NewAmsterdam Pharma (NAMS) 424B3Prospectus supplement

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
Registration No. 333-268888

PROSPECTUS

NewAmsterdam Pharma Company N.V.

64,347,070 Ordinary Shares

167,000 Private Placement Warrants to Purchase Ordinary Shares

This prospectus relates to the issuance by us of up to 1,736,545 ordinary shares, with a nominal value of € 0.12 per share (“Ordinary Shares”) underlying options issued pursuant to our Rollover Option Plan (such options, the “Rollover Options,” and such plan, the “Rollover Plan”). The Rollover Options each have an exercise price of EUR 1.16392. This prospectus also relates to the issuance by us of up to 4,017,221 Ordinary Shares that are issuable upon the exercise of 4,017,221 Warrants (as defined below) and up to 1,886,137 Earnout Shares (as defined below), each as have been previously registered on Form F-4 (File No. 333-266510).

This prospectus also relates to the offer and sale, from time to time, by the selling securityholders identified in this prospectus (each, a “Selling Securityholder” and collectively, the “Selling Securityholders”), or their permitted transferees of up to 60,724,388 Ordinary Shares, which consists of (i) up to 22,960,001 Ordinary Shares issued on November 22, 2022 in a private placement pursuant to subscription agreements, dated July 25, 2022 (the “PIPE Shares”) at a price per share of $10.00, (ii) up to 32,997,387 Ordinary Shares, required to be registered pursuant to the certain Investor Rights Agreement, dated November 22, 2022 (the “Investor Rights Agreement”), by and among us and certain of the Selling Securityholders (including the Ordinary Shares issued in satisfaction of the 2020 Profit Rights (as defined below), and for no additional consideration paid at the time of issuance, at an assumed value of $10.00 per share pursuant to the 2020 Profit Rights, to Saga Investments Coöperatief U.A. (“Amgen”) and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (“MTPC”) pursuant to the 2020 Profit Rights (as defined below)) (the “IRA Shares”), (iii) up to 167,000 Ordinary Shares that are issuable upon the exercise of private placement warrants (the “Private Placement Warrants”) originally issued as part of a unit of FLAC at a price of $10.00 per unit, with each unit consisting of one Class A ordinary share of FLAC and one-third of one Private Placement Warrant, in a private placement to Frazier Lifesciences Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”) in connection with the initial public offering of Frazier Lifesciences Acquisition Corporation (“FLAC”) and (iv) up to 4,600,000 Ordinary Shares that are issuable upon the exercise of public warrants (the “Public Warrants,” and together with the Private Placement Warrants, the “Warrants”), originally issued as part of a unit of FLAC at a price of $10.00 per unit in FLAC’s initial public offering (the “FLAC IPO”), with each unit consisting of one Class A ordinary share of FLAC and one-third of one Public Warrant. This prospectus also relates to the offer and sale, from time to time, by the Selling Securityholders of up to 167,000 Private Placement Warrants. This prospectus also covers any additional securities that may become issuable by reason of share splits, share dividends or other similar transactions. Each Warrant entitles the holder thereof to purchase one Ordinary Share at an exercise price of $11.50 per share. The IRA Shares were all acquired at various prices prior to the closing of the Business Combination and converted into Ordinary Shares in connection with the Business Combination. The IRA Shares initially consisted of (i) 5,326,818 Ordinary Shares that, prior to the Exchange (as defined below), were originally 2,500,000 ordinary shares of NewAmsterdam Pharma purchased for a price of EUR 1.00 per share, (ii) 22,628,329 Ordinary Shares that, prior to the Exchange, were originally 10,620,003 NewAmsterdam Pharma Series A preferred shares purchased for a price of EUR 14.00 per share, (iii) 2,367,568 Ordinary Shares that, prior to the Exchange, were originally 1,111,155 NewAmsterdam Pharma Series A preferred shares issued to certain NewAmsterdam Pharma holders in exchange for the extinguishment of the Convertible Loan (as defined below) at a price of $10.50 per share, (iv) 5,326,818 Ordinary Shares that, prior to the Exchange, were originally 2,500,000 NewAmsterdam Pharma non-voting shares issued to certain NewAmsterdam Pharma shareholders in exchange for the waiver of certain rights in connection with the 2020 SPA and for no additional consideration, (v) 608,779 Ordinary Shares that, prior to the Exchange, were originally 285,714 NewAmsterdam Pharma non-voting shares purchased for a price of EUR 2.48 per share, (vi) 501,000 Ordinary Shares that were originally FLAC Class A ordinary shares purchased by the Sponsor as part of units of FLAC issued in a private placement in connection with the FLAC IPO, at a price of $10.00 per unit, (vii) 3,300,000 Ordinary Shares that were originally issued as FLAC Class B ordinary shares, which were subsequently converted into Ordinary Shares in connection with the Business Combination, purchased by the Sponsor for a price per share of approximately $0.009 per share, (viii) 150,000 Ordinary Shares, originally issued as FLAC Class B ordinary shares, held by the former directors of FLAC and acquired by each of them for no additional consideration and (ix) 4,910,000 Ordinary Shares and 3,746,330 Ordinary Shares issued to Amgen and MTPC, respectively, in satisfaction of the 2020 Profit Rights based on an assumed value of $10 per share, in accordance with the 2020 Profit Rights. See the section entitled “Selling Securityholders” for more information on the potential profits each Selling Securityholder may realize upon the sale of their Ordinary Shares pursuant to this prospectus.

Further, based on the initial purchase price paid by the Selling Securityholders, they may experience a positive rate of return based on the current trading price of the Ordinary Shares. For example, based on the price per Ordinary Shares described below, the Sponsor may experience a potential profit of approximately $11.24 per share based on the Sponsor’s initial purchase price of $0.009 for 3,300,000 FLAC shares and approximately $1.25 per share based on the initial purchase price of $10.00 for 501,000 FLAC shares, which were all converted on a 1-for-1 basis in connection with the Business Combination (as defined below). The purchasers of PIPE Shares may also experience a potential profit of approximately $1.25 per share, based on the initial purchase price of $10.00. As a result, the Selling Securityholders may be willing to sell their Ordinary Shares at a price less than shareholders that acquired our shares in the public market or at higher prices than the price paid by such securityholders. The sale or possibility of sale of these Ordinary Shares, including those pursuant to this prospectus, could have the effect of increasing the volatility in the price of the Ordinary Shares or putting significant downward pressure on the price of the Ordinary Shares.

The Ordinary Shares that are being registered for resale under this prospectus represent approximately 70.33% of the total Ordinary Shares outstanding as of June 30, 2023 (assuming that all Warrants are exercised). The Selling Securityholders, to the extent applicable, will be able to sell all of their shares upon the expiration of the applicable lock-up restrictions. Following the expiration of the applicable lock-up restrictions described herein, the sale of all Ordinary Shares, including those issuable upon exercise of the Warrants, or the perception that such sales may occur, may cause the market prices of our securities to decline significantly.

We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of Ordinary Shares or Warrants by the Selling Securityholders pursuant to this prospectus. We will, however, receive up to approximately $48.2 million for any remaining Warrants or Rollover Options that are exercised for cash, if any. We will pay the expenses, other than underwriting discounts and commissions, associated with the sale of securities pursuant to this prospectus, as described in the section titled “Plan of Distribution.” The exercise price of the Warrants may exceed the market price of our Ordinary Shares based on the trading price of our Ordinary Shares. If the price of our Ordinary Shares is below $11.50, we believe that Warrant holders will be unlikely to cash exercise their warrants, resulting in little to no cash proceeds to us.

We are registering the offer and sale of the securities described above to, among other things, satisfy certain registration rights we have granted and to register the issuance of Ordinary Shares underlying Rollover Options issued to certain parties. Our registration of the securities covered by this prospectus does not mean that we or the Selling Securityholders will offer or sell any of the securities. The Selling Securityholders may offer all or part of the securities for resale from time to time through public or private transactions, at either prevailing market prices or at privately negotiated prices. These securities are being registered to permit us to sell and the Selling Securityholders to sell securities from time to time, in amounts, at prices and on terms determined at the time of offering. The Selling Securityholders may sell these securities through ordinary brokerage transactions, directly to market makers of our shares or through any other means described in the section titled “Plan of Distribution.” In connection with any sales of Ordinary Shares offered hereunder, the Selling Securityholders, any underwriters, agents, brokers or dealers participating in such sales may be deemed to be “underwriters” within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).

We may amend or supplement this prospectus from time to time by filing amendments or supplements as required. You should read this entire prospectus and any amendments or supplements carefully before you make your investment decision.

Our Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants are traded on the Nasdaq Global Market (“Nasdaq”) under the symbols “NAMS” and “NAMSW,” respectively. On August 3, 2023, the closing price of our Ordinary Shares on Nasdaq was $11.25 per share, and the closing price of our Public Warrants, was $1.75 per Public Warrant.

We are an “emerging growth company” and a “foreign private issuer” as those terms are defined under the federal securities laws and, as such, are subject to certain reduced public company reporting requirements for this prospectus and for future filings. See “Prospectus Summary—Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company and a Foreign Private Issuer.”

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 16 and in any applicable prospectus supplement.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) nor any other regulatory body or state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

Prospectus dated August 15, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS

This prospectus is part of a registration statement on Form F-1 that is being filed with the SEC using a “shelf” registration process. Under this shelf registration process, we may sell the Ordinary Shares underlying the Rollover Options and the Warrants and the Selling Securityholders may, from time to time, offer and sell any combination of the securities described in this prospectus in one or more offerings. The Selling Securityholders may use the shelf registration statement to sell up to an aggregate of up to 60,724,388 Ordinary Shares (including shares underlying Warrants) and up to 167,000 Private Placement Warrants from time to time through any means described in the section entitled “Plan of Distribution.” More specific terms of any securities that the Selling Securityholders offer and sell may be provided in a prospectus supplement that describes, among other things, the specific amounts and prices of the Ordinary Shares and/or Warrants being offered and the terms of the offering.

A prospectus supplement may also add, update or change information included in this prospectus. Any statement contained in this prospectus will be deemed to be modified or superseded for purposes of this prospectus to the extent that a statement contained in such prospectus supplement modifies or supersedes such statement. Any statement so modified will be deemed to constitute a part of this prospectus only as so modified, and any statement so superseded will be deemed not to constitute a part of this prospectus. You should rely only on the information contained in this prospectus, any applicable prospectus supplement or any related free writing prospectus. See “Where You Can Find More Information.”

Neither we nor the Selling Securityholders have authorized anyone to provide any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this prospectus, any accompanying prospectus supplement or any free writing prospectus we have prepared. We and the Selling Securityholders take no responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any other information that others may give you. This prospectus is an offer to sell only the securities offered hereby and only under circumstances and in jurisdictions where it is lawful to do so. No dealer, salesperson or other person is authorized to give any information or to represent anything not contained in this prospectus, any applicable prospectus supplement or any related free writing prospectus. This prospectus is not an offer to sell securities, and it is not soliciting an offer to buy securities, in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted. You should assume that the information appearing in this prospectus or any prospectus supplement is accurate only as of the date on the front of those documents only, regardless of the time of delivery of this prospectus or any applicable prospectus supplement, or any sale of a security. Our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may have changed since those dates.

This prospectus contains summaries of certain provisions contained in some of the documents described herein, but reference is made to the actual documents for complete information. All of the summaries are qualified in their entirety by the actual documents. Copies of some of the documents referred to herein have been filed, will be filed or will be incorporated by reference as exhibits to the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part, and you may obtain copies of those documents as described below under “Where You Can Find More Information.”

Unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates, (i) references to the “Holdco,” “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us” refer to NewAmsterdam Pharma Company N.V. (f/k/a NewAmsterdam Pharma Company B.V.), together with its subsidiaries, including Frazier Lifesciences Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation (previously a Cayman Islands exempted company) (“FLAC”); (ii) references to “NewAmsterdam Pharma” refer solely to NewAmsterdam Pharma Holding B.V., a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands and its subsidiaries. NewAmsterdam Pharma Company N.V. is a Dutch public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated as a Dutch private limited liability company (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) on June 10, 2022 and converted into a Dutch public limited liability company on November 21, 2022 and the ultimate parent company of NewAmsterdam Pharma and FLAC. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing oral, non-statin medicines for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease with residual elevation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, for whom existing therapies are not sufficiently effective or well-tolerated.

1

Pursuant to Rule 429 under the Securities Act, this prospectus is a combined prospectus which also relates to the Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File No. 333-266510), which was declared effective on October 18, 2022 (the “Prior Registration Statement”), as previously amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to this registration statement on Form F-1. Pursuant to Rule 429 under the Securities Act, the Registration Statement of which this prospectus is a part also constitutes a post-effective amendment to the Prior Registration Statement, and such post-effective amendment became effective concurrently with the effectiveness of the Registration Statement of which this prospectus is a part in accordance with Section 8(c) of the Securities Act.

2

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT U.S. GAAP AND IFRS

FLAC’s financial statements included in this prospectus have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for financial information and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”) and our consolidated financial statements are presented in Euros. Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this prospectus to “€,” “euro,” “EUR” or “cents” are to Euros. All references to “$” are to U.S. dollars.

For additional information, see the financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.

SERVICE MARKS AND TRADE NAMES

The NewAmsterdam Pharma name, logos and other service marks of NewAmsterdam Pharma appearing in this prospectus are the property of NewAmsterdam Pharma. Solely for convenience, some of the service marks, logos and trade names referred to in this prospectus are presented without the ™ and ^SM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that the Company will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, its rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these service marks and trade names. This prospectus contains additional trademarks, service marks and trade names of others. All trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this prospectus are, to the Company’s knowledge, the property of their respective owners. We do not intend the Company’s use or display of other companies’ trademarks, service marks, copyrights or trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of the Company by, any other companies.

3

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements provide the Company’s current expectations or forecasts of future events. Forward-looking statements include statements about the Company’s expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, intentions, assumptions and other statements that are not historical facts. Words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “objective,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will” and “would,” or similar words or phrases, or the negatives of those words or phrases, may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not necessarily mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Examples of forward-looking statements in this prospectus include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the Company’s disclosure concerning NewAmsterdam Pharma’s operations, cash flows, financial position and dividend policy.

Forward-looking statements in this prospectus and in any document incorporated by reference in this prospectus may include, for example, statements about:

Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties and are based on potentially inaccurate assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected or implied by the forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements for many reasons, including the factors described in the section titled “Risk Factors” in this prospectus. Accordingly, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this prospectus. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events after the date of this prospectus or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. You should, however, review the factors and risks that the Company describes in the reports it will file from time to time with the SEC.

4

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect the Company’s beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based on information available to the Company as of the date of this prospectus. And while the Company believes that information provides a reasonable basis for these statements, that information may be limited or incomplete. The Company’s statements should not be read to indicate that it has conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and you are cautioned not to unduly rely on these statements.

Although the Company believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements were reasonable at the time made, it cannot guarantee future results, level of activity, performance or achievements. Moreover, neither the Company nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any of these forward-looking statements. You should carefully consider the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section in connection with the forward-looking statements contained in this prospectus and any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that may be issued by the Company or persons acting on its behalf.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

RISK FACTORS

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. Before you make a decision to buy our securities, in addition to the risks and uncertainties discussed in the section titled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,” you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information contained in this prospectus, including our financial statements and related notes appearing at the end of this prospectus and in the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding to invest in our securities. These risk factors are not exhaustive and investors are encouraged to perform their own investigation with respect to the Company’s business, financial condition and prospects. The occurrence of one or more of the events or circumstances described in these risk factors, alone or in combination with other events or circumstances, may adversely affect the ability to complete or realize the anticipated benefits of the Business Combination, and may have a material adverse effect on the business, cash flows, financial condition and results of operations of the Company. The risks discussed below may not prove to be exhaustive and are based on certain assumptions made by the Company which later may prove to be incorrect or incomplete. The Company may face additional risks and uncertainties that are not presently known to such entity, or that are currently deemed immaterial, which may also impair their business or financial condition.

Risks Related to this Offering by the Selling Securityholders

Sales of a substantial number of our securities in the public market by the Selling Securityholders and/or by our existing securityholders could cause the price of our Ordinary Shares and Warrants to fall.

The Selling Securityholders can resell, under this prospectus, up to 60,724,388 Ordinary Shares constituting approximately 70.33% of our issued and outstanding Ordinary Shares (assuming the exercise of the Warrants), consisting of (i) up to 22,960,001 PIPE Shares, (ii) up to 32,997,387 IRA Shares, (iii) up to 167,000 Ordinary Shares that are issuable upon the exercise of the Private Placement Warrants and (iv) up to 4,600,000 Ordinary Shares that are issuable upon the exercise of the Public Warrants. The securities being offered in this prospectus represent a substantial percentage of our outstanding Ordinary Shares and Warrants, and the sales of such securities, or the perception that those sales might occur, could depress the market price of our Ordinary Shares and Warrants and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our Ordinary Shares and Warrants but the sale of a large number of securities could result in a significant decline in the public trading price of our securities.

Certain of the Selling Securityholders acquired their securities at a price that is less than the market price of our Ordinary Shares as of the date of this prospectus. As a result, such Selling Securityholders may earn a positive rate of return even if the price of our Ordinary Shares declines and may be willing to sell their shares at a price less than shareholders that acquired our shares in the public market.

Certain of our securityholders purchased their respective Ordinary Shares at prices lower than current market prices and may therefore experience a positive rate of return on their investment, even if our public securityholders experience a negative rate of return on their investment. In particular, the PIPE Shares were purchased for $10.00 per share. The IRA Shares consist of (i) former shares of NewAmsterdam Pharma, which were converted into Ordinary Shares at an exchange ratio of approximately 2.1307 in connection with the Business Combination, and that were originally purchased at prices ranging from no consideration to EUR 14.00, (ii) Ordinary Shares issued to Amgen and MTPC in satisfaction of the 2020 Profit Rights for no additional consideration at an assumed value of $10.00 per share as described elsewhere in this prospectus, (iii) 501,000 FLAC Class A ordinary shares purchased by the Sponsor as part of a unit at a price of $10.00 per unit and which were subsequently converted into Ordinary Shares in connection with the Business Combination, (iv) 3,300,000 FLAC Class B ordinary shares, which were subsequently converted into Ordinary Shares in connection with the Business Combination, purchased by the Sponsor for an aggregate purchase price of

16

$25,000, or approximately $0.009 per share and (v) 150,000 Ordinary Shares held by the former directors of FLAC and acquired by each of them for no additional consideration. The closing price of our Ordinary Shares on Nasdaq on August 3, 2023 was $11.25 per share. Based on the prices paid by the Sponsor and other shareholders and price of our Ordinary Shares as of August 3, 2023, they would be able to recognize a greater return on their investment than shareholders or holders of warrants that purchased Ordinary Shares in the public market. Furthermore, such shareholders may earn a positive rate of return even if the price of our Ordinary Shares declines significantly. As a result, such securityholders may be willing to sell their shares at a price less than shareholders that acquired our shares in the public market or at higher prices than the price paid by such securityholders. The sale or possibility of sale of these Ordinary Shares, including those pursuant to this prospectus, could have the effect of increasing the volatility in the price of the Ordinary Shares or putting significant downward pressure on the price of the Ordinary Shares. See the section entitled “Selling Securityholders” for more information on the potential profits each Selling Securityholder may realize upon the sale of their Ordinary Shares pursuant to this prospectus.

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

We are a clinical-stage company with limited operating history, no approved products and no historical product revenues, which makes it difficult to assess our future prospects and financial results. We have incurred net losses since our inception, and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. We may never generate any product revenue or become profitable or, if we achieve profitability, may not be able to sustain it.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of uncertainty. Our operations to date have been limited to developing and undertaking clinical trials of our product candidate, obicetrapib. We are not profitable and have not generated product revenue from operations. We have historically incurred net losses since we commenced operations in October 2019, including net losses of €75.1 million and €78.1 million for the six months ended June 20, 2023 and the year ended December 31, 2022, respectively. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future, considering the current research and development stage of our activities, as we do not have products approved for commercial sale. Our ability to ultimately achieve recurring product revenues and profitability is dependent upon our ability to successfully complete the development of obicetrapib and obtain necessary regulatory approvals for, and successfully manufacture, market and commercialize, our product together with our partners.

