large pharmaceutical companies that have recently participated in or are participating in the development of NASH treatments include, but are not limited to, AbbVie, Inc., Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca PLC/MedImmune LLC, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eisai, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Roche Holding AG, Sanofi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

We are also aware of both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development programs in obesity. Large pharmaceutical companies that have recently participated in or are participating in the development of obesity treatments include, but are not limited to, Amgen, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Eli Lilly and Co., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Johnson & Johnson, LG Chem, Ltd., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc. and Shionogi & Co. Ltd.

In relation to TERN-101, companies who have recently conducted or are currently conducting clinical trials with FXR agonists in the context of NASH include AbbVie, Inc., Ascletis Pharma, Inc., Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ENYO Pharma SA, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Hepagene Therapeutics, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metacrine, Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

TERN-201, our VAP-1 inhibitor, is a relatively novel mechanism for the treatment of NASH, and thus has little competition we are aware of. The companies who have recently engaged in the development of or are currently developing a VAP-1 inhibitor with NASH as a lead indication are Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, LG Chem Ltd. and Novo Nordisk A/S.

With regards to TERN-501, companies who have recently conducted or are currently conducting clinical trials targeting THR-β in the context of NASH include Ascletis Pharma Inc., Aligos Therapeutics, Inc., Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Viking Therapeutics, Inc.

In relation to TERN-601, companies who have recently conducted or are currently conducting clinical trials targeting GLP-1 or combinations with GLP-1 in the context of obesity, NASH, Type 2 diabetes or other metabolic syndromes include 9 Meters Biopharma, Inc., Amgen Inc., Altimmune, AstraZeneca plc, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., CinRx Pharma, Cyrus Therapeutics, Inc., D&D Pharmatech, Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., ImmunoForge, Co. Ltd., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Invex Therapeutics Inc., Longevity Biotech Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Opko Health, Oramed Pharmaceuticals, PegBio Co Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Pharmaxis, Regor Therapeutics Group, Sanofi, Sciwind Biosciences Co., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Viking Therapeutics, Inc., vTv Therapeutics Inc. and Zealand Pharma A/S.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who have recently engaged in the development of or are developing clinical-stage drugs to treat NASH or obesity using mechanisms not mentioned above include 89Bio, Inc., Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc., Akero Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella Health, Inc., Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Cirius Therapeutics, Inc., CohBar, Inc., Coherus Biosciences Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., Currax Pharmaceuticals LLC, CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., CytoDyne Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Gila Therapeutics, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Inventiva Pharma SA, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Norgine B.V., NorthSea Therapeutics, Inc., Pliant Therapeutics, Inc., Poxel SA, Saniona AB, Sagimet Biosciences, Inc., T3D Therapeutics, Inc., Vivus, Inc., and Zydus Cadila Healthcare.

It is also probable that the number of companies seeking to develop drugs and therapies for the treatment of serious diseases we pursue, such as NASH or obesity, will increase.

66

Many of our competitors have greater financial resources, marketing capabilities, sales forces, manufacturing capabilities, research and development capabilities, clinical trial expertise, intellectual property portfolios, experience in obtaining patents and regulatory approvals for drug candidates and other resources than we do. Some of the companies also have a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with our target physicians, which could inhibit our market penetration efforts. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Certain alternative treatments that may be approved and offered by competitors in the future may be available at lower prices and may offer greater efficacy or better safety profiles. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for the intended indication of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over any of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other foreign regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K captioned Item 1. “Business—Competition.”

The lack of widely-accepted non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of NASH is likely to present a major challenge to the market penetration of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH.