We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources in the foreseeable future for the clinical development of obicetrapib or any additional product candidates and indications that we may choose to pursue in the future. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, and payments for third-party manufacturing and supply, as well as sales and marketing of obicetrapib or any of our future product candidates if they are approved for sale by regulatory authorities. Because the outcome of any clinical trial is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of obicetrapib and any other drug candidates that we may develop in the future. Other unanticipated costs may also arise.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

17

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

Since our inception, almost all of our resources have been dedicated to the clinical development of obicetrapib. While we have been successful in the past in obtaining financing, we expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the clinical development of our product candidate. At June 30, 2023, we had cash of €383.5 million, which we believe will be sufficient to fund our anticipated level of operations through 2026.

We will require additional capital to pursue clinical activities, complete clinical trials, and obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize obicetrapib. In addition, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity, convertible debt or debt financings, third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements, as well as other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements, or a combination of these approaches. Even if we believe that we will have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or if we have specific strategic considerations.

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert the attention of our management from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize obicetrapib. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may negatively impact the holdings or the rights of our shareholders, and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us or the possibility of such issuance may cause the market price of our Ordinary Shares to decline. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies, intellectual property or future product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

18

If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required or choose to:

We may also be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or current or future product candidates.

While we believe that our existing cash will be sufficient to fund our operations through 2026, unless and until we can generate substantial revenue, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, license agreements and marketing or distribution arrangements. Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. To the extent that we raise such additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our shareholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our existing shareholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring and distributing dividends, and may be secured by all or a portion of our assets.

If we raise funds by entering into collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish additional valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, license agreements, or marketing or distribution arrangements when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or cease operations altogether.

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

Actual events involving reduced or limited liquidity, defaults, non-performance or other adverse developments that affect financial institutions or other companies in the financial services industry or the financial services industry generally, or concerns or rumors about any events of these kinds, have in the past and may in the future lead to market-wide liquidity problems. For example, on March 10, 2023 and March 12, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and Signature Bank was closed by New York state’s Department of Financial Services, respectively, and in each case the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver. Although we did not have any cash balances on deposit with either bank and are not a borrower or party to any agreement with either bank, investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. Any decline in available funding or access to our cash and liquidity resources could, among other risks,

19

adversely impact our ability to meet our operating expenses, financial obligations or fulfill our other obligations, or result in breaches of our financial and/or contractual obligations. Any of these impacts, or any other impacts resulting from the factors described above or other related or similar factors not described above, could have material adverse impacts on our liquidity and our current and/or projected business operations and financial condition and results of operations.

We currently, and may in the future, have assets held at financial institutions that may exceed the insurance coverage offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the loss of which would have a severe negative affect on our operations and liquidity.

We currently maintain substantially all of our funds in cash deposit accounts at three financial institutions. The amounts held in our deposit accounts are, and in the future, may be, in excess of the FDIC insurance limit of $250,000. In the event of a failure of any of these financial institutions where we maintain our deposits or other assets, we may incur a loss to the extent such loss exceeds the FDIC insurance limitation, which could have a material adverse effect upon our liquidity, financial condition and our results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Product Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

We are dependent on the success of our only product candidate, obicetrapib, and cannot guarantee that obicetrapib will successfully complete clinical development, receive regulatory approval or, if approved, be successfully commercialized.

We have invested almost all of our efforts and financial resources in the research and development of obicetrapib. Our future success, including our ability to generate revenue, depends on our ability to develop, commercialize, market and sell obicetrapib. However, obicetrapib has yet to receive marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities. We currently generate no revenue from the sale of any products, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Obicetrapib’s marketability and commercialization are subject to significant risks associated with successfully completing current and future clinical trials, including:

20

Many of these clinical, regulatory and commercial risks are beyond our control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to advance obicetrapib successfully through clinical development, or to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize obicetrapib or any future product candidates. If we fail to achieve these objectives or overcome the challenges presented above, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize obicetrapib. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenues through the sale of obicetrapib to enable us to continue our business.

We have never obtained approval for any product candidate, and may be unable to do so successfully.

As a company, we have never progressed a product candidate through to regulatory approval. We have not previously submitted an NDA, an EU marketing authorization application (“MAA”) or any similar drug approval filing to the FDA, the EMA or any comparable regulatory authority for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that obicetrapib will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, obicetrapib may not receive regulatory approval even if it is successful in clinical trials. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market our product candidate, our revenues will be dependent, to a significant extent, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights or share in revenues from the exercise of such rights. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenues from sales of such products, if approved.

Further, our clinical trials may require more time and incur greater costs than we anticipate. We cannot be certain that our planned clinical trials will begin or conclude on time, if at all. Large-scale trials require significant financial and management resources. Third-party clinical investigators do not operate under our control. Any performance failure on the part of such third parties could delay the clinical development of obicetrapib or delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing obicetrapib or future product candidates, depriving us of potential product revenue and resulting in additional losses.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results, and our clinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of obicetrapib.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. We do not know

21

whether future clinical trials, if any, 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, suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, including failure to:

Product candidates like obicetrapib in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials. In addition to the safety and efficacy traits of any product candidate, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect and patient enrollment criteria. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials, and it is possible that we will as well. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.

We may also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us or the IRBs or ECs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the trial’s data safety monitoring board (the “DSMB”), the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate one or more of our clinical trials due to a number of factors, including our failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with relevant regulatory requirements or clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable benefit-risk ratio, 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.

If we experience delays in the initiation, enrollment or completion of any clinical trial of obicetrapib, or if any clinical trials of obicetrapib are cancelled or fail to adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of obicetrapib,

22

the commercial prospects of obicetrapib may be materially adversely affected, and our ability to generate product revenues will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials may increase our costs and slow down our product candidate development and approval process. Any of these delays may significantly harm our business and financial condition. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of obicetrapib.

We depend on enrollment of subjects in our clinical trials for obicetrapib. If we experience delays or difficulties enrolling subjects in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts and business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of subjects in future clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented. Trial costs have increased significantly following the COVID-19 pandemic and there may be delays in patient enrollment. The enrollment of subjects depends on many additional factors, including:

Our clinical trials may also compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that seek to treat cardio metabolic diseases, and this competition will reduce the number and types of subjects available to us, because some subjects who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a clinical trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of subjects who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites.

Delays in subject 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 obicetrapib.

Interim, “topline” 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 preliminary or “topline” 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 clinical trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not

23

have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the “topline” 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. “Topline” data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, “topline” data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

Additionally, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our Ordinary Shares.

Further, others, including regulatory authorities and collaboration or regional partners, 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 our particular program, the approvability or commercialization of obicetrapib or any future product 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 material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

If the interim, “topline,” or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, obicetrapib may be harmed, which could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

The research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, approval, promotion, advertising, storage, recordkeeping, marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and export and import of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. These regulations differ from country to country. We have not yet obtained regulatory approval to market obicetrapib in the United States or any other country, but plan to seek approval of obicetrapib in the United States, the EU, the United Kingdom, Japan and China. To gain approval to market obicetrapib, we must provide clinical trial data that adequately demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product for the intended indication.

We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of any of our future preclinical testing and studies, if any, on obicetrapib. We cannot be sure that the FDA, local regulatory authorities in the EU or other comparable regulatory authorities (including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom (“MHRA”), the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in Japan (“PMDA”) and the China National Medical Products Administration in China (“NMPA”)) will accept the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies as sufficient to support the submission of an IND, clinical trial authorizations (“CTAs”) or similar applications for any of our programs which may result in us being unable to submit INDs, CTAs or similar applications or result in FDA, local regulatory authorities in the EU or other comparable regulatory authority refusing to allow clinical trials to begin. Furthermore, Phase 3 clinical trials often produce unsatisfactory results even though prior clinical trials were successful. Moreover, the results of clinical trials may be unsatisfactory to the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities even if we believe those clinical trials to be successful. The FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA,

24

the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may suspend one or all of our clinical trials or require that we conduct additional clinical, preclinical, manufacturing, validation or drug product quality studies and submit that data before considering or reconsidering any NDA or comparable foreign regulatory application that we may submit. Depending on the extent of these additional studies, approval of any applications that we submit may be significantly delayed or may cause the termination of such programs, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. The FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidate for many reasons, including:

The FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities may also approve obicetrapib for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of obicetrapib. To the extent we seek regulatory approval in other foreign countries, we may face challenges similar to those described above with regulatory authorities in applicable jurisdictions.

We and our collaborator(s) are not permitted to market or promote obicetrapib before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for obicetrapib to allow us to successfully commercialize our product candidate. If we do not receive regulatory approval with the necessary conditions to

25

allow successful commercialization, we will not be able to generate revenue from obicetrapib in the United States or other countries in the foreseeable future, or at all. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval for obicetrapib would delay or prevent commercialization of our obicetrapib and could thus negatively impact our business, results of operations and prospects.

Our ongoing clinical trials are subject to delays or failures, which could result in increased costs to us and could delay, prevent or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval for obicetrapib, which could have an adverse impact on our business.

In addition to our Phase 3 lipid-lowering clinical trials for obicetrapib, we are currently conducting a CVOT, in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (“ASCVD”), and a Phase 2a clinical trial of obicetrapib in patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The completion of these clinical trials or any of our other ongoing or future clinical trials may be delayed for a number of reasons, including:

In addition, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the FDA, the EMA, the IRBs or ECs at the sites where the IRBs or ECs are overseeing a clinical trial, a DSMB overseeing the clinical trial at issue or any other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including, among others:

Any such delays in our clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay, prevent or limit our ability to obtain regulatory approvals.

26

Obicetrapib may produce undesirable side effects that we may not have detected in our previous preclinical studies and clinical trials. This could prevent us from gaining approval or market acceptance, including broad physician adoption, for our product candidate, if approved, or from maintaining such approval and acceptance, and could substantially increase commercialization costs and even force us to cease operations.

As with most pharmaceutical products, use of obicetrapib may be associated with side effects or adverse events that can vary in severity and frequency. Side effects or adverse events associated with the use of obicetrapib may be observed at any time, including in clinical trials or once a product is commercialized, and any such side effects or adverse events may negatively affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval or market obicetrapib. We cannot assure you that we will not observe drug-related serious adverse events in the future or that the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities will not determine them to be as such. Side effects such as toxicity or other safety issues associated with the use of obicetrapib could require us to perform additional studies or halt development or sale of obicetrapib or expose us to product liability lawsuits, which will harm our business.

Furthermore, our current Phase 3 clinical trials for obicetrapib involve a larger patient base than that previously studied, and the commercial marketing of obicetrapib, if approved, will further expand the clinical exposure of the drug to a wider and more diverse group of patients than those participating in the clinical trials, which may identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate that were not previously observed or reported.

We may fail to report adverse events that the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authority regulations require that we report certain information about adverse medical events if our product may have caused or contributed to those adverse events. The timing of our obligation to report would be triggered by the date upon which we become aware of the adverse event as well as the nature and severity of the event. We may also fail to appreciate that we have become aware of a reportable adverse event, especially if it is not reported to us as an adverse event or if it is an adverse event that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of our product. If we fail to comply with our reporting obligations, the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authority could take action including enforcing a hold on or cessation of clinical trials, withdrawal of approved drugs from the market, criminal prosecution, the imposition of civil monetary penalties or seizure of our product.

Additionally, in the event we discover the existence of adverse medical events or side effects caused by obicetrapib, a number of other potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

27

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving approval or market acceptance of obicetrapib and could substantially increase commercialization costs or even force us to cease operations. We cannot assure you that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authority in a timely manner or ever, which could harm our business, prospects and financial condition.

We conduct clinical trials for our product candidate outside the United States, and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials, in which case our development plans in the U.S. and applicable foreign jurisdictions may be delayed, which could materially harm our business.

Our ongoing clinical trials are being undertaken both within and outside the United States, and we intend to conduct portions of our future clinical trials outside the United States. The acceptance of clinical trial data by the FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority from clinical trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdictions may be subject to certain conditions, or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to good clinical practice (“GCP”) regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing authorizations in the EU, the EMA and/or local regulatory authorities in EU member states require that such clinical trials follow the principles that are equivalent to the clinical trial requirements set out under relevant EU legislation, including with respect to ethical and GCP standards. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that any United States or foreign regulatory authority would accept data from clinical trials conducted outside of its applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional clinical trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

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

The ability of the FDA to review and clear or approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new products or modifications to be approved by government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory authorities, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health crises prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it

28

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.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for obicetrapib or our future product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expenses, limit or withdraw regulatory approval and subject us to penalties if we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for obicetrapib or future product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, risk mitigation and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, and we may be required to include labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or significant safety warnings, including boxed warnings. Such requirements could negatively impact us by reducing revenues or increasing expenses, and cause the approved product not to be commercially viable. Absence of long-term safety data may further limit the approved uses of our product, if any.

If the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authority approves obicetrapib, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration requirements and continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMPs”) and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. For certain commercial prescription drug products, manufacturers and other parties involved in the supply chain must also meet chain of distribution requirements and build electronic, interoperable systems for product tracking and tracing and for notifying the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or other products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. The EU similarly has in force falsified medicines rules, which require appropriate packaging, labeling, registration and tracking of certain medicinal products to ensure the detection of counterfeit medicinal products, and associated reporting requirements. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. Comparable restrictions apply in the EU, where, in addition, the advertising of prescription-only medications to the general public is prohibited.

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

29

In addition, the policies of the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA and other comparable regulatory authorities may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of obicetrapib. Costs arising out of any regulatory developments could be time-consuming and expensive and could divert management resources and attention and, consequently, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

We are developing obicetrapib in combination with other therapies, and safety or supply issues with combination products may delay or prevent development and approval of our combination product candidate.

We are developing obicetrapib in combination with one or more approved therapies. For example, we are evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe, including the combination on top of high intensity statin therapy. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with any of those existing therapies. If the therapies we use in combination with our product candidate are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidate, the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own product, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We also may evaluate our product candidate or any future product candidates in combination with one or more therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable regulatory authorities. We will not be able to market and sell any product 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 product candidate currently in development, including the potential for serious adverse effects, lack of efficacy, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA, EMA, MHRA, PMDA or NMPA approval.

If the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, the PMDA, the NMPA or other comparable 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 product candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any such product candidate.

If we are not successful in our efforts to discover and develop additional product candidates, we may be unable to grow our business.

We may elect to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of diseases. We also intend to evaluate additional potential indications for obicetrapib and may choose to in-license or acquire other product candidates or commercial products to treat patients suffering from other cardio metabolic or other diseases with significant unmet medical needs. Even if we are successful in building our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects, lack of efficacy, or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. In addition, we cannot assure you that any such products that are approved will be manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives. We may opportunistically pursue a strategy that would entail in-licensing additional product candidates or utilize a variety of types of collaboration, license, monetization, distribution and other arrangements with other third parties relating to the development or commercialization,

30

once approved, of obicetrapib or future product candidates or indications. We may also become reliant on the research efforts of third parties for any such product candidates that we do not intend to conduct preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials for. If we do not successfully develop and begin to commercialize product candidates, we will face difficulty in obtaining product revenues in future periods, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and potential for growth and adversely affect the price of the Ordinary Shares.

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

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

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for our current and future product candidates from a regulatory authority in one or more jurisdictions, we may nevertheless be unable to obtain approval for our product candidates outside of those jurisdictions, which would limit our market opportunities and could harm our business.

Approval of a product candidate by one regulatory authority in any jurisdiction does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. Even if one regulatory authority grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of other countries also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for any product candidates, if approved, is also subject to approval. Obtaining approval for obicetrapib or any future product candidate in the EU from the European Commission following the opinion of the EMA or in other foreign jurisdictions, if we choose to submit a marketing authorization application there, would be a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities, as the case may be, may limit the indications for which the drug may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the drug labeling or require expensive and time-consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of 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 obicetrapib or any future product candidate in certain countries.

Obicetrapib, if approved, will face significant competition from competing therapies and our failure to compete effectively may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration.

The biopharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. Our potential competitors include large and experienced companies that enjoy significant competitive advantages over us, such as greater financial, research and development, manufacturing, personnel and marketing resources, greater brand recognition and more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from

31

the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authorities. These companies may develop new drugs to treat the indications that we target, or seek to have existing drugs approved for use for the treatment of the indications that we target.

If obicetrapib is approved, our main competition will come from current LDL-C lowering therapies on the market for use on top of maximally tolerated statins, such as PSCK9 inhibitor injectables from Amgen Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Novartis International AG. We may also face competition from oral therapeutics containing bempedoic acid from Esperion. We are aware that Merck may advance its oral PSCK9 inhibitor, MK-0616, into phase 3 development. If approved, MK-0616 could pose additional competition for obicetrapib.

Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in this industry. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis products that are more effective or less costly than our product candidate.

Any approved products may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, hospitals, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if we obtain FDA, EMA or other foreign regulatory approvals for our product candidate, the commercial success of obicetrapib will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use by physicians for approved indications. The degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of obicetrapib, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If obicetrapib is approved for use but fails to achieve the broad degree of physician adoption and market acceptance necessary for commercial success, we will not be able to generate significant revenues, and we may not become or remain profitable.

32

Risks Related to Our Collaboration With or Reliance on Third Parties

We currently contract with third-party contractors, and in some cases, a single contractor, for all aspects of the manufacturing of obicetrapib for clinical trials, and expect to continue to do so to support commercial scale production of obicetrapib, if approved. There are significant risks associated with contracting with third-party suppliers, including their ability to meet the increased need that may result from our potential commercialization efforts. This increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of obicetrapib or be able to obtain such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently rely on third-party contract manufacturer organizations (“CMOs”) and suppliers for all of our required raw materials, active ingredients and finished products for our clinical trials. Because there are a limited number of suppliers for the raw materials that we use to manufacture our product candidate, we may need to engage alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our product candidate for our clinical trials, and if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the availability of raw materials. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase these raw materials on acceptable terms, at sufficient quality levels or in adequate quantities, if at all, the development and commercialization of our product candidate or any future product candidates would be delayed, or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to meet our development objectives for our product candidates or generate revenues from the sale of any approved products. We also currently rely on a single supplier for our active ingredient and finished product for obicetrapib. While we believe that alternative sources of supply exist, there can be no assurance that we will be able to quickly establish additional or replacement sources if needed, and a reduction or interruption in supply could adversely affect our ability to manufacture our product candidate in a timely or cost-effective manner.

We expect to continue to rely on these or other subcontractors and suppliers to support our commercial requirements if obicetrapib or any of our other product candidates is approved for marketing by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities. We plan to continue to rely on third parties for the raw materials, compounds and components necessary to produce our product candidates and for our clinical trials.

Our continuing reliance on third-party CMOs and suppliers entails a number of risks, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the manufacturing or supply agreement by the third party, and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. In addition, third-party CMOs and suppliers may not be able to comply with cGMP requirements, or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. If any of these risks transpire, we may be unable to timely retain alternate subcontractors or suppliers on acceptable terms and with sufficient quality standards and production capacity, which may disrupt and delay our clinical trials or the manufacture and commercial sale of our product candidate, if approved.

Our failure or the failure of our third-party CMOs and suppliers to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of obicetrapib or any other product candidates that we may develop. Any failure or refusal to supply or any interruption in supply of the components for obicetrapib or any other product candidates that we may develop could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and manufacturers often encounter difficulties in production. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter any difficulties, our ability to provide obicetrapib or any future product candidates for clinical trials, or to patients if approved, and the development or commercialization of obicetrapib or any future product candidates could be delayed or stopped.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. We and our

33

CMOs must comply with cGMP requirements. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up and validating initial production and contamination controls. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.

We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of obicetrapib or any future product candidate will not occur in the future. As the manufacturing processes are scaled up, they may reveal manufacturing challenges or previously unknown impurities that could require resolution in order to proceed with our planned clinical trials and obtain regulatory approval for the commercial marketing of obicetrapib or any other products candidates we may develop. In the future, we may identify manufacturing issues or impurities that could result in delays in the clinical program and regulatory approval for obicetrapib or any future product candidate, increases in our operating expenses or failure to obtain or maintain approval for obicetrapib or any future product candidate. Our reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks, including the following:

If we or our third-party manufacturers were to encounter any of these difficulties, and in particular where we rely on a single manufacturer, our ability to provide obicetrapib or any future product candidate to patients in clinical trials and products to patients, once approved, would be jeopardized. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the initiation or completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely. These events could impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval or successfully commercialize obicetrapib or any future product candidate. Some of these

34

events could be the basis for FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities’ action, including injunction, recall, seizure, or total or partial suspension of production. Any adverse developments affecting clinical or commercial manufacturing of obicetrapib or any future product candidate may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Accordingly, failures or difficulties faced at any level of our supply chain could materially adversely affect our business and delay or impede the development and commercialization of obicetrapib or any future product candidate and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties and consultants to assist us in conducting our clinical trials, including our Phase 3 clinical trials for obicetrapib. If these third parties or consultants do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize obicetrapib, if approved.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct many of our clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct clinical trials on obicetrapib. Third parties play a significant role in the conduct of our clinical trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that any such third party will devote to our clinical trials. If our CROs or any other third parties upon which we rely for administration and conduct of our clinical trials do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, or if they otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated, and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize obicetrapib.

We and the third parties upon whom we rely are required to comply with GCP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by regulatory authorities around the world for products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or our third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and our submission of marketing applications may be delayed or the regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, a regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply or complied with applicable GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with material produced under current cGMP regulations, which are enforced by regulatory authorities. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be impacted if our CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

In order for our clinical trials to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that our CROs and other third parties communicate and coordinate with one another. Moreover, our CROs and other third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. Our CROs and other third parties may terminate their agreements with us immediately under certain circumstances, such as upon 30 days’ notice or immediately upon a material breach. If our CROs or other third parties conducting 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 the failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols or GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials or enter into new arrangements with alternative

35

CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties. We may be unable to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Switching or adding CROs, clinical investigators or other third parties can involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Although we carefully manage our relationship with our CROs, clinical investigators and other third parties, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter such challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a negative impact on our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

We currently intend to rely on our collaboration with A. Menarini International Licensing S.A., part of Menarini, for the commercialization of obicetrapib, if approved, in certain European areas. Failure or delay of Menarini to fulfill all or part of its obligations to us under the Menarini License, a breakdown in collaboration between the parties or a complete or partial loss of this relationship could materially harm our business if obicetrapib is approved in the relevant jurisdictions.

While we currently plan to commercialize our own products, if approved, in the United States, we entered into an exclusive License Agreement, dated June 23, 2022, with Menarini (the “Menarini License”) to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals, commercialize and undertake local development, in each case with respect to obicetrapib either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe for any use, in certain areas of Europe. Our collaboration with Menarini is critical in these areas, as we do not currently have the internal capacity to market, sell and distribute obicetrapib, if approved, in Europe. Pursuant to the Menarini License, Menarini is responsible for communications with regulatory authorities for the commercialization and local development of obicetrapib in certain areas of Europe, if approved, and other collaborative activities. Menarini must commercialize obicetrapib pursuant to a commercialization plan agreed between the parties and is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize obicetrapib so as to maximize net sales, provided that Menarini has sole discretion to set the price of the products.

Either party has the right in certain circumstances to terminate the collaboration pursuant to the terms of the Menarini License, including in the case (i) of a material breach by the other party, (ii) that a relevant regulatory authority prohibits Menarini to pursue the commercialization of obicetrapib due to safety or efficacy concerns, or (iii) of insolvency of either party. If Menarini delays or fails to perform its obligations under the Menarini License, such as a delay in the anticipated commercial launch, disagrees with our interpretation of the terms of the collaboration or terminates the Menarini License, the commercialization of obicetrapib, if approved, could be significantly adversely affected and our prospects in Europe will be materially harmed.

We may not be able to meet our obligations under the Menarini License. Additionally, if we do not reach certain milestones as set forth in the Menarini License, we will not receive the milestone payments, which could require us to seek funding additional capital to complete clinical trials.

Menarini has also entered into collaborations with third parties addressing targets and disease indications outside the scope of our collaboration. As a result, Menarini may have competing interests with respect to their priorities and resources. We may have disagreements with Menarini with respect to the interpretation of the Menarini License, use of resources or otherwise that could cause our relationship with Menarini to deteriorate. As a result, Menarini may reduce their focus on, and resources allocated to, our commercialization, potentially delaying or terminating our ability to commercialize obicetrapib in Europe, if approved. However, as stated above, Menarini must commercialize obicetrapib pursuant to a commercialization plan agreed between the parties and is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize obicetrapib so as to maximize net sales. Additionally, should we decide to move forward with development of a combination of obicetrapib with a certain inhibitor in the areas of Europe covered by the Menarini License for patients suffering from diabetes, we will need to offer Menarini the opportunity to co-develop that product with us, provided that if Menarini does, we will negotiate with Menarini the economics and other terms in respect of such co-development and the subsequent commercialization of such combination product in such areas of Europe. If Menarini does not wish to co-develop

36

such combination product, that would prevent our ability to, and our ability to license or authorize a third party to, seek regulatory approval for or promote such combination product, in the areas of Europe covered by the Menarini License.

Should the Menarini License be terminated, we will need to either build marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or contract with third parties to obtain these capabilities in Europe.

We have limited experience in marketing or distributing products and no internal capability to do so, and an inability to market, distribute and commercialize obicetrapib once approved would prevent us from achieving significant sales and reduce the commercial value of obicetrapib. If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities for obicetrapib, if approved, or our future product candidates, or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have limited experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product candidate for which we may obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization or enter into collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize such product candidate. In the United States, we intend to build a commercial organization to target areas with the greatest incidence of high cardiovascular risk with residual elevation of LDL-C and recruit experienced sales, marketing and distribution professionals. The development of sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities will require substantial resources, will be time-consuming and could delay any product launch. We may decide to work with regional specialty pharmacies, distributors and/or multi-national pharmaceutical companies to leverage their commercialization capabilities to commercialize any product candidate for which we may obtain regulatory approval outside of the United States or certain areas of Europe.

If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and distribution capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization costs. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In addition, we may not be able to hire a sales force in the United States that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise to target the areas that we intend to target. If we are unable to establish a sales force and marketing and distribution capabilities, our operating results may be adversely affected.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our drugs on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in the United States and other jurisdictions in which obicetrapib or any future product candidates are approved, other than in the jurisdictions covered by the Menarini License, we will be required to enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. As a result, our revenues and profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to sell,

37

market and distribute any product candidates that we develop ourselves. We may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have limited control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing any product candidates.

We expect to enter into collaborations with third parties for the development or commercialization of obicetrapib or future product candidates, which involve risks that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management, and we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of obicetrapib or any future product candidate if our collaborations are not successful.

In addition to the Menarini License, we may utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with other third parties relating to the development or commercialization, once approved, of obicetrapib or future product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

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

38

Collaboration agreements may not lead to the development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. If any future collaborations that we enter into 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 research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this prospectus also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if a collaborator of ours were to be involved in a business combination, it might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be harmed.

Our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, CROs, consultants and vendors, may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us or harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, clinical investigators, CROs, consultants and vendors may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct, breach of contract or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates regulations of the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information; manufacturing standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws; or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately.

Specifically, research, sales, marketing, education and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, education, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, even if we are successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business. Violations of such laws subject us to numerous penalties, including, but not limited to, the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, possible exclusion

39

from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

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

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts, business operations and environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance.

Risks Related to Our Business and Strategy

If we fail to manage our growth effectively, our business could be disrupted.

As of June 30, 2023, we had 22 full-time employees and eight consultants. We expect to continue to expand our development, quality, sales, managerial, operational, finance, marketing and other resources in order to manage our operations and clinical trials, continue our development activities and commercialize obicetrapib, if approved. Our management, personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively execute our expansion strategy requires that we:

Due to our limited financial resources and our limited experience in managing a larger public company, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The physical expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage expansion could delay the execution of our development and strategic objectives, or disrupt our operations; and if we are not successful in commercializing our product candidate, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our revenues will suffer and we would incur significant additional losses.

40

If obicetrapib or our future product candidates receive approval for marketing, and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label use, or if physicians misuse our products, we may become subject to prohibitions on the sale or marketing of our product, significant sanctions and product liability claims, and our image and reputation within the industry and marketplace could be harmed.

The FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drug products, such as obicetrapib, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. For example, if we receive marketing approval for obicetrapib for cardio metabolic disease, physicians, in their professional medical judgment, may nevertheless prescribe obicetrapib to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label use, we may become subject to significant liability under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and other statutory authorities, such as laws prohibiting false claims for reimbursement. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would harm our business. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted from our business operations, significant legal expenses could be incurred and our reputation could be damaged. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we are deemed by the FDA to have engaged in the promotion of our products for off-label use, we could be subject to prohibitions on the sale or marketing of our products or significant fines and penalties, and the imposition of these sanctions could also affect our reputation with physicians, patients and caregivers, and our position within the industry.

Physicians may also misuse our products or use improper techniques, potentially leading to adverse results, side effects or injury, which may lead to product liability claims. If our products are misused or used with improper technique, we may become subject to costly litigation. Product liability claims could divert management’s attention from our core business, be expensive to defend, and result in sizable damage awards against us that may not be covered by insurance. We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials with policy limits that we believe are customary for similarly situated companies and adequate to provide us with coverage for foreseeable risks. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Furthermore, the use of our products for conditions other than those approved by the FDA may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of obicetrapib or any future product candidate, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would harm our reputation and negatively impact our financial condition.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of obicetrapib or any future products we may develop.

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

41

Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of any products that we may develop. We currently carry general clinical trial product liability insurance in an amount that we believe is adequate to cover the scope of our ongoing clinical programs. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing obicetrapib or any other product candidate, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the commercialization of obicetrapib or any other approved product that we may have; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms.

If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop our product candidate, conduct our clinical trials and, if approved, commercialize our product candidate or any other products we may develop.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical and scientific personnel. We believe that our future success is highly dependent upon the contributions of members of our senior management, as well as our senior scientists and other members of our management team, especially our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Michael Davidson, our Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. John Kastelein, and our Chief Operating Officer, Douglas Kling. We are not aware of any present intention of any of these individuals to leave our company. The loss of services of any of these individuals, though, could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical trials or the commercialization of obicetrapib. Although we have agreements with our officers and employees, these agreements do not prevent them from terminating their employment or service arrangement with us as described in the agreements.

Although we have not historically experienced unique difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified employees, we could experience such problems in the future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical field is intense due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. Many of the other pharmaceutical companies that we compete against for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles, diverse opportunities including for career advancement and a longer history in the industry than we do. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high quality candidates than what we have to offer. We will need to hire additional personnel as we

42

expand our clinical development and commercial activities. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information, or that their former employers own their research output. Moreover, we are domiciled and predominantly based in the Netherlands, which may make it difficult to hire necessary U.S.-based personnel.

Misclassification or reclassification of our independent contractors or employees could increase our costs and adversely impact our business.

Our workers are classified as either employees or independent contractors, and if employees, as either exempt from overtime or non-exempt (and therefore overtime eligible). The tests governing whether a service provider is an independent contractor or an employee are typically highly fact sensitive and can vary by governing law. Laws and regulations that govern the status and misclassification of independent contractors are also subject to divergent interpretations by various authorities, which can create uncertainty and unpredictability. Regulatory authorities and private parties have recently asserted within several industries that some independent contractors should be classified as employees and that some exempt employees should be classified as nonexempt based upon the applicable facts and circumstances and their interpretations of existing rules and regulations. If we are found to have misclassified employees as independent contractors or non-exempt employees as exempt, we could face penalties and have additional exposure under tax (including federal and state tax), workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, labor, employment and tort laws, including for prior periods, as well as potential liability for employee overtime and benefits and tax withholdings. Legislative, judicial or regulatory (including tax) authorities could also introduce proposals or assert interpretations of existing rules and regulations that would change the classification of a number of independent contractors doing business with us from independent contractor to employee and a number of exempt employees to non-exempt. A reclassification in either case could result in an increase in employment-related costs such as wages, benefits and taxes. The costs associated with employee misclassification, including any related regulatory action or litigation, could therefore have an adverse effect on our results of operations and our financial position.

Under applicable employment laws, we may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete.

We generally include non-competition provisions as part of our agreements with our officers, employees and consultants. These agreements generally prohibit our officers, employees or consultants, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors for a limited period. We may be unable to enforce these provisions under the laws of the jurisdictions in which our officers, employees or consultants work and it may be difficult for us to restrict our competitors from benefitting from the expertise our former officers, employees or consultants developed while working for us.

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

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

43

Inflation may adversely affect our operations, including increases in the prices of goods and services required for our operations.

High rates of inflation resulting from global events may adversely affect our operations in the event of increased prices of goods and services, such as energy and other operating costs, labor costs, materials costs and shipping costs, all of which may impact our direct costs. We are also experiencing increases in the cost of services provided by CMOs, CROs and other third parties with whom we do business, including significant increases in the cost of non-human primates required for studies. Such high inflation rates may result in unexpected and unbudgeted cost increases and may require changes to planned investments.

Our international operations subject us to various risks, and our failure to manage these risks could adversely affect our results of operations and we may be exposed to significant foreign exchange risk.

We face significant operational risks as a result of doing business internationally, such as:

Additionally, we incur portions of our expenses, and may in the future derive revenues, in currencies other than the euro, in particular, the U.S. dollar. As a result, we are exposed to foreign currency exchange risk as our results of operations and cash flows are subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. We currently do not engage in hedging transactions to protect against uncertainty in future exchange rates between particular foreign currencies and the euro. Therefore, for example, an increase in the value of the euro against the U.S. dollar could be expected to have a negative impact on our revenue and earnings growth as U.S. dollar revenue and earnings, if any, would be translated into euros at a reduced value. We cannot predict the impact of foreign currency fluctuations, and foreign currency fluctuations in the future may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

44

Negative economic conditions, including as a result of commodity price inflation or supply chain constraints, widespread health crises and the war in Ukraine, may adversely impact our results of operations.

An unforeseen production shortage resulting from any events, including interruptions to business operations and supply chain disruption as a result of worldwide economic and political disruptions including the impacts of military conflict between Russia and Ukraine affecting raw material and or intermediate supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad and domestically could adversely impact our business. For example, our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture our product candidates for our clinical trials and research and development operations, or our cost base may be increased. Furthermore, economic growth is expected to slow, including due to supply chain disruption, the recent surge in inflation and related actions by central banks and geopolitical conditions, with a significant risk of recession in many parts of the worlds in the near term. This may also prolong tight credit markets and potentially cause such conditions to become more severe. These issues, along with the re-pricing of credit risk and the difficulties currently experienced by financial institutions, may make it difficult to obtain financing.

Our expectations about our business, future performance and other matters are subject to significant risks, assumptions, estimates and uncertainties. As a result, our expectations regarding cash and cash burn, market size and market share, clinical trial completions, regulatory submissions and potential regulatory approvals, and our expectations regarding efficacy levels and benefits of our product candidates, may differ materially from actual results.

The estimates and assumptions included in this prospectus include, among others: expectations regarding our cash runway; estimates of the total addressable market for cardio metabolic disease patients with significant unmet need; assumptions regarding our ability to obtain reimbursement for our product candidate, if approved; assumptions regarding performance under existing partner agreements, including the Menarini License; and assumptions regarding our ability to obtain regulatory approval. These estimates and assumptions are subject to various factors beyond our control, including, for example, changes in the supply of drug products required for our clinical trials, increased costs for such drugs, changes in the regulatory or competitive environment, delays in our clinical trials or in obtaining regulatory approvals, lower than expected rates of reimbursement on our product candidate, if approved, the imposition or heightening of sanctions or other economic or military measures in relation to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, and changes in our executive team. Accordingly, our future financial condition and results of operations may differ materially from our estimates.

We may undertake strategic acquisitions, in-licenses or other strategic transactions in the future and any difficulties from integrating such acquisitions could adversely affect our share price, operating results and results of operations.

We may acquire companies, businesses and products, or in-license additional product candidates, that complement or augment our existing business. Any product candidate or technologies we in-license or acquire will likely require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including extensive preclinical or clinical testing, or both, and approval by the FDA, the EMA and other comparable regulatory authorities, if any. All product candidates are prone to risks of failure inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the product candidate, or product developed based on in-licensed technology, will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we may not be able to integrate any acquired business successfully or operate any acquired business profitably. Integrating any newly acquired business could be expensive and time-consuming. Integration efforts often take a significant amount of time, place a significant strain on managerial, operational and financial resources, result in loss of key personnel and could prove to be more difficult or expensive than we predict. The diversion of our management’s attention and any delay or difficulties encountered in connection with any future acquisitions we may consummate could result in the disruption of our on-going business or inconsistencies in standards and controls that could negatively affect our ability to maintain third-party relationships. Moreover, we may need to raise additional funds through public or private debt or equity financing, or issue additional shares, to acquire any businesses or products, which may result in dilution for shareholders or the incurrence of indebtedness.

45

In addition, we may not be able to manufacture economically or successfully commercialize any product candidate that we develop based on acquired or in-licensed technology that is granted regulatory approval, and such products may not gain wide acceptance or be competitive in the marketplace. Moreover, integrating any newly acquired or in-licensed product candidates could be expensive and time-consuming. If we cannot effectively manage these aspects of our business strategy, our business may be materially harmed.

As part of our efforts to acquire companies, business or product candidates or to enter into other significant transactions, we conduct business, legal and financial due diligence with the goal of identifying and evaluating material risks involved in the transaction. Despite our efforts, we ultimately may be unsuccessful in ascertaining or evaluating all such risks and, as a result, might not realize the intended advantages of the transaction. For example, if intellectual property related to product candidates or technologies we in-license or acquire is not adequate, we may not be able to commercialize the affected products even after expending resources on their development. If we fail to realize the expected benefits from acquisitions we may consummate in the future or have consummated in the past, whether as a result of unidentified risks or liabilities, integration difficulties, regulatory setbacks, litigation with current or former employees and other events, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected. If we acquire product candidates, we will also need to make certain assumptions about, among other things, development costs, the likelihood of receiving regulatory approval and the market for such product candidates. Our assumptions may prove to be incorrect, which could cause us to fail to realize the anticipated benefits of these potential transactions.

In addition, we will likely experience significant charges to earnings in connection with our efforts, if any, to consummate acquisitions, in-licenses or other strategic transactions. For transactions that are ultimately not consummated, these charges may include fees and expenses for investment bankers, attorneys, accountants and other advisors in connection with our efforts. Even if our efforts are successful, we may incur, as part of a transaction, substantial charges for closure costs associated with elimination of duplicate operations and facilities and acquired in-process research and development charges. In either case, the incurrence of these charges could adversely affect our results of operations for particular periods.

Cyberattacks or other failures in the telecommunications or information technology systems used by us or our third-party vendors, contractors or consultants, could result in information theft, compromise, or other unauthorized access, data corruption and significant disruption of our business operations, and could harm our reputation and subject us to liability, lawsuits and actions from governmental authorities.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from cybersecurity threats, including computer viruses, harmful code and unauthorized access, cyber-attacks (including ransomware), hacking, theft, phishing, employee error, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering schemes, sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors unauthorized accesses, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. If a disruption event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption to our drug development programs, and/or otherwise jeopardize the performance of our software and information technology systems, and could expose us to financial and reputational harm. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of obicetrapib could be delayed.

Successful and attempted attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. We may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Furthermore, because the techniques

46

used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. Even if identified, we may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate incidents or breaches due to attackers increasingly using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, to avoid detection, and to remove or obfuscate forensic evidence.

We and certain of our service providers are from time to time subject to actual and attempted cyberattacks and security incidents. While we do not believe that we have experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our marketing approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on third parties for the manufacture of our drug candidate and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their information technology systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security incident were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the development and commercialization of our future drug candidates could be delayed. Similarly, if an actual or attempted security incident were to occur, in addition to reputational damage, we could face investigations and fines from regulators, as well as litigation.

Global health crises may adversely affect our business and that of our suppliers, CROs or other third parties relevant to our business.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted worldwide economic activity and future global health crises may pose the same risks, including the risk that we or our employees, contractors, suppliers, or other partners may be prevented or delayed from conducting business activities for an indefinite period of time, including due to shutdowns that may be requested or mandated by governmental authorities, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial results and operations, as well as those of third parties on whom we rely.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may not be successful in obtaining all of the necessary intellectual property rights to allow us to develop and commercialize our product candidate, obicetrapib. If our efforts to obtain, protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights related to our product candidates and technologies are not adequate, including due to the risk that we are unaware of prior art that may affect the validity of our patents, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market and we otherwise may be harmed.