Historically, liver biopsy has been the standard approach for the diagnosis of inflammation and fibrosis associated with NASH. However, the procedure-related morbidity and, in rare cases, mortality, sample errors, costs, patient discomfort and thus lack of patient interest in undergoing the procedure limit its use. As such, only patients with a high risk of NASH, which includes patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, are generally referred for liver biopsy. Because NASH tends to be asymptomatic until the disease progresses, many individuals with NASH remain undiagnosed until the disease has reached its late stages. The lack of widely-accepted non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of NASH is likely to present a major challenge to the market penetration of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH, if ever commercialized, as many practitioners and patients may not be aware that a patient suffers from NASH and requires treatment. As such, use of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH might not be as wide-spread as our actual target market and this may limit the commercial potential of such single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

A further challenge to the market penetration for our NASH single-agent and combination therapy candidates is that currently a liver biopsy is the standard approach for measuring improvement in NASH patients. Because it would be impractical to subject all patients that take our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, to regular and repeated liver biopsies, it will be difficult to demonstrate effectiveness to practitioners and patients unless and until widely-accepted non-invasive methods for the diagnosis and monitoring of NASH become available in clinical practice and clinical trials, as to which there can be no assurance.

While non-invasive diagnostic approaches are being advanced, their use in the diagnosis of NASH and monitoring of response to treatment has not been broadly recommended in professional treatment guidelines. Moreover, some diagnostics in development have not yet been clinically-validated, have uncertain timetables for clinical validation, and may also be subject to regulation by FDA or other regulatory authorities as medical devices and may require premarket clearance, approval or certification.

67

Our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. While our clinical stage single-agent product candidates have been generally well-tolerated, we have observed adverse events and laboratory abnormalities in the clinical trials for each of our single-agent candidates. For example, in our Phase 2a LIFT Trial of TERN-101 in NASH patients, we observed mild-to-moderate pruritus in the TERN-101 dose groups and statistically significant increases in low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol in the 15 mg dose group as compared to placebo. Drugs with similar mechanism of actions to those we are developing have shown tolerability issues, including pruritus and adverse lipid changes in other FXR agonists, non-selective MAO inhibition in other VAP-1 inhibitors and potential cardiac toxicity in other THR-β agonists. It is possible that our drug candidates will display similar, more pronounced or previously unobserved safety and tolerability issues and adverse events when evaluated in longer clinical trials in larger patient populations despite the results we have observed in our clinical trials to date.

If unacceptable side effects arise in the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we, the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted or the DMC could recommend suspension or termination of our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Furthermore, we may be required to expend time and incur costs to train medical personnel using our single-agent and combination therapy candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

In addition, if any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such drugs, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

68

Any of the foregoing events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate, if approved, and result in the loss of significant revenues to us, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business.

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

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

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

The regulatory approval process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain, and we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates under applicable regulatory requirements. The denial or delay of any such approval would delay commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and adversely impact our ability to generate revenue, our business and our results of operations.

The development, research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing, promotion and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive and evolving regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities in the United States, principally the FDA, and by foreign regulatory authorities, which regulations differ from country to country. Neither we nor any future collaborator is permitted to market any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of an NDA from the FDA.

Obtaining regulatory approval of an NDA or similar applications required in foreign jurisdictions can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a single-agent or combination therapy candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, that such single-agent and combination therapy candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. The number of nonclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the single-agent or combination therapy candidate, the disease or condition that the single-agent or combination therapy candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate.

69

Results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Administering single-agent and combination therapy candidates to humans may produce undesirable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying approval of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate for any or all indications. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also require us to conduct additional studies or trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates either prior to or post-approval, such as additional clinical pharmacology studies or safety or efficacy studies or trials, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program such as the primary endpoints or the number of subjects in our clinical trials.