Our future commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important inventions, to obtain and maintain know-how related to our business, including our product candidates, to defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular our patent rights, to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing, misappropriating, or violating the valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. Our ability to preclude or restrict third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing competing molecules to our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents and trade secrets that cover these activities.

We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we enter into confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the

47

agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

While we have sought and continue to actively seek patent protection for obicetrapib, our patent coverage is limited, and we can provide no assurance that any of our current or future patent applications will result in issued patents or that any issued patents will provide us with any competitive advantage.

The patent applications that we own or license may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or granted patents in foreign jurisdictions. Our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on various factors, including determination that our patent claims are patentable over prior art. We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) or foreign patent offices, and such prior art may prevent issuance of claims that would provide us with a competitive advantage. We cannot be certain that we and respective patent offices have identified all relevant prior art at the time of issuance, and later identification of undiscovered prior art may provide basis for later invalidating our issued patent claims. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to the treatment of cardio metabolic disease or Alzheimer’s disease using obicetrapib or (ii) conceive and reduce to practice any of the compositions or methods claimed in our patents or patent applications, including patents or patent applications related to obicetrapib and any of our future product candidates.

Patent applications and patents granted from them are complex, lengthy and highly technical documents that are often prepared under time constraints and may not be free from errors. The existence of errors in a patent may have an adverse effect on the patent, its scope and its enforceability. Even if our pending and future patent applications issue as patents in relevant jurisdictions, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any

meaningful protection for our technology or product candidates, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Even if our pending and future patent applications issue as patents in relevant jurisdictions, changes in law or in interpretation of existing law may provide a basis for competitors to challenge the validity and/or enforceable scope of our patents.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future owned patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates, effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In addition, the scope of claims of an issued patent can be reinterpreted after issuance, and changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions may diminish the value of our patent rights or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Additionally, limitations on the scope of our intellectual property rights may limit our ability to prevent third parties from designing around such rights and competing against us. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or product candidates in a non-infringing manner. Other parties may compete with us, for example, by independently developing or obtaining competing solid forms of obicetrapib, including crystalline forms and alternative salts of obicetrapib, or by independently developing or obtaining competing synthetic processes for synthesis of obicetrapib or synthetic intermediates that allow competitors to design around our patent claims but which result in the same active ingredient.

48

In addition, our competitors may seek to invalidate our patents. We may become involved in proceedings brought by competitors in the USPTO or applicable foreign offices challenging our patent rights, such as inter partes review, post grant review, derivation proceedings, interference proceedings, opposition proceedings, revocation proceedings or ex parte reexamination. Patent offices may take a different view on patentability during post-grant challenges than during initial examination, and courts in litigation may take a different view about validity than did the respective patent office. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could result in loss of exclusivity, patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, or could result in limits of the scope or duration of the patent protection of our technologies or product candidates, all of which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical product candidates or technology to compete directly with us, without payment to us.

Furthermore, even if they are not challenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. To meet such challenges, which are part of the risks and uncertainties of developing and marketing product candidates, we may need to evaluate third-party intellectual property rights and, if appropriate, to seek licenses for such third-party intellectual property or to challenge such third-party intellectual property, which may be costly and may or may not be successful, which could also have an adverse effect on the commercial potential for obicetrapib and any of our other product candidates.

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

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent prosecution process. When related patents are pursued concurrently in multiple jurisdictions, international treaties may impose additional procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions. Additionally, when inventions are made by joint inventors of different nationalities, or where inventive acts were performed in multiple countries, concurrent and potentially conflicting requirements imposed by the laws of multiple jurisdictions may be applicable. We may have failed to adhere to all such provisions during examination of our patent applications or following issuance.

Periodic maintenance or annuity fees and various other governmental fees on any issued patent and/or pending patent applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of a patent or patent application. Our outside counsel have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside counsel and their third-party vendors to pay these fees. While an inadvertent lapse may sometimes be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are many situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications directed to our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than should otherwise have been the case, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Uncertainty and instability resulting from the conflict between Russia and Ukraine could negatively impact our ability to maintain our patents in Russia.

Sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and the European Union have made it difficult to pay required annual fees, or annuities, to maintain pending patent applications and granted patents in Russia, increasing the risk that our patents may not grant in Russia or, having granted, will lapse through nonpayment of annuities. In addition, the Russian government issued a decree in March 2022 that owners of Russian patents from countries that Russia considers to be unfriendly are no longer entitled to any compensation for compulsory licensing of

49

their patents, increasing the risk that our competitors will be granted a compulsory license under our Russian patents, allowing them to infringe without making any payments to us.

We may receive only limited protection, or no protection, from our issued patents and patent applications and such patents could be narrowed, found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its earliest priority US utility application was filed. Various extensions may be available; however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of our product candidates. If we encounter delays in our clinical trials or regulatory approval of obicetrapib, the period of time during which we could market obicetrapib under patent protection could be reduced.

The patent application process, also known as patent prosecution, is expensive and time consuming, and we or any future licensors and licensees may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we or any future licensors or licensees will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, these and any of our patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, etc., although we are unaware of any such defects that we believe are of material import. If we or any future licensors or licensees fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If any future licensors or licensees, are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

The strength of patents in the pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. This uncertainty includes changes to the patent laws through either legislative action to change statutory patent law or court action that may reinterpret existing law in ways affecting the scope or validity of issued patents. The USPTO or other foreign patent offices may change their interpretation of existing statutes or regulations with potential retroactive effects. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or foreign countries with claims that cover our product candidates. Even if patents do successfully issue from the patent applications that we own or in-license, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of such patents, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. For example, patents granted by the European Patent Office may be challenged, also known as opposed, by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant. In addition, post grant review in the USPTO begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. Third parties can also challenge a patent in the USPTO by way of inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, derivation, or interference proceedings. Any successful challenge to our patents could deprive us of exclusive rights necessary for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents may not adequately protect our product candidates, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is challenged, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, or threaten our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

50

If we do not obtain patent term extension for our product candidates, if needed, our business may be harmed.

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman Amendments”) which amended the FDCA, a company may file an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) seeking approval of a generic version of an approved innovator product. Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of our product candidates and our technology, one or more of our U.S. patents that we may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our revenue could be reduced. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, or we may choose not to pursue patent rights in jurisdictions that later become important to our business, thus harming our ability to compete in those jurisdictions.

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. In countries in which we elect to pursue patent rights, the requirements for patentability may differ, particularly in developing countries. For example, China often applies a heightened requirement for patentability, with heightened requirements for experimental data in the patent application. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. For example, some foreign countries do not permit claims to therapeutic methods.

Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection in order to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement against infringing activities is inadequate. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally.

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

In addition, some countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if our patents are infringed or if

51

we are compelled to grant a license to our patents to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license. Finally, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

Changes in U.S. or foreign patent law, including changes in patent office interpretation of applicable rules and statutes, changes effected by judicial holdings, and changes effected by legislation, including changes that may have retroactive effect, could diminish the value of patents in general and our patents in particular, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly on obtaining and enforcing patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and therefore, is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) which was passed on September 16, 2011, resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system. Further, U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained.

The significant changes to U.S. patent law under the AIA include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. For our U.S. patent applications that contain or contained at any time a claim not entitled to priority before March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. The USPTO has developed and continues to develop regulations and procedures to govern administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA. The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business and financial condition. It is not clear what other, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications.

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

52

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO, and foreign patent offices, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways, including with potential retroactive effect, that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive and time consuming, with no certainty of success, and could delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our products and product candidates, or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

Third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property, including our existing patents and patents that may issue to us in the future. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Further, we may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Generic drug manufacturers may develop, seek approval for, and launch generic versions of our products. If we file an infringement action against such a generic drug manufacturer, that company may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of our patents, requiring us to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings.

For example, if we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidates is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent.

In addition, within and outside of the United States, there has been a substantial amount of litigation and administrative proceedings, including inter partes review, post grant review, interference or derivation proceedings, and ex parte reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or other comparable proceedings in various foreign jurisdictions, regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. These proceedings bring uncertainty to the possibility of challenges to our patents in the future, including challenges by competitors who perceive our patents as blocking entry into the market for their products, and the outcome of such challenges.

Such litigation and administrative proceedings could result in revocation of our patents or amendment of our patents such that they do not cover our product candidates. They may also put our pending patent applications at risk of not issuing, or issuing with limited and potentially inadequate scope to cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. Additionally, it is also possible that prior art of which we are aware, such as may arise during preclinical studies and clinical trials, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim, may, nonetheless, ultimately be found by a court of law or an administration panel to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a negative impact on our business.

Enforcing our intellectual property rights through litigation would be very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also divert technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities.

53

Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, during the course of litigation or administrative proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price of our Ordinary Shares could be significantly harmed.

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

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we may also rely on trade secret protection or confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how, technology and other proprietary information that may not be patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents may be difficult to obtain or enforce, and any other elements of our product candidates, and our product development processes (such as manufacturing and formulation technologies) that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, eroding our competitive position in the market.

Trade secrets, confidential information, and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by requiring all of our employees, consultants, advisors, and any other third parties that have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of their relationships with us. We cannot be certain that we have or will obtain these agreements in all circumstances and we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary information. If the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating any trade secrets.

Despite our efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets. In addition, in some situations, these confidentiality agreements may conflict with, or be subject to, the rights of third parties with whom our employees, consultants, or advisors have previous employment or consulting relationships. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use any intellectual property owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in any related or resulting know-how and inventions. Any misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could have an adverse effect on our business, impact our ability to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, or otherwise harm our business, operating results and financial condition.

Furthermore, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements do not prevent competitors from independently developing substantially equivalent information and techniques and we cannot guarantee that our competitors will not independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. The FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all.

There is an increasing trend in the EU towards greater transparency and, while the manufacturing or quality information contained in an MAA is currently generally protected as confidential information, the EMA and

54

national regulatory authorities may disclose much of the nonclinical and clinical information in MAAs, including the full clinical study reports, in response to freedom of information requests after the marketing authorization has been granted. Similarly, as of January 31, 2022 under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, the EU clinical trials information system allows the public to access MAA data submitted to the EMA or national regulatory authorities (excluding any commercially confidential information). There may be a risk that information that we consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information becomes publicly available, including to our competitors, under such transparency requirements in the EU.

Third-party claims alleging intellectual property infringement may adversely affect our business, and we may be subject to lawsuits claiming that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of third parties, which could be expensive and time consuming, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our products and product candidates, or subject future sales to royalty payments, which could damage our business.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties, for example, the intellectual property rights of competitors. Our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents owned or controlled by third parties. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our activities related to our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot assure you that our product candidates will not infringe existing or future patents. We may not be aware of patents that have already issued that a third party might assert are infringed by our product candidates. It is also possible that patents of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our product candidates, could nevertheless be found to be infringed by our product candidates. Nevertheless, we are not aware of any issued patents that we believe would prevent us or our licensee(s) from marketing our product candidates, if approved. There may also be patent applications that have been filed but not published that, when issued as patents, could be asserted against us. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that we may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties.

Third parties making claims against us for infringement or misappropriation of their intellectual property rights may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, and would be a substantial diversion of management time and employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us by a third party, we may have to (i) pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed the third party’s patents; (ii) obtain one or more licenses from the third party; (iii) pay royalties to the third party; and/or (iv) redesign any infringing products. Redesigning any infringing products may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Further, we cannot predict whether any required license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. In the event that we could not obtain a license, we may be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would likely obligate us to pay license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need or may choose to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a

55

reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.

Defending ourselves in litigation is very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or alleged trade secrets of third parties or competitors or are in breach of non-competition or non-solicitation agreements with our competitors.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise improperly used or disclosed confidential information or trade secrets of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Further, we may be subject to ownership disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. We may also be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, independent contractors, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging our right to and use of confidential and proprietary information. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose our rights therein. Such an outcome could have a negative impact on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of litigation proceedings could adversely affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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

Our future trademark applications in the United States and other foreign jurisdictions may not be allowed or may be subsequently opposed. Once filed and registered, our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. As a means to enforce our trademark rights and prevent infringement, we may be required to file trademark claims against third parties or initiate trademark opposition proceedings. This can be expensive and time-consuming, particularly for a company of our size. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

56

Disputes over intellectual property subject to the Menarini License may materially impact our ability to commercialize obicetrapib.

The licensing of intellectual property in the Menarini License is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues and is complicated by the rapid pace of scientific discovery in our industry. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to the Menarini License, including:

If disputes over intellectual property we have licensed to Menarini prevent or impair our ability to maintain the Menarini License on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize obicetrapib.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Current and future legislation affecting the healthcare industry, including healthcare reform, may impact our business generally and may increase limitations on reimbursement, rebates and other payments, which could adversely affect third-party coverage of our products, our operations and/or how much or under what circumstances healthcare providers will prescribe or administer obicetrapib, if approved.

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell obicetrapib profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

For example, in March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), a law intended, among other things, to broaden access to health insurance, improve quality of care, and reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending. The ACA, among other things, imposed 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, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, added a provision to increase the Medicaid rebate for line extensions or reformulated drugs, established annual fees on manufacturers and importers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, promoted a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service Act pharmaceutical pricing program; and imposed a number of substantial new compliance provisions related to pharmaceutical companies’ interactions with healthcare practitioners. The ACA also expanded eligibility for Medicaid programs and introduced 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 a new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

57

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. In December 2017, Congress repealed the tax penalty, effective January 1, 2019, for an individual’s failure to maintain ACA-mandated health insurance as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”). President Biden issued an Executive Order that 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. Further, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”) into law, which sets forth meaningful changes to drug product reimbursement by Medicare. Among other actions, the IRA permits HHS to engage in price-capped negotiation to set the price of certain drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. The IRA contains statutory exclusions to the negotiation program, including for certain orphan designated drugs for which the only approved indication (or indications) is for the orphan disease or condition. Should our product candidates be approved and covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, and fail to fall within a statutory exclusion, such as that for an orphan drug, those products could, after a period of time, be selected for negotiation and become subject to prices representing a significant discount from average prices to wholesalers and direct purchasers. The IRA also establishes a rebate obligation for drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D covered drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. The inflation rebates may require us to pay rebates if we increased the cost of a covered Medicare Part B or Part D approved product faster than the rate of inflation. In addition, the law eliminates the “donut hole” under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. Our cost-sharing responsibility for any approved product covered by Medicare Part D could be significantly greater under the newly designed Part D benefit structure compared to the pre-IRA benefit design. Additionally, manufacturers that fail to comply with certain provisions of the IRA may be subject to penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA is anticipated to have significant effects on the pharmaceutical industry and may reduce the prices we can charge and reimbursement we can receive for our products, among other effects.

In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. This 2% reduction was

temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since been reinstated and, unless Congress and/or the Executive Branch take additional action, will begin to increase gradually starting in April 2030, reaching 4% in April 2031, until sequestration ends in October 2031. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 also introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or penalties based on new program quality standards. In November 2019, CMS issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Medicare Quality Payment Program. On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other

58

things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The IRA delayed the implementation of the rule to January 1, 2032. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers; the implementation of these provisions has also been delayed by the IRA until January 1, 2032. In addition, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate price cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price for single source and innovator multiple source products, beginning on January 1, 2024. Further, in July 2021, the Biden Administration released an executive order that included multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug price reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions by HHS. No legislative or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of the budget reconciliation process. Additionally, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. If healthcare policies or reforms intended to curb healthcare costs are adopted, or if we experience negative publicity with respect to the pricing of obicetrapib, if approved, or any future product or the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs generally, the prices that we charge for any approved products may be limited, our commercial opportunity may be limited and/or our revenues from sales of our products may be negatively impacted.

If we obtain regulatory approval and commence commercialization of obicetrapib or any of our future product candidates, these laws may result in additional reductions in healthcare funding, which could have an adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of obicetrapib or our future product candidates may be.

Although we cannot predict the full effect on our business of the implementation of existing legislation or the enactment of additional legislation pursuant to healthcare and other legislative reform, we believe that legislation or regulations that would reduce reimbursement for, or restrict coverage of, obicetrapib, if approved, or any of our future products could adversely affect how much or under what circumstances healthcare providers will prescribe or administer our products. This could adversely affect our business by reducing our ability to generate revenues, raise capital, obtain licenses and market our products. In addition, we believe the increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States has and will continue to put pressure on the price and usage of pharmaceutical products, which may adversely impact product sales.

59

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, independent contractors, clinical investigators, CROs, consultants and vendors in connection with our current and future business activities may be subject to federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face penalties.

We may currently be or may become subject to various federal, state and foreign healthcare laws, including those intended to prevent healthcare fraud and abuse.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare and Medicaid Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including, but not limited to, cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced price items and services.

Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of EU member states. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Payments made to physicians in certain EU member states must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU member states. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU member states. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

Federal false claims laws, including the federal False Claims Act (the “FCA”) and civil monetary penalties law impose penalties against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment or approval that are false or fraudulent or making a false record or statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The FCA has been used to, among other things, prosecute persons and entities submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. The FCA includes a whistleblower provision that allows individuals to bring actions on behalf of the federal government and share a portion of the recovery of successful claims.

Many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes and regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. State and federal authorities have aggressively targeted medical technology companies for, among other things, alleged violations of these anti-fraud statutes, based on improper research or consulting contracts with doctors, certain marketing arrangements that rely on volume-based pricing, off-label marketing schemes, and other improper promotional practices.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) among other things, imposes criminal liability for knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

Our operations will also be subject to the federal transparency requirements under the ACA, which require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under

60

Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the CMS an agency within HHS information related to payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians, teaching hospitals, certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members and certain non-physician providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified-nurse midwives). On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. As a result of litigation, challenging the MFN model on August 10, 2021, CMS published a proposed rule that seeks to rescind the MFN model interim rule. In addition, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate price cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price for single source and innovator multiple source products, beginning on January 1, 2024. Further, in July 2021, the Biden Administration released an executive order that included multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug price reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions by HHS. No legislative or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of the budget reconciliation process. Additionally, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. We may also be subject to state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures, and/or state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidelines promulgated by the federal government.

We may also be subject to federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products, and similar laws in other jurisdictions.

We are subject to stringent privacy laws, information security policies and contractual obligations governing the use, processing, and cross-border transfer of personal information and our data privacy and security practices.

We receive, generate and store sensitive information, including employee and patient data, and are subject to a variety of federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations that apply to the collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure, transfer and other processing of data in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including comprehensive regulatory systems in the United States and the EU. Legal requirements relating to data processing continue to evolve and may result in ever-increasing public scrutiny and escalating levels of enforcement, sanctions and increased costs of compliance. An actual or perceived failure to comply with laws and regulations governing personal information could result in government investigations and enforcement actions against us, fines, claims for damages by affected third parties, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

EU data protection laws including the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“GDPR”) impose strict requirements relating to the processing of personal data, including special protections for “special categories of

61

personal data” which includes, without limitation, health and genetic information of data subjects residing in the EU. The GDPR also generally prohibits the transfer of personal information from the EU to the United States and most other foreign jurisdictions unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal information. There is uncertainty regarding how to ensure that transfers of personal information from the EU to the United States comply with the GDPR. As such, any transfers by us, or our vendors, of personal information from the EU may not comply with EU data protection laws; may increase our exposure to the GDPR’s heightened sanctions for violations of its cross-border data transfer restrictions; and may reduce demand for our services from companies subject to EU data protection laws. Loss of our ability to transfer personal information from the EU may also require us to increase our data processing capabilities in those relevant jurisdictions at significant expense.

Similar privacy and data security requirements are either in place or have been proposed in the United States. There are numerous data protection laws that may be applicable to our activities, and a range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered or have been implemented at both the state and federal levels.

Further, regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA impose privacy, security and breach notification obligations on health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services that involve creating, receiving, maintaining or transmitting individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of such covered entities, and their covered subcontractors. HIPAA establishes privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”) and requires the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI and ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic PHI. Most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we obtain patient health information, are subject to HIPAA. We do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not directly subject to its requirements. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information.

Complying with the GDPR and other U.S. and foreign data protection laws and regulations may cause us to incur substantial operational costs or require us to change our business practices in a manner adverse to our business.

Moreover, complying with these various laws could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Despite our efforts to bring our practices into compliance with these laws and regulations, we may not be successful in our efforts to achieve compliance either due to internal or external factors such as resource allocation limitations or a lack of vendor cooperation. Failure to comply with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), other administrative actions or litigation. For example, the GDPR sets out substantial fines for breaches of the data protection rules, increased powers for regulators, enhanced rights for individuals, and new rules on judicial remedies and collective redress. Any inability to adequately address privacy concerns, even if unfounded, or comply with applicable privacy or data protection laws, regulations and policies, could result in additional cost and liability to us, damage our reputation, inhibit sales and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

62

Our marketing efforts may be subject to a variety of regulations.

We may choose to conduct marketing activities, directly and indirectly, via text (SMS) messages, email, and/or through other online and offline marketing channels. Numerous foreign, federal, and state regulations may govern such marketing activities, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), state and federal Do-Not-Call regulations and other state telemarketing laws, federal and state privacy laws, the CAN-SPAM Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act and its accompanying regulations and guidelines, among others. These laws not only allow action to be brought by regulatory agencies, but some of these laws, like the TCPA, allow private individuals to bring litigation against companies for breach of these laws. If we conduct marketing activities regulated by these laws, then we may depend on third-party partners to comply with these laws. Any lawsuit brought by private individuals, or action by a regulatory agency, for an actual or alleged violation of applicable law or regulation by us or our third-party partners may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We could be adversely affected by violations of the FCPA and other worldwide anti-bribery laws, export and import controls, sanctions, embargoes, and anti-money laundering laws and regulations.

Various of our activities may be subject to anti-bribery, export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the jurisdictions in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. These laws are complex and far-reaching in nature, and, as a result, we cannot assure you that our internal control policies and procedures will protect us from reckless or negligent acts committed by our intermediaries, or that we would not be required in the future to alter one or more of our practices to be in compliance with these laws or any changes in these laws or the interpretation thereof. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations. Furthermore, because we engage, and expect to continue to engage, third parties in connection with our clinical trials and other development and commercialization activities, we can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our personnel, agents or collaborators, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have prior knowledge of such activities. Other companies in the biopharmaceutical field have faced criminal penalties under the FCPA for allowing their agents to deviate from appropriate practices in doing business with individuals in the public or private sector.

Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction, involve significant costs and expenses, including legal fees, and could result in a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations or our reputation. We could also suffer severe penalties, including substantial criminal and civil penalties, imprisonment, disgorgement, reputational harm and other remedial measures.

It may be difficult for us to profitably sell obicetrapib or any future product candidate in the United States, if approved, if coverage and reimbursement for these products is limited by government authorities and/or third-party payor policies.

Market acceptance and sales of obicetrapib and our other product candidates, if approved, will depend on the coverage and reimbursement policies of government authorities and third-party payors, in addition to any healthcare reform measures that may affect reimbursement. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement and co-payment levels. Such authorities and other third-party payors are increasingly

63

challenging the prices charged for healthcare products, examining the cost effectiveness of drugs in addition to their safety and efficacy, and limiting or attempting to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for prescription drugs. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for obicetrapib or our other product candidates, if approved, or, if coverage is available, the level of reimbursement.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors often follow CMS. It is difficult to predict what CMS as well as other payors will decide with respect to reimbursement.

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, and/or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Assuming we obtain coverage for a given product by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor. Further, no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and/or sufficient reimbursement levels.

We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for obicetrapib or any of our future product candidates, if approved. Also, we cannot be sure that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our future products, which would in turn negatively affect revenues from any future sales. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels that are not commercially attractive to us or our collaborators, we may not be able to commercialize obicetrapib or our other product candidates, or achieve profitability, even if approved.

64

Marketing and reimbursement regulations may materially affect our ability to market and receive coverage for our products in foreign jurisdictions.

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

In the EU, the requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely between EU member states. Some EU member states provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some EU member states may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Moreover, at the national level, EU member states may restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU member states may approve a specific price for a product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many EU member states have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as EU member states attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the EU. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become significant. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products in the marketplace. Political, economic and regulatory developments in the EU may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states) can further reduce prices. Acceptance of any medicinal product for reimbursement may come with cost, use and often volume restrictions, which again can vary by country. In addition, results based rules of reimbursement may apply. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels or if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, our revenues from sales and the potential profitability of any of our product candidates in those countries would be negatively affected.

We are subject to changing law and regulations regarding regulatory matters, corporate governance and public disclosure that have increased both our costs and the risk of noncompliance.

We are subject to rules and regulations by various governing bodies, including, for example, the SEC, which are charged with the protection of investors and the oversight of companies whose securities are publicly traded, and to new and evolving regulatory measures under applicable law. Our efforts to comply with new and changing laws and regulations have resulted in increased selling, general and administrative expenses. Moreover, because these laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance becomes available. This evolution may result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and additional costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to our disclosure and

65

governance practices. If we fail to address and comply with these regulations and any subsequent changes, we may be subject to penalty and our business may be harmed.

Legislative or regulatory healthcare reforms in the United States or abroad may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory clearance or approval of obicetrapib or any of our future product candidates now or in the future and to produce, market and distribute our products after clearance or approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in Congress or by governments in foreign jurisdictions that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory clearance or approval, manufacture, and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. In addition, FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory authority regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authorities in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of obicetrapib or any of our other product candidates now or in the future. We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations, statutes, legal interpretation or policies, when and if promulgated, enacted or adopted may have on our business in the future. Such changes could, among other things, require:

Each of these would likely entail substantial time and cost and could harm our business and our financial results. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for obicetrapib or any future products would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position

The unaudited pro forma financial data included herein are based on certain assumptions included therein actual results may vary.

The unaudited pro forma financial information is presented on a narrative basis and for illustrative purposes only, is based on certain assumptions, address a hypothetical situation and reflect historical financial data. Therefore, the unaudited pro forma financial information is not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that would have been achieved had the Business Combination been consummated on the dates indicated above, or our future consolidated results of operations. Accordingly, our results of operations may differ from those indicated in the section “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Financial Information.”

Our ability to use our tax losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

Our ability to utilize tax losses and tax loss carryforwards is conditioned upon it attaining profitability and generating taxable income. We have incurred significant tax losses since inception and it is anticipated that we will continue to incur significant losses. As of December 31, 2022, we reported unused tax losses of €251.6 million. Additionally, our ability to utilize tax losses and tax loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations. In this respect, as at January 1, 2022, tax losses can be carried back one year and carried forward indefinitely in the Netherlands. However, both the carry back and carry forward tax loss relief will be limited to 50% of the taxable profit to the extent it exceeds EUR 1 million, calculated per financial year. As a result of transitional law, tax losses incurred in the financial years that started on or after

66

January 1, 2013 (our oldest tax loss year as of December 31, 2022) and that are still available for carry forward as of January 1, 2022 also fall under the new scheme that entered into effect on January 1, 2022 and will therefore be indefinite. In addition, pursuant to Article 20a of the Dutch Corporate Income Tax, tax loss carryforwards can no longer be offset against future taxable profits if the ultimate ownership in a Dutch taxpayer has changed by an amount equal to or greater than 30%, unless certain counter evidence rules are met. In this respect, we believe and have taken the position that the tax losses of NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. available for carry forward have not been forfeited as a result of the change of ownership back in 2020, when NewAmsterdam Pharma acquired all shares in the capital of NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. (formerly Dezima Pharma B.V.), and that the tax losses of NewAmsterdam Pharma and NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. have not been forfeited as a result of the Business Combination. On May 25, 2022, we filed a ruling request with the Dutch Tax Authorities to confirm that the change of ownership back in 2020 (described above) did not result in the loss of the tax losses of NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. available for carry forward at that time. However, as of the date hereof, the Dutch Tax Authorities had not yet decided on our request. We currently expect, but can in no way guarantee or enforce, that the Dutch Tax Authority will grant our request.

We are a holding company with no operations and rely on operating subsidiaries to provide it with funds necessary to meet our financial obligations.

We are a holding company that does not conduct any business operations of its own. As a result, we are largely dependent upon cash dividends and distributions and other transfers, including for dividends or payments in respect of any indebtedness we may incur, from our subsidiaries to meet its obligations.

Any agreements governing indebtedness that we or our subsidiaries enter into may impose restrictions on our subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends or other distributions to us. Each of our subsidiaries is a distinct legal entity, and under certain circumstances legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such subsidiaries. The deterioration of the earnings from, or other available assets of, our subsidiaries for any reason could also limit or impair their ability to pay dividends or other distributions to us.

Our PFIC status could result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. Holders.

Based on current estimates of the composition of the income and assets of the Company and its subsidiaries for the taxable year ended December 31, 2022, we believe that the Company may be treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for the 2022 taxable year, which was the year in which the Business Combination was completed. However, we have not yet determined whether we expect to be a PFIC for the current taxable year or any future taxable years. Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a non-U.S. corporation is classified as a PFIC for any tax year if, after the application of certain “look-through” rules with respect to subsidiaries, at least 75% of its gross income is “passive income” or at least 50% of the value of its assets, determined on the basis of quarterly averages, is attributable to assets that produce or are held for the production of “passive income.” The determination of whether the Company or any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries is a PFIC is made annually and thus subject to change, and it generally cannot be made until the end of the taxable year.

Passive income generally includes dividends, interest, royalties, rents (other than certain rents and royalties derived in the active conduct of a trade or business), annuities and gains from assets that produce passive income. Cash is a passive asset for PFIC purposes, even if held as working capital. For this purpose, a non-U.S. corporation is generally treated as owning a proportionate share of the assets and earning a proportionate share of the income of any other corporation in which it owns, directly or indirectly, at least 25% (by value) of the stock. Accordingly, the Company will be treated as owning the cash and other cash-equivalent items of FLAC.

A U.S. Holder (as defined in the section entitled “Taxation—United States Federal Income Tax Considerations”) generally will be subject to additional U.S. federal income taxes and interest charges on the gain from a sale of Ordinary Shares or the Public Warrants, and the Private Placement Warrants and on receipt of an “excess

67

distribution” with respect to Ordinary Shares or any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries. A U.S. Holder of stock of a PFIC generally may mitigate these adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, however, by making a “qualified electing fund” election or a “mark-to-market” election. If we determine that we and/or any of our subsidiaries is a PFIC for any taxable year, we intend to provide a U.S. Holder such information as the United States Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) may require, including a PFIC Annual Information Statement, in order to enable the U.S. Holder to make and maintain a “qualified electing fund” election with respect to the Company and/or such non-U.S. subsidiaries, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to timely provide such required information. U.S. Holders generally will not be able to make a qualified electing fund election solely with respect to the Warrants.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Securities

We are a Dutch public limited liability company. The rights of our shareholders may be different from the rights of shareholders in companies governed by the laws of other jurisdictions and may not protect investors in a similar fashion afforded by incorporation in such other jurisdiction.

In connection with the Business Combination, the Company was converted into a public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) under Dutch law. Our corporate affairs are governed by Articles of Association, the rules of the Board of Directors, our other internal rules and policies and by Dutch law. There can be no assurance that Dutch law will not change in the future or that it will serve to protect shareholders in a similar fashion afforded under corporate law principles in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect the rights of our shareholders.

In the performance of their duties, our directors are required by Dutch law to consider the interests of the Company, its shareholders, its employees and other stakeholders, in all cases with due regard to the principles of reasonableness and fairness. It is possible that some of these stakeholders will have interests that are different from, or in addition to, your interests as a shareholder.

For more information on relevant provisions of Dutch corporation law and of the Articles of Association, see the section titled “Description of our Securities.”

The market price and trading volume of the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants may be volatile and could decline significantly.

Nasdaq has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. There may not be an active trading market for Ordinary Shares, which may make it difficult to sell such shares. Even if an active, liquid and orderly trading market develops and is sustained for the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants, the market price of the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants may be volatile and could decline significantly. In addition, the trading volume in the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. If the market price of the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants decline significantly, you may be unable to resell your shares or warrants at or above the price at which you acquired the Ordinary Shares and/or Public Warrants. We cannot assure you that the market price of the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants will not fluctuate widely or decline significantly in the future in response to a number of factors, including, among others, the following:

68

In the past, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their shares. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

There can be no assurance that the Ordinary Shares or the Public Warrants will be able to comply with the continued listing standards of Nasdaq.

Our Ordinary Shares are traded on Nasdaq under the symbol “NAMS” and our Public Warrants are traded on Nasdaq under the symbol “NAMSW.” If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of Nasdaq such as the minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to delist our securities. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of the securities and would impair your ability to sell or purchase the securities when you wish to do so. In such a delisting, we and our shareholders could face significant material adverse consequences including:

In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by it to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow its securities to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of its securities, prevent its securities from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements. Additionally, if our securities are not listed on, or become delisted from, Nasdaq for any reason, and are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, an inter-dealer

69

automated quotation system for equity securities that is not a national securities exchange, the liquidity and price of our securities may be more limited than if they were quoted or listed on Nasdaq or another national securities exchange. You may be unable to sell your securities unless a market can be established or sustained.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about the Company, our business, or the market in which we operate, or if they change their recommendations regarding the Ordinary Shares adversely, then the price and trading volume of the Ordinary Shares could decline.

The trading market for our Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about our business. We do not control these analysts, or the content and opinions included in their reports. As a new public company, we may be slow to attract research coverage and the analysts who publish information about the Ordinary Shares will have had relatively little experience with the Company, which could affect their ability to accurately forecast our results and make it more likely that we fail to meet their estimates. In the event we obtains industry or financial analyst coverage, if any of the analysts who cover us issues an inaccurate or unfavorable opinion regarding the Company, the price of the Ordinary Shares would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of the Company or fail to publish reports on it regularly, our visibility in the financial markets could decrease, which in turn could cause its share price or trading volume to decline.

We do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, you may not receive any return on investment unless you sell your Ordinary Shares for a price greater than the price you paid for them.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on its shares. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any dividends on the Ordinary Shares in the foreseeable future. Consequently, you may be unable to realize a gain on your investment except by selling such shares after price appreciation, which may never occur.

The Board of Directors may only pay dividends and other distributions from the Company’s reserves to the extent the Company’s shareholders’ equity (eigen vermogen) exceeds the sum of the paid-in and called-up share capital plus the reserves it must maintain under Dutch law or the Articles of Association and (if it concerns a distribution of profits) after adoption of its statutory annual accounts by its general meeting of its shareholders (the “General Meeting”) from which it appears that such dividend distribution is allowed. Subject to those restrictions, any future determination to pay dividends or other distributions from the Company’s reserves will be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and will depend upon a number of factors, including its results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors the Board of Directors deems relevant.

Under the Articles of Association, the Board of Directors may decide that all or part of the profits shown in the Company’s adopted statutory annual accounts will be added to its reserves. After reservation of any such profits, any remaining profits will be at the disposal of the General Meeting at the proposal of the Board of Directors for distribution on Ordinary Shares, subject to applicable restrictions of Dutch law. The Board of Directors is permitted, subject to certain requirements and applicable restrictions of Dutch law, to declare interim dividends without the approval of the General Meeting. Dividends and other distributions will be made payable no later than a date determined by the Company. Claims to dividends and other distributions not made within five years from the date that such dividends or distributions became payable will lapse and any such amounts will be considered to have been forfeited to us (verjaring).

Our management team has limited experience managing a public company.

Most members of our management team have limited or no experience managing a publicly traded company, interacting with public company investors, and complying with the increasingly complex laws, rules and regulations that govern public companies. As a public company, we are subject to significant obligations relating

70

to reporting, procedures and internal controls, in both the United States and the Netherlands, and our management team may not successfully or efficiently manage such obligations. These obligations and scrutiny will require significant attention from our management and could divert their attention away from the day-to-day management of our business, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In connection with the Business Combination, the Company’s legal form was converted from a private company with limited liability to a public limited liability company in the Netherlands. Such conversion imposes additional burdens on our management team.

Investors may have difficulty enforcing civil liabilities against the Company or the members of the Board of Directors.

We are organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands and, as such, Dutch private international law governs the rights of our shareholders and the civil liability of our directors and executive officers are governed in certain respects by the laws of the Netherlands. The ability of our shareholders in certain countries other than the Netherlands to bring an action against us or our directors and executive officers may be limited under applicable law. In addition, substantially all of our assets are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for shareholders to effect service of process within the United States upon us or our directors and executive officers or to enforce judgments against them in U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States. In addition, it is not clear whether a Dutch court would impose civil liability on us or our directors and executive officers in an original action based solely upon the federal securities laws of the United States brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the Netherlands.

As of the date of this prospectus, there is no treaty in effect between the United States and the Netherlands providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, other than arbitration awards, in civil and commercial matters. It is noted that, on the date of this prospectus, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of June 30, 2005, has entered into force for the Netherlands, but has not entered into force for the United States. The Hague Convention of July 2, 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters has not entered into force for either the Netherlands or the United States. Accordingly, a judgment rendered by a court in the United States, whether or not predicated solely upon U.S. securities laws, would not automatically be recognized and enforced by the competent Dutch courts. However, if a person has obtained a judgment rendered by a court in the United States that is enforceable under the laws of the United States and files a claim with the competent Dutch court, the Dutch court will in principle give binding effect to such judgment if (i) the jurisdiction of the U.S. court was based on a ground of jurisdiction that is generally acceptable according to international standards, (ii) the judgment by the U.S. court was rendered in legal proceedings that comply with the Dutch standards of proper administration of justice including sufficient safeguards (behoorlijke rechtspleging), (iii) binding effect of such U.S. judgment is not contrary to Dutch public order (openbare orde) and (iv) the judgment by the U.S. court is not incompatible with a decision rendered between the same parties by a Dutch court, or with a previous decision rendered between the same parties by a foreign court in a dispute that concerns the same subject and is based on the same cause, provided that the previous decision qualifies for recognition in the Netherlands. Even if such a U.S. judgement is given binding effect, a claim based thereon may, however, still be rejected if the U.S. judgment is not or no longer formally enforceable. Dutch courts may deny the recognition and enforcement of punitive damages or other awards. Moreover, a Dutch court may reduce the amount of damages granted by a U.S. court and recognize damages only to the extent that they are necessary to compensate actual losses or damages. Enforcement and recognition of judgments of U.S. courts in the Netherlands are solely governed by the provisions of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering).

Based on the lack of a treaty as described above, U.S. investors may not be able to enforce against us or our directors, representatives or certain experts named herein who are residents of the Netherlands or countries other than the United States, any judgments obtained in U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, including judgments under the U.S. federal securities laws.

71

The Articles of Association provide that the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), which could limit the ability of our securityholders to choose a favorable judicial forum for disputes with we or our directors, officers or employees.

The Articles of Association provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the sole and exclusive forum for any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, shall be the U.S. federal district courts. This choice of forum provision may increase a securityholder’s cost and limit the securityholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us or our directors, officers and other employees. Our shareholders will not be deemed to have waived compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder as a result of the exclusive forum provision. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any of the Ordinary Shares or other securities, whether by transfer, sale, operation of law or otherwise, will be deemed to have notice of and have irrevocably agreed and consented to this provision. There is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such provision. The Securities Act provides that state courts and federal courts will have concurrent jurisdiction over claims under the Securities Act, and the enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other companies’ charter documents has been challenged in legal proceedings. It is possible that a court could find this type of provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable, and if a court were to find this provision in the Articles of Association to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could have adverse effect on our business and financial performance.

Each of the Sponsor and NewAmsterdam Pharma’s former shareholders own a significant portion of Ordinary Shares and have representation on the Board of Directors. The Sponsor and NewAmsterdam Pharma’s former shareholders may have interests that differ from those of other shareholders.