The FDA or any foreign regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or require us to conduct additional nonclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for many reasons, including:

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

70

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and/or in the case of the FDA, the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority also may approve a single-agent or combination therapy candidate for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval, or the failure to receive marketing authorization with a label that allows us to market the single-agent or combination therapy candidate as we desire, would delay, prevent or otherwise limit commercialization of that single-agent or combination therapy candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

We have received Fast Track designation for TERN-101, TERN-201, and TERN-501 for the treatment of NASH, and we may seek Fast Track designation for some or all of our other single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We may not receive such designation, and even for those single-agent and combination therapy candidates for which we do, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and will not increase the likelihood that single-agent and combination therapy candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-101, TERN-201, and TERN-501 for the treatment of NASH, and we may seek Fast Track designation for some of our other single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need, the drug may qualify for FDA Fast Track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The sponsor of a Fast Track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once a NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track product candidate may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Thus, even if we believe a particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate is eligible for this designation, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we or our collaborators may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

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

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy designation for one or more of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates if the clinical data support such a designation for one or more single-agent and combination therapy candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drug candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development. Breakthrough Therapy designation also provides the sponsor with the same benefits as Fast Track designation, including potential for rolling review of an NDA submission.

71

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a single-agent or combination therapy candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drug candidates considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that the single-agent or combination therapy no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in other jurisdictions.

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

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our drugs in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will be harmed.

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

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

72

In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, the manufacturing, quality control, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for the approved drug will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. The FDA and foreign regulatory authorities also require submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP and similar foreign requirements and good clinical practice, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

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

Advertising and promotion of any single-agent or combination therapy candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of the U.S. Congress and the public. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any single-agent or combination therapy candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign entities and stakeholders. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of drugs for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or comparable foreign bodies. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may result in fines, warning letters, mandates to corrective information to healthcare practitioners, injunctions or civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, the policies advanced by the Biden Administration and the recently appointed FDA Commissioner may impact our business and industry and the regulation of our products. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

73

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

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

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, in July 2020, the FDA resumed certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA utilized this risk-based assessment system to assist in determining when and where it was safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Additionally, on April 15, 2021, the FDA issued a guidance document in which the FDA described its plans to conduct voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites, among other facilities. According to the guidance, the FDA may request such remote interactive evaluations where the FDA determines that remote evaluation would be appropriate based on mission needs and travel limitations. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities and was continuing to maintain this level of operation as of September 2021. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Regulatory authorities outside the United States have adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. If we are found or alleged to have improperly promoted off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drugs, as our single-agent and combination therapy candidates would be, if approved. In particular, a drug may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the drug’s approved labeling. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe such drugs to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

74

Risks related to our reliance on third parties

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

We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our clinical drug supplies for use in the conduct of our clinical trials, and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our single-agent and combination therapy candidates must be approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA or comparable applications to those foreign authorities. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs or similar foreign requirements for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved.

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

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

75

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

We expect to continue to depend on third-party contract manufacturers for the foreseeable future. We have not entered into long-term agreements with our current contract manufacturers or with any alternate fill/finish suppliers, and though we intend to do so prior to commercial launch in order to ensure that we maintain adequate supplies of finished drug product, we may be unable to enter into such an agreement or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. We currently obtain our supplies of finished drug product through individual purchase orders.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our preclinical and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet rigorously enforced regulatory standards or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates on a timely basis or at all.

We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct preclinical studies that comply with the regulatory requirements known as good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with GCP requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct GLP-compliant nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials on our single-agent and combination therapy candidates properly and on time. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GLP nonclinical studies and our GCP clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct GLP-compliant preclinical and nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

Many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. If the third parties conducting our GLP preclinical or nonclinical studies or our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable single-agent or combination therapy candidate, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

76

We depend on collaborations with third parties for the development of certain of our drug candidates, and we may depend on additional collaborations in the future for the development and commercialization of these or other potential candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, our ability to develop and commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could be adversely affected.

We are currently collaborating with third parties to develop certain of our potential drug candidates. For example, we are collaborating with Hansoh (Shanghai) Healthtech Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Company Ltd. with respect to certain aspects of TRN-000632, our small-molecule allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL fusion gene. In the future, we may seek collaboration arrangements for the commercialization, or potentially for the development, of certain of our other single-agent and combination therapy candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into collaboration arrangements. For example, certain of the disease areas that we believe our single-agent and combination therapy candidates address require large, costly and later-stage clinical trials, which a collaboration partner may be better positioned to finance and/or conduct. In addition, a component of our strategy is to maximize the commercial value of our current and future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, which may also strategically align with partnering commercial rights with partners that have large and established sales organizations. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we may face significant competition for appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain and challenging to manage. We may not be successful in our efforts to enter into collaboration agreements. The terms of collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

The success of our current and future collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that:

77

If our collaborations on research and development candidates do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products 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 conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

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

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

Risks related to commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates

The successful commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate coverage, reimbursement levels and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those drugs and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

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

78

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

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

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries have and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our single-agent and combination therapy 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 single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially-reasonable revenue and profits.

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

79

Even if our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success.

Even if one or more of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates receive FDA or other regulatory approvals, the commercial success of any of our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians and patients for approved indications. Given the number of drugs in development for the treatment of NASH, obesity and other indications we may pursue, if we are unsuccessful in achieving a differentiated profile with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates based on efficacy, safety and tolerability, dosing and administration, market acceptance will be limited. Our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may not be commercially successful for a variety of reasons, including, among other things, competitive factors, pricing or physician preference, reimbursement by insurers, the degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If approved, the commercial success of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

80

We cannot assure you that our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, will achieve broad market acceptance among physicians and patients. Any failure by our single-agent and combination therapy candidates that obtain regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our results of operations.

We currently have no sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales capabilities on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market and sell our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, effectively in the United States and foreign jurisdictions or generate drug revenue.

We currently do not have a marketing or sales organization. In order to commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates receive regulatory approval, we expect to establish a sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such single-agent or combination therapy candidate, which will be expensive and time consuming. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future drug revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners 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 of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. 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. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

81

Our business operations and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we will conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved. Such laws include:

82

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance 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 the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

If we successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, we may participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs, and may become subject to state drug price transparency requirements. Our failure to comply with the related reporting and payment obligations could result in additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and growth prospects.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the 340B drug pricing program, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule program, and other governmental pricing programs require participating manufacturers to report certain product and pricing data to the government. Pricing calculations vary among products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by manufacturers, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts, which can change and evolve over time. If we successfully commercialize any of our product candidates and participate in such governmental pricing programs, we may be held liable for errors associated with our submission of data. That liability could be significant, including potential civil monetary penalties per item of falsely reported or misrepresented drug pricing information. Such failure also could be grounds for other sanctions, such as termination from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. We cannot provide assurance that any of our submissions, if we participate in government price reporting programs, will not be found by a governmental agency to be incomplete, incorrect, or otherwise non-compliant. Further, a growing number of states have enacted drug price transparency laws requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information to certain state agencies and other parties. Many of these laws provide for civil monetary penalties and other enforcement mechanisms if manufacturers are found to have violated requirements.

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States, the EEA and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include the following:

83

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021. The executive order 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.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 resulted in aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension due to the COVID‑19 pandemic from May 1, 2020 through July 1, 2022 (with a 1% payment reduction from April 1 to June 30, 2022), unless additional action is taken by Congress. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers 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 or any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could negatively affect our future customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Recently, the Biden Administration has proposed and the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act, which incorporates a number of proposed measures aimed at lowering the cost of prescription medications. For example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would establish a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. While it is unclear as to what limitations on drug pricing will ultimately be included in the Build Back Better Act, or whether the Build Back Better Act will be enacted at all, any limitations on the pricing of medications may have a negative impact on us and the broader biopharmaceutical industry, and similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or additional pricing pressures.

84

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or put pressure on our product pricing.

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. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

If the market opportunities for any single-agent or combination therapy that we or our strategic collaborators develop are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We intend to initially focus our single-agent and combination therapy candidate development on therapies for the treatment of serious diseases such as NASH and obesity. Our projections of addressable patient populations that have the potential to benefit from treatment with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are based on estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than