As of June 30, 2023, approximately 13.4% of our Ordinary Shares were owned by the Sponsor, its affiliates and the former holders of all other issued and outstanding FLAC Class B ordinary shares (together, the “FLAC Shareholders”) NewAmsterdam Pharma’s former shareholders and the PIPE Investors (as defined below) own a significant number of our Ordinary Shares. These levels of ownership interests are based on 82,324,331 Ordinary Shares outstanding on June 30, 2023 and assume that none of the 1,886,137 Earnout Shares (as defined below) have been issued. In addition, two of our non-executive director nominees were designated by FLAC. As a result, the Sponsor and NewAmsterdam Pharma’s former shareholders may be able to significantly influence the outcome of matters submitted for director action, subject to obligation of the Board of Directors to act in the interest of all of our stakeholders, and for shareholder action, including the designation and appointment of the Board of Directors and approval of significant corporate transactions, including business combinations, consolidations and mergers. The influence of the Sponsor or its affiliates and certain of our current shareholders over our management could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control or otherwise discouraging a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of the Company, which could cause the market price of our Ordinary Shares to decline or prevent our shareholders from realizing a premium over the market price for their Ordinary Shares. Additionally, the Sponsor, which is in the business of making investments in companies and which may from time to time acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us or that supply us with goods and services. The Sponsor may also pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to (or competitive with) our business, and as a result those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. Investors in our Ordinary Shares should consider that the interests of the Sponsor or its affiliates and certain of our current shareholders may differ from their interests in material respects.

72

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting or disclosure controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which is likely to negatively affect our business and the market price of the Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with IFRS. As a result of becoming a public company, we are required, pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley, to maintain internal control over financial reporting. Effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports, prevent fraud and comply with our Exchange Act reporting obligations, and efforts to ensure that there are effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls are costly, time-consuming, and need to be re-evaluated frequently. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in our implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing conducted by us, or any testing conducted by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which is likely to negatively affect our business and the market price of the Ordinary Shares.

We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures on an annual basis and our management will be required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually beginning with our fiscal year ending December 31, 2023. However, for as long as we are an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (“JOBS Act”), our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley. We could be an “emerging growth company” for up to five years. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation. We are in the very early stages of the costly and challenging process of planning the activities necessary to perform the evaluation needed to comply with Section 404.

Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which is likely to negatively affect our business and the market price of the Ordinary Shares.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to remediate these material weaknesses, identify additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, which may adversely affect our business and the price of our securities.

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements at and for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, our management identified material weaknesses in the design of our internal control over financial reporting across the principles for each component of the COSO framework at the entity level (i.e. control environment, risk assessment, monitoring, information & communication and control activities) and accordingly, across its business and IT processes. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of a company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be detected or prevented on a timely basis. Specifically, the material weaknesses that were identified, individually or in the aggregate, included the following:

73

We have taken steps to develop a remediation plan designed to address the material weaknesses described above and expect to take additional steps to fully remediate our material weaknesses. The company was a small private company with a limited number of employees and did not have a formal documented controls framework before it became a listed entity in November 2022. As a public emerging growth company, significant investments need to be made in our accounting, finance and controlling capabilities and we need to develop and implement a risk and internal controls framework that will allow the company to address the material weaknesses, effectively manage our strategic, operational and financial risks and ultimately meet Sarbanes-Oxley requirements. Management has developed a plan and secured resources, which include external advisors and specialists, and will execute this plan under the guidance, supervision and oversight of the Audit Committee, to achieve the objective of remediating the material weaknesses and having an effective internal controls framework. Our planned remediation efforts include, but are not limited to:

The material weaknesses described above resulted in a material misstatement that was corrected in our consolidated financial statements. The material weaknesses described above could result in additional misstatements of one or more account balances or disclosures that would result in a material misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected. As a result of the material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting, our management has concluded that as of December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective.

There can be no assurance that the measures we have taken to date, and actions we may take in the future, will be sufficient to remediate the control deficiencies that led to these material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting or that they will prevent or avoid potential future material weaknesses. If we are unable to successfully remediate our material weaknesses, or identify any future material weaknesses, the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports, the market price of our Ordinary Shares may decline as a result, and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remediate any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.

74

In addition, neither our management nor an independent registered public accounting firm has performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. Had we or our independent registered public accounting firm performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, additional material weaknesses may have been identified.

We may redeem your unexpired warrants prior to their exercise at a time that is disadvantageous to you, thereby making your warrants worthless.

We have the ability to redeem all outstanding Warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration, at a price of $0.01 per warrant, if, among other things, the closing price of the Ordinary Shares equals or exceeds $18.00 per share (as adjusted for share sub-divisions, share capitalizations, reorganizations, recapitalizations and the like) for any 20 trading days within a 30-trading day period ending on the third trading day prior to the date on which notice of the redemption is given to the warrant holders (the “Reference Value”). If and when the Warrants become redeemable by us, we may exercise our redemption right even if we are unable to register or qualify the underlying securities for sale under all applicable state securities laws. Redemption of the outstanding Warrants as described above could force you to (i) exercise your Warrants and pay the exercise price therefor at a time when it may be disadvantageous for you to do so, (ii) sell your Warrants at the then-current market price when you might otherwise wish to hold your Warrants or (iii) accept the nominal redemption price which, at the time the outstanding Warrants are called for redemption, is likely to be substantially less than the market value of your Warrants. None of the Private Placement Warrants will be redeemable by us so long as they are held by the Sponsor or their permitted transferees.

In addition, we have the ability to redeem the outstanding Warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration, at a price of $0.10 per warrant if, among other things, the Reference Value equals or exceeds $10.00 per share (as adjusted for share sub-divisions, share dividends, rights issuances, reorganizations, recapitalizations and the like) and the former holders of the Private Placement Warrants have also been called for redemption, subject to certain limitations as set forth in the Warrant Assignment, Assumption and Amendment Agreement, dated November 22, 2022, between us, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company and FLAC (the “Warrant Assumption Agreement”). In such a case, the holders will be able to exercise their Warrants prior to redemption for a number of Ordinary Shares determined based on the redemption date and the fair market value of the Ordinary Shares. The value received upon exercise of the Warrants (1) may be less than the value the holders would have received if they had exercised their Warrants at a later time where the underlying share price is higher and (2) may not compensate the holders for the value of the Warrants, including because the number of ordinary shares received is capped at 0.361 shares of the Ordinary Shares per warrant (subject to adjustment) irrespective of the remaining life of the warrants.

Warrants and Options will become exercisable for Ordinary Shares, which would increase the number of shares eligible for future resale in the public market and result in dilution to shareholders.

As of June 30, 2023, Warrants to purchase an aggregate of 4,017,321 Ordinary Shares were outstanding and are exercisable in accordance with the terms of the Warrant Assumption Agreement. The Warrants became exercisable on December 22, 2022, 30 days after the completion of the Business Combination. The exercise price of the Warrants is $11.50 per share. To the extent such warrants are exercised, additional Ordinary Shares will be issued, which will result in dilution to the holders of Ordinary Shares and increase the number of Ordinary Shares eligible for resale in the public market. Sales of substantial numbers of such shares in the public market or the fact that such Warrants may be exercised could adversely affect the market price of Ordinary Shares. To the extent that the Warrants are “out-of-the-money” we do not expect that all of the Warrant holders will exercise their Warrants. As such, there is no guarantee that the Warrants will ever be exercised. As of June 30, 2023, there were 13,966,164 shares issuable upon the exercise of options granted under the LTIP, Rollover Plan and Supplementary LTIP (each as defined below) at a weighted average exercise price of $7.33. If the Options are exercised, there may be additional Ordinary Shares offered which may further adversely affect the market price of our Ordinary Shares.

75

There is no guarantee that the Warrants will be in the money, and they may expire worthless.

Pursuant to the terms of the Warrant Assumption Agreement, the Warrants will expire five years from the day following the Closing Date, November 23, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The exercise price of our Warrants is $11.50 per Ordinary Share, subject to adjustment. The exercise price of the Warrants has at times exceeded the market price of the Ordinary Shares. To the extent the price of our Ordinary Shares remains below $11.50, we believe that Warrant holders will be unlikely to cash exercise their warrants, resulting in little to no cash proceeds to us. There is no guarantee the exercise price of our Warrants will ever remain below the price of our Ordinary Shares and, as such, our Warrants may expire worthless.

The terms of the Public Warrants may be amended in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of at least 65% of the then outstanding Public Warrants approve of such amendment.

The Warrant Assumption Agreement provides that (i) the terms of the Warrants may be amended without the consent of any holder for the purpose of (a) curing any ambiguity or correct any mistake, including to conform the provisions of the Warrant Assumption Agreement to the description of the terms of such warrants and the Warrant Assumption Agreement set forth in this prospectus, or defective provision, (b) amending the definition of “Ordinary Cash Dividend” as contemplated by and in accordance with the Warrant Assumption Agreement or (c) adding or changing any provisions with respect to matters or questions arising under the Warrant Assumption Agreement as the parties to the Warrant Assumption Agreement may deem necessary or desirable and that the parties deem to not adversely affect the rights of the registered holders of such warrants under the Warrant Assumption Agreement and (ii) all other modifications or amendments require the vote or written consent of at least 65% of the then outstanding Public Warrants; provided that any amendment that solely affects the terms of the Private Placement Warrants or any provision of the Warrant Assumption Agreement solely with respect to the Private Placement Warrants will require at least 50% of the then outstanding Private Placement Warrants.

Accordingly, we may amend the terms of the Public Warrants in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of at least 65% of the then outstanding Public Warrants approve of such amendment. Although the ability to amend the terms of the Public Warrants with the consent of at least 65% of the then outstanding Public Warrants is unlimited, examples of such amendments could be amendments to, among other things, increase the exercise price of the warrants, shorten the exercise period or decrease the number of ordinary shares purchasable upon exercise of a warrant.

The Warrant Assumption Agreement designates the courts of the State of New York or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by holders of Warrants, which could limit the ability of Warrant holders to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.

The Warrant Assumption Agreement provides that, subject to applicable law, (i) any action, proceeding or claim against us arising out of or relating in any way to the Warrant Assumption Agreement, including under the Securities Act, will be brought and enforced in the courts of the State of New York or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and (ii) that we will irrevocably submit to such jurisdiction, which jurisdiction will be the exclusive forum for any such action, proceeding or claim.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, these provisions of the Warrant Assumption Agreement do not apply to suits brought to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal district courts of the United States of America are the sole and exclusive forum. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any of the Warrants will be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the forum provisions in the Warrant Assumption Agreement. If any action, the subject matter of which is within the scope of the forum provisions of the Warrant Assumption Agreement, is filed in a court other than a court of the State of New York or the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (a “foreign action”) in the name of any holder of Warrants, such holder will be deemed to have consented to: (x) the

76

personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in the State of New York in connection with any action brought in any such court to enforce the forum provisions (an “enforcement action”), and (y) having service of process made upon such warrant holder in any such enforcement action by service upon such warrant holder’s counsel in the foreign action as agent for such Warrant holder.

This choice-of-forum provision may limit a Warrant holder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes, which may discourage such lawsuits. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision of the Warrant Assumption Agreement inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could materially and adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations and result in a diversion of the time and resources of management and the Board of Directors.

Our shareholders may not have any preemptive rights in respect of future issuances of Ordinary Shares, and, as a result, may experience substantial dilution upon future issuances of Ordinary Shares or grants of rights to subscribe for such shares.

In the event of an issuance of Ordinary Shares or a grant of rights to subscribe for Ordinary Shares, subject to certain exceptions, each shareholder will have a pro rata pre-emption right in proportion to the aggregate nominal value of such holder’s Ordinary Shares. These pre-emption rights may be restricted or excluded by a resolution of the General Meeting or by another corporate body designated by the General Meeting. The Board of Directors is authorized for a period of five years from November 21, 2022 to issue shares or grant rights to subscribe for Ordinary Shares up to the Company’s authorized share capital from time to time and to limit or exclude pre-emption rights in connection therewith. This could cause existing shareholders to experience substantial dilution of their interest in the Company.

We are not obligated to, and do not, comply with all best practice provisions of the Dutch Corporate Governance Code.

We are subject to the Dutch Corporate Governance Code (the “DCGC”). The DCGC contains principles and best practice provisions on corporate governance that regulate relations between the board and the general meeting and matters in respect of financial reporting, auditors, disclosure, compliance and enforcement standards. The DCGC is based on a “comply or explain” principle. Accordingly, companies must disclose in their statutory annual reports whether they comply with the provisions of the DCGC. If a company subject to the DCGC does not comply with those provisions, that company would be required to give the reasons for such non-compliance. We do not comply with all best practice provisions of the DCGC. This may affect your rights as a shareholder and you may not have the same level of protection as a shareholder in a Dutch company that fully complies with the DCGC.

Provisions of our Articles of Association or Dutch corporate law might deter acquisition bids for the Company that might be considered favorable and prevent, delay or frustrate any attempt to replace or dismiss directors.

Under Dutch law, various protective measures are possible and permissible within the boundaries set by Dutch law and Dutch case law.

In this respect, certain provisions of the Articles of Association may make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire control of us or effect a change in the composition of the Board of Directors. These include:

77

Dutch law also allows for staggered multi-year terms of our directors, as a result of which only part of our Board of Directors will be subject to appointment or re-appointment in any given year.

Furthermore, in accordance with the DCGC, shareholders who have the right to put an item on the agenda for the General Meeting or to request the convening of a General Meeting shall not exercise such rights until after they have consulted the Board of Directors. If exercising such rights may result in a change in our strategy (for example, through the dismissal of one or more directors), the Board of Directors must be given the opportunity to invoke a reasonable period of up to 180 days to respond to the shareholders’ intentions. If invoked, the Board of Directors must use such response period for further deliberation and constructive consultation, in any event with the shareholder(s) concerned and exploring alternatives. At the end of the response time, the Board of Directors shall report on this consultation and the exploration of alternatives to the General Meeting. The response period may be invoked only once for any given General Meeting and shall not apply (i) in respect of a matter for which a response period or a statutory cooling-off period (as discussed below) has been previously invoked or (ii) in situations where a shareholder holds at least 75% of our issued share capital as a consequence of a successful public bid.

Moreover, the Board of Directors can invoke a cooling-off period of up to 250 days when shareholders, using their right to have items added to the agenda for a General Meeting or their right to request a General Meeting, propose an agenda item for the General Meeting to dismiss, suspend or appoint one or more directors (or to amend any provision in the Articles of Association dealing with those matters) or when a public offer for the Company is made or announced without our support, provided, in each case, that the Board of Directors believes that such proposal or offer materially conflicts with the interests of the Company and its business. During a cooling-off period, the General Meeting cannot dismiss, suspend or appoint directors (or amend the provisions in the Articles of Association dealing with those matters) except at the proposal of the Board of Directors. During a cooling-off period, the Board of Directors must gather all relevant information necessary for a careful decision-making process and at least consult with shareholders representing 3% or more of our issued share capital at the time the cooling-off period was invoked, as well as with our Dutch works council (if we or, under certain circumstances, any of our subsidiaries would have one). Formal statements expressed by these stakeholders during such consultations must be published on our website to the extent these stakeholders have approved that publication. Ultimately, one week following the last day of the cooling-off period, the Board of Directors must publish a report in respect of its policy and conduct of affairs during the cooling-off period on our website. This report must remain available for inspection by shareholders and others with meeting rights under Dutch law at our office and must be tabled for discussion at the next General Meeting. Shareholders representing at least 3% of our issued share capital may request the Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer) of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the “Enterprise Chamber”), for early termination of the cooling-off period. The Enterprise Chamber must rule in favor of the request if the shareholders can demonstrate that:

78

As a “foreign private issuer,” we are exempt from a number of rules under the U.S. securities laws and are permitted to file less information with the SEC than a U.S. domestic public company, which may limit the information available to holders of our Ordinary Shares and Warrants.

We are a “foreign private issuer,” as such term is defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Act. Because we currently qualify as a “foreign private issuer” under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (1) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act, (2) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their share ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time and (3) all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to domestic issuers. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year and U.S. domestic issuers that are large accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year. As long as we are eligible for the foreign private issuer exemption, we will not be required to obtain shareholder approval for certain dilutive events, such as the establishment or material amendment of certain equity-based compensation plans, we will not be required to provide detailed executive compensation disclosure in our periodic reports, and we will be exempt from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved.

As of January 1, 2024, we will no longer qualify as a foreign private issuer, which will result in significant additional costs and expenses and subject us to increased regulatory requirements.

The determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and, accordingly, we determined on June 30, 2023 that we no longer satisfied the requirements for retaining our foreign private issuer status and, as a result, will cease to be a foreign private issuer and cease to be eligible for the foregoing exemptions and privileges effective January 1, 2024.

As a result of losing our foreign private issuer status, we will be required to file with the SEC periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We will have to begin preparing our financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) which will result in financial statements that are different than our historical financial statements and may make it difficult for investors to compare our financial performance over time. We will also have to mandatorily comply with U.S. federal proxy requirements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders will become subject to the reporting and short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we will lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements under the listing rules of Nasdaq. As a U.S. listed public company that is not a foreign private issuer, we would incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we will not incur as a foreign private issuer. We also expect that complying with the rules and regulations applicable to United States domestic issuers may make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our management team.

79

As we are currently a “foreign private issuer” and follow certain home country corporate governance practices, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.

As a “foreign private issuer,” we have the option to follow certain home country corporate governance practices rather than those of Nasdaq, provided that we disclose the requirements we are not following and describes the home country practices we are following. As a result, in accordance with the listing requirements of Nasdaq we rely on home country governance requirements and certain exemptions thereunder rather than relying on the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq. In accordance with Dutch law and generally accepted business practices, our Articles of Association do not provide quorum requirements generally applicable to general meetings. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(c), which requires an issuer to provide in its bylaws for a generally applicable quorum, and that such quorum may not be less than one-third of the outstanding voting shares. Although we must provide shareholders with an agenda and other relevant documents for our General Meetings, Dutch law does not have a regulatory regime for the solicitation of proxies and the solicitation of proxies is not a generally accepted business practice in the Netherlands, thus our practice will vary from the requirement of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5620(b). As permitted by the listing requirements of Nasdaq, we have also opted out of the requirements of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(b)(2), which requires that independent directors have regularly scheduled meetings at which only independent directors are present. In addition, we have opted out of shareholder approval requirements, as included in the Nasdaq Listing Rules, for the issuance of securities in connection with certain events such as the acquisition of shares or assets of another company (if, due to the potential issuance of ordinary shares, the ordinary shares would have upon issuance voting power equal to or in excess of 20% of the voting power outstanding before the issuance of stock), the establishment of or amendments to equity-based compensation plans for employees, a change of control of our company and certain private placements. To this extent, our practice varies from the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5635, which generally requires an issuer to obtain shareholder approval for the issuance of securities in connection with such events. Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these Nasdaq requirements.

Dutch and European insolvency laws are substantially different from U.S. insolvency laws and may offer our shareholders less protection than they would have under U.S. insolvency laws.

As a Dutch public limited liability company, we are subject to Dutch insolvency laws in the event any insolvency proceedings are initiated against us including, among other things, Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 20, 2015 on insolvency proceedings. Should courts in another EU member state determine that our centre of main interests (COMI) is situated in that member state, the courts in that member state will in principle have jurisdiction over the insolvency proceedings initiated against us and the insolvency laws of that member state will in principle apply to us, in accordance with and subject to such EU regulations. Insolvency laws in the Netherlands or the relevant other EU member state, if any, may offer our shareholders less protection than they would have under U.S. insolvency laws and make it more difficult for our shareholders to recover the amount they could expect to recover in a liquidation under U.S. insolvency laws.

We are eligible to be treated as an “emerging growth company,” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make the Ordinary Shares less attractive to investors, which could have a material and adverse effect on us, including growth prospects, because we may rely on these reduced disclosure requirements.

We qualify as an emerging growth company within the meaning of the Securities Act, and if we takes advantage of certain exemptions from disclosure requirements available to emerging growth companies, it could make our securities less attractive to investors and may make it more difficult to compare our performance with other public companies.

We are eligible to be treated as an emerging growth company, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act, as modified by the JOBS Act. Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised

80

financial accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. If we no longer qualify as a “foreign private issuer,” we intend to take advantage of this extended transition period under the JOBS Act for adopting new or revised financial accounting standards.

We will remain an “emerging growth company” until the earliest to occur of (i) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the registration statement on Form F-4, filed by the Company in connection with the Business Combination, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of the Ordinary Shares that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our prior second fiscal quarter, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, it may also take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including presenting only limited selected financial data, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, and to the extent we no longer qualified as a “foreign private issuer,” reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in its periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, our shareholders may not have access to certain information that they may deem important.

We cannot predict if investors will find Ordinary Shares less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find the Ordinary Shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for Ordinary Shares and the price of Ordinary Shares may be more volatile. Further, there is no guarantee that the exemptions available to us under the JOBS Act will result in significant savings. To the extent that we choose not to use exemptions from various reporting requirements under the JOBS Act, it will incur additional compliance costs, which may impact our financial condition.

81

USE OF PROCEEDS

All of the Ordinary Shares and Private Placement Warrants offered by the Selling Securityholders pursuant to this prospectus will be sold by the Selling Securityholders for their respective accounts. We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of Ordinary Shares or Private Placement Warrants by the Selling Securityholders pursuant to this prospectus.

We expect to receive up to an aggregate of approximately $48.2 million from the exercise of outstanding Warrants and Rollover Options offered pursuant to this prospectus, assuming the exercise in full of all such Warrants and Rollover Options for cash. We expect to use the net proceeds from the exercise of the Warrants and Options for general corporate purposes. Our management will have broad discretion over the use of proceeds from the exercise of the Warrants and Rollover Options. The exercise price of the Warrants may exceed the market price of our Ordinary Shares based on the trading price of our Ordinary Shares from time to time. If the price of our Ordinary Shares is below $11.50, we believe that Warrant holders will be unlikely to cash exercise their Warrants, resulting in little to no cash proceeds to us. See “Risk Factors—There is no guarantee that the Warrants will be in the money, and they may expire worthless.”

There is no assurance that the holders of the Warrants or Rollover Options will elect to exercise any or all of the Warrants or Rollover Options. To the extent that the Public Warrants are exercised on a “cashless basis,” the amount of cash we would receive from the exercise of the Public Warrants will decrease.

We will pay certain expenses associated with the registration of the securities covered by this prospectus, as described in the section titled “Plan of Distribution.”

82

DIVIDEND POLICY AND MARKET PRICE OF OUR SECURITIES

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our Ordinary Shares. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any dividends on the Ordinary Shares in the foreseeable future. The Board of Directors may only pay dividends and other distributions from our reserves to the extent our shareholders’ equity (eigen vermogen) exceeds the sum of our paid-in and called-up share capital plus the reserves it must maintain under Dutch law or the Articles of Association and (if it concerns a distribution of profits) after adoption of our statutory annual accounts by the General Meeting from which it appears that such dividend distribution is allowed. Subject to those restrictions, any future determination to pay dividends or other distributions from our reserves will be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and will depend upon a number of factors, including our results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, contractual restrictions, restrictions imposed by applicable law and other factors the Board of Directors deems relevant.

Under the Articles of Association, the Board of Directors may decide that all or part of the profits shown in our adopted statutory annual accounts will be added to our reserves. After reservation of any such profits, any remaining profits will be at the disposal of the General Meeting at the proposal of the Board of Directors for distribution on Ordinary Shares, subject to applicable restrictions of Dutch law. The Board of Directors is permitted, subject to certain requirements and applicable restrictions of Dutch law, to declare interim dividends without the approval of the General Meeting. Dividends and other distributions will be made payable no later than a date determined by the Company. Claims to dividends and other distributions not made within five years from the date that such dividends or distributions became payable will lapse and any such amounts will be considered to have been forfeited to us (verjaring).

Our Ordinary Shares and Public Warrants began trading on Nasdaq under the symbols “NAMS” and “NAMSW,” respectively, on November 23, 2022. On August 3, 2023, the closing price for our Ordinary Shares on Nasdaq was $11.25 per share. On August 3, 2023, the closing price for our Public Warrants on Nasdaq was $1.75 per Public Warrant.

As of August 3, 2023, there were approximately 35 shareholders of record of our Ordinary Shares and one holder of record of our Public Warrants. The actual number of shareholders is greater than this number of record holders and includes shareholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include shareholders whose shares may be held in trust or by other entities.

83

CAPITALIZATION

The following table sets forth the capitalization of the Company as of June 30, 2023, after giving effect to the receipt of proceeds upon the exercise of Rollover Options and Warrants outstanding as of June 30, 2023. The table below assumes the exercise of the Rollover Options and Warrants as of June 30, 2023 and was translated from U.S. dollars to Euros using the historical closing exchange rate, as of June 30, 2023, of $1.0866 per Euro.

The information in this table should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto and other financial information included in this prospectus and any prospectus supplement and the information under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Our historical results do not necessarily indicate our expected results for any future periods.

84

UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED COMBINED FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Description of the Business Combination

On July 25, 2022, FLAC entered into the Business Combination Agreement with NewAmsterdam Pharma, the Company, and NewAmsterdam Pharma Investment Corporation, a Cayman Islands exempted company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

On the Closing Date, pursuant to the terms of the Business Combination Agreement, the following transactions occurred.

85

Both the Merger and PIPE Financing closed on November 22, 2022. The Company incurred incremental transaction costs directly attributable to the issuance of new shares to FLAC shareholders and the PIPE Financing of €2.5 million, which was netted against the equity proceeds as a reduction in share premium.

The Company also amended existing share-based compensation agreements held by employees of NewAmsterdam Pharma Holding prior to the Merger, in addition to making additional share-based payments to key management personnel.

Pro Forma Effects of the Business Combination

All material impacts of the Business Combination as outlined above have been reflected within the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company as at June 30, 2023 and for the six months ended June 30, 2023 included elsewhere in this Registration Statement.

In order to prepare a pro forma statement of profit or loss for the year ended December 31, 2022 which gives effect to the Business Combination as if it had occurred on January 1, 2022 the following information would be included:

FLAC’s results of operations are to be combined with the Company for the periods of January 1, 2022 to the Closing Date. FLAC’s results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 are included in the unaudited interim financial statements of Frazier Lifesciences Acquisition Corporation as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021 included in this Registration Statement. Proforma adjustments would also include translation of such amounts to Euro, the Company’s functional and presentation currency at a rate of $1.0636 per EUR.

Pro forma adjustments which are not recognized in the consolidated financial statements of the Company as at and for the year ended December 31, 2022 were identified and relate to the elimination of interest income from investments in trust account on FLACs statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and for the operating activity of FLAC from October 1, 2022 until the Closing Date. The impact of such pro forma adjustments is immaterial for the purposes of the pro forma financial information.

The Company determined that the impact of pro forma adjustments related to the results of operations of FLAC from October 1, 2022 to the Closing Date are immaterial both individually and in the aggregate. The only material impact of combining FLAC’s result of operation for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 is an increase in selling, general and administrative expenses. The pro forma impact of combining FLAC’s result of operation for the nine months ended September 30, 2022 would result in an increase to selling, general and administrative expenses of approximately €4.3 million ($4.5 million converted at a rate of $1.0636 per EUR). In this scenario of combining FLAC’s results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2022, on a pro forma basis, general and administrative expenses, loss for the year and net loss per share (basic and diluted) would be approximately €26.5 million, €83.5 million and €(1.02), respectively.

86

BUSINESS

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing oral, non-statin medicines for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (“CVD”) with residual elevation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (“LDL-C” or “LDL”), for whom existing therapies are not sufficiently effective or well-tolerated. There exists a significant unmet need for a potent, cost-effective and convenient LDL-lowering therapy as an adjunct to statins, a class of lipid-lowering medications that are the current standard of care for high-risk CVD patients with high cholesterol. Our lead product candidate, obicetrapib, is a next-generation, oral, low-dose cholesteryl ester transfer protein (“CETP”) inhibitor, that is currently in four ongoing Phase 3 and Phase 2b clinical trials as both a monotherapy and a combination therapy with ezetimibe for lowering LDL-C and preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (“MACE”). We believe that CETP inhibition may also play a role in other indications by potentially mitigating the risk of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes.

CVD is a leading cause of death worldwide and the top cause of death in the United States. ASCVD is primarily caused by atherosclerosis, which involves the build-up of fatty material within the inner walls of the arteries. Atherosclerosis is the primary cause of heart attacks, strokes and peripheral vascular disease. One of the most important risk factors for ASCVD is hypercholesterolemia, which refers to elevated LDL-C levels within the body, commonly known as high cholesterol.

A significant proportion of patients with high cholesterol do not achieve acceptable LDL-C levels using statins alone. We estimate that there are more than 35 million patients in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and Italy (collectively, “EU5”) and in the United States who are not achieving LDL-lowering goals on the current standard of care. Existing non-statin treatment options have been largely unable to address the needs of patients with high cholesterol due to modest efficacy, prohibitive pricing, or an inconvenient and painful injectable administration route. It is estimated that over 75% of ASCVD outpatients prefer oral drugs to injectable therapies.

Our product candidate, obicetrapib, is a next-generation, oral, low-dose CETP inhibitor that we are developing to potentially overcome the limitations of current LDL-lowering treatments. We believe that obicetrapib has the potential to be a once-daily oral CETP inhibitor for lowering LDL-C, if approved. In our Phase 2 clincial trial of ROSE2 evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy, obicetrapib met its primary and secondary endpoints, with statistically significant, clinically meaningful reductions in LDL-C and ApoB observed. In three of our Phase 2 trials, TULIP, ROSE and OCEAN, evaluating obicetrapib as a monotherapy or a combination therapy, we observed statistically significant LDL-lowering activity combined with generally moderate side effects and no drug-related, treatment-emergent serious adverse events (“AEs”). Obicetrapib has demonstrated strong tolerability in more than 800 patients with low or elevated lipid levels (“dyslipidemia”) in our clinical trials to date. Obicetrapib is also expected to be relatively low in cost to manufacture compared to most other branded LDL-lowering therapies on the market. We believe that the estimated low cost of goods for obicetrapib will enable favorable pricing and position it to significantly improve patient access compared to existing non-statin treatments. Furthermore, we believe that obicetrapib’s oral delivery, demonstrated activity in low doses, chemical properties and tolerability make it well-suited for combination approaches. We are developing a fixed dose combination of obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg, which has been observed to demonstrate even greater potency in one of our clinical trials to date.

Lowering of LDL-C, and particularly ApoB-containing lipoproteins, has been associated with MACE benefit in trials of LDL-lowering drugs, including the REVEAL trial with the CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. We are performing a CVOT to reconfirm this relationship.

Our goal is to develop and commercialize a LDL-lowering monotherapy and combination therapy, which offers the cost and convenience advantages of a once-daily oral pill, and fulfills the significant unmet need for an effective and convenient LDL-lowering therapy. If we obtain marketing approval, we intend to commercialize obicetrapib for patients suffering from CVD independently and with strategic partners in certain jurisdictions.

87

We have partnered with Menarini, to provide them with the exclusive rights to commercialize obicetrapib 10 mg either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe in the majority of European countries, if approved. Subject to receipt of marketing approval, our current plan is to pursue development and commercialization of obicetrapib in the United States ourselves, and to consider additional partners for jurisdictions outside of the United States and the EU, including in Japan, China and the United Kingdom. In addition to our partnership with Menarini, we may in the future utilize a variety of types of collaboration, license, monetization, distribution and other arrangements with other third parties relating to the development or commercialization, once approved, of obicetrapib or future product candidates or indications. We are also continually evaluating the potential acquisition or license of new product candidates.

The following table summarizes our current clinical programs:

We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials, BROADWAY and BROOKLYN, to evaluate obicetrapib as a monotherapy used as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering for high-risk CVD patients. As of the date of this prospectus, over 2,400 patients have been randomized in the BROADWAY trial and over 350 patients have been enrolled in the BROOKLYN trial. We completed enrollment for BROADWAY in July 2023 and for BROOKLYN in April 2023. We currently expect to report data from both BROADWAY and BROOKLYN in the second half of 2024. In March 2022, we commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT, which is designed to assess the potential of obicetrapib to reduce occurrences of MACE, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization. As of the date of this prospectus, over 3,400 patients have been randomized in the PREVAIL trial. We currently expect to complete enrollment in PREVAIL in the first quarter of 2024. We currently expect to report data from our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT in 2026. On June 5, 2023, we reported topline results from our Phase 2b dose-finding study of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in patients with dyslipidemia in Japan and expect to report data for our Phase 2a clinical trial evaluating obicetrapib in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease in the second half of 2023.

We plan to seek approval of obicetrapib in the United States, the EU, Japan, China and the United Kingdom. We are executing multiple Phase 3 trials simultaneously, with clinical plans that incorporate feedback from the FDA, the EMA, PMDA and NMPA, including our Phase 3 BROADWAY trial and PREVAIL CVOT, which both launched in the first quarter of 2022.

88

We are also investigating obicetrapib as a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe, a non-statin oral LDL-lowering therapy, and plan to seek approval for this fixed dose combination in parallel with obicetrapib monotherapy. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, we were evaluating the efficacy and safety of obicetrapib plus ezetimibe compared to obicetrapib and placebo alone. On June 3, 2023, we reported data from our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial that met its primary and secondary endpoints.

In parallel with the ROSE2 trial, we formulated two prototype fixed dose combination tablets of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. These formulations were compared to the co-administration of obicetrapib and ezetimibe in a pilot bioequivalence trial, which was completed in the first half of 2023. Based on the results of this pilot bioequivalence trial, we plan to advance one of the fixed dose combination formulations a 12-week, Phase 3 efficacy and safety trial in the first quarter of 2024, with the goal of submitting an NDA for the combination shortly after submission of an NDA for the obicetrapib monotherapy. If this Phase 3 trial is commenced on schedule, we currently expect to report data in the first half of 2025. We expect that both the Phase 3 efficacy and safety study, along with the PREVAIL CVOT study, will be described in the fixed dose combination product label, if approved.

We believe that CETP inhibition may also play a role in other indications by potentially mitigating the risk of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes. Evidence suggests that cholesterol accumulation in the brain is a precursor to Alzheimer’s disease. For example, rodents lack the CETP gene and are resistant to Alzheimer’s disease. In early preclinical studies, when the human CETP gene is knocked into a mouse, the cholesterol content of the mouse brain was observed to increase by 25% and when combined with the gene for the amyloid precursor protein, hypothesized to be a driver of Alzheimer’s disease, the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease may greatly increase. In a preclinical study, we observed that CETP inhibition promoted cholesterol removal from the brain and improved cognition. We commenced a Phase 2a trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease and the apolipoprotein E4 (“ApoE4”) mutation to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib. Clinically demonstrated anti-diabetic benefits have been observed with CETP inhibition in Phase 3 CVOTs that, if seen in obicetrapib, would differentiate it from current treatment alternatives, especially statins. We are planning preclinical studies to examine the potential of obicetrapib for patients suffering from diabetes and have included the onset of diabetes as an endpoint in our PREVAIL CVOT, as measured by adverse events (“AEs”) indicating Type 2 diabetes, initiation of anti-diabetes medication after confirmed diabetes diagnosis or high levels of hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose.

Our Management Team and Investors

We are led by a world-class team of industry veterans, including some of the world’s preeminent cardiometabolic experts. Dr. Michael Davidson, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our Executive Board, is a leading expert in the field of lipidology and is a seasoned executive who served as founder and Chief Executive Officer of Corvidia Therapeutics, Inc. and founder and Chief Medical Officer of Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In addition, Dr. Davidson is board-certified in internal medicine, cardiology and clinical lipidology and has extensive experience designing, managing and evaluating clinical research. Dr. John Kastelein, our founder and Chief Scientific Officer and a member of our Executive Board, is Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the Department of Vascular Medicine at the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam. Dr. Kastelein was a co-founder of uniQure N.V. and Xenon Pharmaceuticals Inc. His clinical research, on the development of novel therapies for CVD and the genetic basis of dyslipidemia is widely published, and he serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Vascular Research Network, a site maintenance organization comprising dozens of hospitals in the Netherlands that are involved in clinical trials for cardiometabolic disease. Douglas Kling, our Chief Operating Officer, is an expert in the development of drugs to treat dyslipidemia and CVD, and has managed clinical operations at both Corvidia Therapeutics, Inc. and Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In addition, we are backed by leading life sciences investors, including Forbion and Morningside Ventures. Prospective investors should not rely on the past investment decisions of our investors, as our investors may have different risk tolerances and may have received their shares in prior offerings at a significant discount to the

89

market price. See “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Series A Transactions” for more information.

Cardiovascular Disease and Hyperlipidemia

Market Overview

According to the World Health Organization, CVD is a leading cause of death globally and was responsible for approximately 19.05 million deaths, or approximately 32% of all global deaths, in 2020. Hyperlipidemia, more commonly known as high cholesterol, has been observed to nearly double the risk of developing CVD compared to those with normal total cholesterol levels. In the United States alone, approximately 38% of adults have high cholesterol, defined as total blood cholesterol equal to or exceeding 200 mg/dL. One in 311 individuals globally are affected by genetically elevated cholesterol levels from birth, and the average age of diagnosis is approximately 44 years globally, reflecting decades of high cholesterol and resulting damage to the blood vessels.

Hypercholesterolemia underlies significant morbidity and mortality. In the United States and EU5, there are an estimated 231 million adults with hypercholesterolemia, of which we estimate 84 million are currently being treated with prescription medications. Despite the broad availability of a variety of statins capable of significantly reducing LDL-C, many patients are unable to effectively manage their cholesterol and reach their LDL-lowering goals using statins alone and therefore require additional treatment options.

We estimate that there are approximately 35 million patients in the United States and EU5 who are not achieving LDL-lowering goals on current standard of care. While there are several non-statin treatment options available, including ezetimibe, bempedoic acid (Nexletol/Nexlizet) and injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, less than one million patients are currently being treated with these medications due to product limitations relating to relatively low efficacy, side effects or market access hurdles. We believe that a potent, cost-effective, convenient, safe and well-tolerated low-dose oral medication to reduce LDL-C could fulfill this unmet need. Based on internal company estimates derived from primary market research and secondary literature, we believe that such a medication could represent a global peak annual sales potential of three to four billion dollars.

Unmet Medical Need

Elevation in LDL-C is a primary causal factor for ASCVD, and CVD outcomes in high-risk populations improve as the level of LDL-C achieved on therapy decreases. LDL-C is generally understood to be one of the most modifiable risk factors of ASCVD. Results from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration have shown that lowering LDL using statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (heart attacks, stroke or coronary revascularization procedures) by approximately 22% for each 40 mg/dL (one mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C achieved. A similar relationship has also been documented in non-statin CVOTs for ezetimibe, two PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab and alirocumab, and CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. These trials have provided evidence that absolute LDL-C reduction and duration of therapy form a consistent model for predicting improved outcomes in patients with established ASCVD.

Despite the broad consensus regarding the causality of LDL-C for ASCVD and the CVD benefits of lipid-lowering therapies, there remains a significant clinical need for improved therapeutic regimens to achieve the goals stated by the American Heart Association (“AHA”) and American College of Cardiology (“ACC”) and other expert panel guidelines for lowering blood cholesterol. Although multiple classes of LDL-lowering therapies are available, there were 4.5 million deaths attributable to high LDL-C worldwide in 2020, representing a 19% increase in total number of deaths compared with 2010, based on the 2022 AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update.

Multiple surveys have demonstrated that approximately seven out of ten patients who have been prescribed statin therapy have not reached their LDL-C goals. In a recent observational registry study in patients with ASCVD

90

enrolled between 2016 and 2018 who primarily used statin monotherapies, only one in three patients achieved the AHA/ACC guideline-recommended LDL-C concentration of lower than 70 mg/dL.

We believe an improved LDL-C lowering therapy, particularly a well-tolerated oral therapy that may be preferred by patients, is necessary to achieve the targets established by expert panels. Patients who are at high risk for future CVD and are unable to achieve their LDL-C goals despite current standard of care are in need for an alternative oral therapy.

Our Solution: Enhanced LDL-C Lowering Through CETP Inhibition with Obicetrapib

We believe CETP inhibition with obicetrapib has the potential, if approved, to provide patients and physicians with a new oral therapy option to robustly reduce LDL-C. Obicetrapib is designed to be a next-generation, oral, low-dose CETP inhibitor with powerful LDL-lowering capability, with the potential to be delivered at a low cost to patients and payors compared with other adjuncts to statin therapy. We are developing obicetrapib as both a monotherapy and a combination therapy with ezetimibe, and have structured our obicetrapib program to overcome the safety, potency, trial design and commercial viability limitations of prior CETP inhibitors. Further, we believe that obicetrapib’s oral delivery, demonstrated activity in low doses, chemical properties and potential tolerability make it well-suited for combination approaches.

Obicetrapib has intrinsic properties, such as ionizable features, substantially reduced lipophilicity and good solubility, that we believe give it more favorable properties as a drug candidate compared to prior CETP inhibitors. We have observed a strong tolerability profile for obicetrapib in an aggregate of over 800 patients with dyslipidemia from Phase 1 through Phase 2 clinical trials. We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials, BROADWAY and BROOKLYN, to evaluate obicetrapib as a monotherapy used as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies to potentially enhance LDL-lowering for high-risk CVD patients. As of the date of this prospectus, over 2,400 patients have been randomized in the BROADWAY trial and over 350 patients have been enrolled in the BROOKLYN trial. We completed enrollment for BROADWAY in July 2023 and for BROOKLYN in April 2023. We currently expect to report data from both BROADWAY and BROOKLYN in the second half of 2024. In March 2022, we commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT, which is designed to assess the potential of obicetrapib to reduce occurrences of MACE, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization. As of the date of this prospectus, over 3,400 patients have been randomized in the PREVAIL trial. We currently expect to complete enrollment in PREVAIL in the first quarter of 2024. We currently expect to report data from our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT in 2026. We also continue investigating obicetrapib as a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe following the announcement of data from our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial. With the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and plan to advance the compound into a Phase 3 trial in the first quarter of 2024, with the goal of submitting an NDA for the combination shortly after submission of an NDA for the obicetrapib monotherapy. We also conducted a Phase 2b dose-finding study of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in patients with dyslipidemia in Japan and announced topline results on June 5, 2023.

We believe obicetrapib has the potential to significantly impact the existing treatment paradigm for patients with high cholesterol contributing to CVD, and that the key differentiating attributes of our product candidate include the following:

91

Lowering LDL-C Through CETP Inhibition

Hyperlipidemia, and in particular hypercholesterolemia or high cholesterol, is a major risk factor for atherosclerosis, which involves the build-up of fatty material within the inner walls of the arteries. This is because LDL-C is a “package” of cholesterol contained within a particle that contains ApoB. ApoB is prone to becoming trapped in the walls of arteries, leading to a build-up of fatty material, which in turn elicits a pro-inflammatory response and causes the arterial walls to stiffen. Left untreated, these deposits of fatty material can suddenly break and form a clot that causes a heart attack or a stroke. Lp(a) functions in the circulation as a “sink” for oxidized phospholipids and is also prone, like ApoB, to become trapped in the arterial wall, attached to proteoglycans of the extracellular matrix. Subsequently, these particles build up and contribute to plaque formation and inflammation. Because of the tendency of LDL-C to build up in the arteries, LDL-C is often referred to as “bad cholesterol” and is a leading risk factor for CVD.

LDL-C and ApoB levels are mainly regulated by the liver through a surface protein known as the LDL receptor. Most current LDL-lowering therapies work by increasing the number of LDL receptors, and thereby increasing the clearance of LDL-C from the blood. Statins are the current standard of care for high-risk CVD patients with high cholesterol. Statins reduce cholesterol in the blood by blocking a key enzyme, HMG-CoA-Reductase, necessary for the synthesis of cholesterol, which reduces the amount of cholesterol made by the liver and upregulates the LDL receptor, resulting in lower blood cholesterol. PCSK9 inhibitors, another LDL-lowering treatment alternative, also increase the presence of LDL receptors by inhibiting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (“PCSK9”), an enzyme involved in the degradation of LDL receptors. Two other LDL-lowering therapies, ezetimibe and Nexletol/Nexlizet, also work by upregulating LDL receptors.

92

CETP is a plasma glycoprotein produced in the liver that circulates in the blood primarily bound to a high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (“HDL-C” or “HDL”) particle which can also attach to an LDL particle and form a bridge to transfer cholesterol from HDL to LDL, as shown in the figure below. CETP inhibitors, including obicetrapib, reduce LDL-C and increase HDL-C in a two-step process. In the first step, CETP inhibitors obstruct the transfer of cholesterol from HDL to LDL, immediately reducing the concentration of LDL-C in the body and increasing the concentration of HDL-C. This change in concentrations of lipid particles then produces the second step of causing the liver to produce more LDL receptors. The LDL receptor increase results in more LDL-C particles and ApoB being cleared from the bloodstream to be excreted by the digestive tract. In animal models, CETP inhibition has been shown to block the transfer of cholesterol from HDL to LDL and to upregulate LDL receptors, thereby reducing the development of atherosclerosis and risk of ASCVD.

Although it was previously believed that the HDL-raising effects of CETP inhibition would be its primary contributor to decreased CVD risk, LDL-reduction is now known to be the most significant factor for lowering CVD risk. In a population with CETP loss of function genotypes, a 16% reduction in CVD risk was observed for every 10 mg/dL decrease in LDL-C levels. The relationship between genomic loss of CETP function and lower LDL-C levels and CVD risk is consistent with other mechanisms of genomic LDL-C reduction such as HMG-CoA reductase (statins), NPC1L1 (ezetimibe), ATP-citrate lyase (Nexletol/Nexlizet) and PCSK9 (PCSK9 inhibitors). Multiple genetic studies provide support that specific mutations associated with lifelong lower LDL-C levels reduce the risk of CVD.

CETP inhibition also increases the removal of ApoB. Apolipoproteins are proteins that are involved in packaging different types of large lipid-particle complexes that store cholesterol in the body. As shown in the figure below, the primary effect of CETP inhibition is a reduced rate of transfer of cholesteryl esters from HDL into triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, including LDL, which in turn leads to an increased concentration of cholesteryl esters in HDL and the formation of larger HDL particles. Consequently, cholesteryl esters are depleted in LDL and other ApoB-containing lipoproteins, enhancing their clearance from the body.

93

Limitations of Current Non-Statin Therapies

Increased attention by physicians to aggressive LDL-lowering for high-risk CVD patients has led to the increased use of non-statin medicines with LDL-lowering capabilities, including ezetimibe, Nexletol/Nexlizet and PCSK9 inhibitors, either on their own or in conjunction with statins.

However, the needs of high-risk CVD patients with high cholesterol remain largely unaddressed by current non-statin treatment options, which have only modest efficacy, are highly priced, or are inconveniently administered through an injection. In a cross-sectional study of over 20 thousand patients on lipid-lowering medication, current treatments including statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors or a combination of the foregoing resulted in fewer than 3% of patients reaching recommended cholesterol goals of lower than 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL).

Limitations of Prior Attempts to Develop CETP Inhibitors

As described above, CETP inhibitors, including obicetrapib, are designed to work by blocking the transfer of cholesteryl esters from HDL to LDL, thereby directly reducing LDL-C levels in the body. We believe that CETP

94

inhibitors can improve upon existing therapies by providing a combination of potent LDL-C lowering activity and tolerability, the ability to be administered orally and favorable pricing.

Other CETP inhibitors have reached varying stages of clinical development, but none have been approved or successfully resulted in a potent, safe and well-tolerated low-dose oral medication. We believe that the prior CETP inhibitor programs did not select optimal compounds or clinical trial designs because they focused on exploring the prominent increase in HDL-C rather than the potential for lowering LDL-C. Nevertheless, anacetrapib, the latest of the prior CETP inhibitors, provided clinical support that the absolute reduction in LDL-C over time by CETP inhibition confers a predictable benefit in the prevalence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

The focus on HDL-C raising by developers of prior CETP inhibitors likely resulted in the selection of chemical compounds that were not optimized for LDL-C lowering, which we believe in turn resulted in only modest reductions to CVD risk. In addition to selecting compounds that were not optimized to achieve LDL-C lowering, we believe misunderstandings about the benefits of HDL-C led to insufficient caution around compound-specific blood pressure toxicity signals, which were observed in clinical trials. For example, one CETP inhibitor, torcetrapib, resulted in off-target toxicity and increased blood pressure and aldosterone, as seen early in Phase 2 clinical trials. While another CETP inhibitor, dalcetrapib, had a favorable tolerability profile compared to torcetrapib, the drug had no LDL-lowering activity and therefore no effect on reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Prior CETP inhibitor programs also used CVOTs designed to evaluate patients with controlled rather than uncontrolled LDL-C levels. We believe the focus on HDL-C led to enrollment of patients with overly low LDL-C baseline levels, minimizing the potential to observe relative reductions in CVD risk, and that specific trials were too short for the full magnitude of MACE benefits to be observed based on the modest reduction in LDL-C achieved. For example, evacetrapib, which also had a favorable tolerability profile, used a CVOT with a median duration of only two years, which was too short to demonstrate the drug’s potential to reduce CVD risk over time, and it too had only a modest observed LDL-lowering capability. Similar CVOTs with other agents that lowered LDL-C by a similar magnitude required at least three years to demonstrate a MACE benefit, including CETP inhibitor anacetrapib.

In a Phase 3 REVEAL CVOT with approximately 30,000 patients with ASCVD receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy, for anacetrapib, its MACE benefits were observed to be predicted by the magnitude of the LDL-C reduction, suggesting that CETP inhibitors behave like statins in reducing MACE. The REVEAL trial began enrollment in August 2011 and completed its long-term follow-up in April 2019. A median four-year follow-up of the REVEAL trial showed that CETP inhibition resulted in a nine percent reduction in MACE (first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) compared to placebo. We believe the REVEAL results provide clinical support showing that the absolute reduction in LDL-C over time by CETP inhibition confers a predictable benefit in the prevalence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, as measured by MACE. However, due to a very low baseline level of LDL-C (61 mg/dl), the trial showed only a modest absolute LDL-C lowering of 11 mg/dl (17%). In addition, anacetrapib’s commercial viability was limited by its lipophilicity, which caused it to accumulate in fat tissue over time.

We selected obicetrapib for its LDL-lowering activity and safety profile and designed our CVOT to avoid the shortcomings of prior CETP inhibitor programs and to ultimately fulfill the unmet need of patients with and at risk of CVD. Obicetrapib has intrinsic properties, such as ionizable features, substantially reduced lipophilicity and good solubility, that we believe give it more favorable physical, pharmacokinetic and biopharmaceutical properties as a drug candidate compared to other CETP inhibitors.

In 2022, Merck & Co. (“Merck”) announced, through publication in a respected medicinal chemistry journal, the successful design of MK-8262, a CETP inhibitor with a novel molecular structure that could lead to improved LDL lowering potency at a lower dose compared to previous CETP inhibitors. Parameters that were focused on

95

for optimization of MK-8262 were polarity and lipophilicity, oral bioavailability, better IC50 towards lower dosages and consequently better pharmacodynamics on HDL and LDL levels. Based on the published results, the program resulted in a compound that was taken through Phase 1 trials and which displayed a number of favorable characteristics in in-vitro and in-vivo studies. We believe obicetrapib shares important similarities with a number of the features of this compound, which we believe helps to explain the stronger potency at a significantly lower dose we have observed in clinical studies of obicetrapib compared to prior CETP inhibitors. Merck’s decision to not advance the compound despite its promising signals suggests that it was not advanced further due to broader strategic reasons and not due to any adverse safety or efficacy findings.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop and commercialize potentially transformative oral therapies for patients suffering from cardiometabolic diseases rooted in abnormal cholesterol metabolism for which existing therapies are unsuccessful or not well-tolerated.

The core elements of our strategy to achieve our goal are the following:

96

Clinical Development Plan

We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials – our BROADWAY and BROOKLYN trials – designed to measure obicetrapib’s ability to reduce LDL-C as a monotherapy administered as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy. Following our end of Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the fourth quarter of 2021, we also commenced our Phase 3 PREVAIL CVOT for obicetrapib as a monotherapy administered as an adjunct to maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy in early 2022. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, we evaluated the effect of a fixed dose combination of obicetrapib 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg on top of high-intensity statin therapy on reduction in LDL-C. With the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and plan to advance the compound into a Phase 3 trial in the first quarter of 2024. On June 5, 2023, we reported topline results from our Phase 2b dose-finding study of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in patients with dyslipidemia in Japan.

Based on the lipid-modifying effects of CETP inhibition we have observed in our clinical trials for obicetrapib to date, we have conducted preclinical assessments of obicetrapib to test its potential to stimulate similar protein-modulating activity in the brain for the potential prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Following a Type B meeting in June 2021, the FDA confirmed that our preclinical data are sufficient to support a proposed clinical trial of obicetrapib for this indication, and we commenced a Phase 2a clinical trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib.

97

We have set forth below our current obicetrapib clinical development pipeline.

Obicetrapib for Cardiovascular Disease

There is broad scientific consensus that elevation in LDL-C is a primary causal factor for ASCVD, and CVD outcomes in high-risk populations improve as the level of LDL-C achieved on therapy decreases. A study published in the Journal of the American Medicine in 2017 found that genetic variants related to lower LDL-C levels were significantly associated with a lower risk of CVD. Specifically, the study concluded that the quantum of reduced genetic risk for CVD associated with CETP mutations was almost identical to the genetic risk of CVD observed in patients with genetically reduced levels of the proteins targeted by statins, PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe. We believe the consistency of benefit across genotypes observed in all target genes is predictive of the clinical efficacy of CETP-induced LDL-lowering on CVD.

98

The direct correlation between LDL-C reduction and decrease in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events has been documented for both statin as well as non-statin therapies in CVOTs for ezetimibe, the PCSK9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab, and for the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib. Most notably, a median four-year follow-up of the REVEAL Phase 3 study of anacetrapib showed that CETP inhibition resulted in a nine percent reduction in MACE (first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) compared to placebo. However, due to a very low baseline level of LDL-C (61 mg/dl), the trial showed only a modest absolute LDL-C lowering of 11 mg/dl (17%). After approximately six and a half years of total follow-up, the REVEAL clinical trial showed additional MACE reduction of 20%. The table below shows the reduction in MACE and each component of MACE in the in-trial and post-trial periods.

We believe the REVEAL results provide clinical support that the absolute reduction in LDL-C over time by CETP inhibition confers a predictable benefit in the prevalence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, as measured by MACE. Specifically, the decrease in MACE observed in the REVEAL study of anacetrapib is consistent with the findings of The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (“CTT”) Collaboration, illustrated in the graphic below. The CTT collaboration conducted a meta-analysis of 26 statin clinical trials and showed that there is a consistent, linear decrease in MACE for every absolute unit of non-HDL (which is primarily composed of LDL-C)

99

cholesterol reduction. The MACE reduction observed in REVEAL falls on the meta-regression line – specifically, the CTT metaregression line predicts that an absolute reduction of LDL-C of 11 mg/dl, as seen in REVEAL, would correspond to the 9% reduction in MACE observed in REVEAL.

The graphic above presents a linear prediction of MACE benefit based on a meta-analysis of 26 prior statin clinical trials. Actual results may differ materially.

With these learnings in mind, we are executing a clinical development plan for obicetrapib focused on patients with high baseline LDL-C and that is designed to support a broad CVD label, if successful. To date, we have completed seven Phase 1 trials and three Phase 2 trials of obicetrapib. We are conducting two Phase 3 lipid trials and a third Phase 3 CVOT, and a fourth Phase 2b trial is ongoing.

Ongoing Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Disease

Phase 3 BROADWAY and BROOKLYN Lipid Trials

We are conducting two Phase 3 pivotal trials designed to measure obicetrapib’s LDL-lowering capability and plan to enroll an aggregate of 2,700 patients across both studies who require additional LDL-lowering on top of their maximum tolerated lipid-modifying therapies. Our BROADWAY trial (TA-8995-302), which completed enrollment in July 2023, is expected to randomize approximately 2,500 patients in the United States, Europe and Asia with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (“HeFH”) (individuals genetically predisposed to very high cholesterol) or established ASCVD, and who have baseline LDL-C of at least 55 mg/dL, and an additional risk enhancer in participants with an LDL-C level below 100 mg/dL (including other abnormal biometrics, a recent myocardial infarction or Type 2 diabetes). Our BROOKLYN trial (TA-8995-301), which completed

100

enrollment in April 2023, enrolled HeFH patients in the United States, Canada, Europe and Africa who have baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL. Obicetrapib will be administered in a once-daily 10 mg dose as an adjunct to diet (for regulatory purposes in the EU) and maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapy, for a 52-week treatment period. Such lipid-modifying therapies include statins or, for statin-intolerant patients, ezetimibe, Nexletol/Nexlizet, PCSK9 inhibitors, or fibrates (a class of drugs which increase HDL-C without significantly reducing LDL-C).

The primary endpoint of both trials is percent change from baseline in LDL-C compared to placebo after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints will also include percent changes from baseline compared to placebo after 12 weeks in Lp(a), ApoB, HDL-C, non-HDL-C (representing total cholesterol minus HDL-C), LDL-C from baseline to placebo after 180 days and 52 weeks, and, for BROADWAY, total cholesterol and triglycerides and MACE from baseline to 30 days after the last dose. We also expect to evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of obicetrapib in a broadly representative population of adult males and females of all ages, including elderly and very elderly participants, assessed by AEs, vital signs, clinical laboratory values and electrocardiogram (“ECG”) measurements as well as to evaluate the effects of obicetrapib on blood pressure.

Phase 3 PREVAIL Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial

We have also initiated our PREVAIL trial (TA-8995-304), our Phase 3 CVOT, to evaluate the effects of 10 mg obicetrapib in participants with ASCVD on MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke and non-elective coronary revascularization). We expect to enroll 9,000 participants at sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia with established ASCVD and an LDL-C level of at least 70 mg/dL, and an additional risk enhancer in participants with an LDL-C level below 100 mg/dL, whose ASCVD is not adequately controlled despite maximally tolerated lipid-modifying therapies. The planned median study follow-up is expected to be 36 months, and the treatment period will continue until the last participant has been followed for a minimum of 2.5 years after the last patient has been randomized or until the target number of 959 primary endpoint events (i.e., cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or non-elective coronary revascularization) have occurred, whichever is later.

We have designed our PREVAIL trial based on insights gained from analyzing failures of prior CVOTs for other CETP inhibitors. Our trial design targets higher baseline LDL-C patients, which we believe creates potential for greater observed absolute LDL-C reduction, particularly given the observed median LDL-lowering activity of 51% in our Phase 2b ROSE clinical trial. We are focused on patients with high LDL-C levels and who have at least one other risk enhancer (including recent myocardial infarction, Type 2 diabetes, high triglyceride levels or low HDL-C), compared to prior CVOTs for CETP inhibitors that enrolled patients with low baseline LDL-C. We are planning for longer duration of follow-up to maximize opportunities to observe MACE reduction, with all patients to be followed for a minimum of three years. We believe that the inclusion of a high-risk patient population with established ASCVD and other risk enhancers increases the likelihood that the trial will accrue sufficient primary endpoint events over time and potentially result in a strong relative risk reduction in the treatment arm.

Completed Phase 2 Clinical Trials

We have completed five Phase 2 trials of obicetrapib for the treatment of cardiometabolic disease. In our Phase 2 trials obicetrapib was observed to robustly lower LDL-C and increase HDL-C from baseline across various treatment settings. Obicetrapib was also observed to be well-tolerated compared to placebo, in both the 5 mg and 10 mg doses and as a combination therapy with ezetimibe. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) were mild or moderate in severity and there were no drug-related, treatment-emergent serious AEs. The graphs below summarize the results of our first three Phase 2 trials.

101

In our Phase 2b ROSE trial, we observed that obicetrapib has robust LDL-lowering capability as an adjunct to high-intensity statins at both 5 mg and 10 mg dosages. Based on our ROSE trial, we are using a 10 mg dosage for our Phase 3 trials. In our Phase 2a TULIP trial, we observed that a daily dose of up to 10 mg of obicetrapib alone significantly reduced LDL-C and increased HDL-C. Based on observations from our Phase 2b OCEAN trial, we believe that obicetrapib is at least additive for LDL lowering as a combination therapy with ezetimibe.

The table below summarizes the trial designs of the first three Phase 2 trials we have completed.

A Phase 2a TULIP trial of obicetrapib, which was completed in 2014, was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial among 364 patients with mild dyslipidemia and not on lipid-altering therapy at screening and involved once-daily oral dosing of obicetrapib up to 10 mg or a placebo alone and as a combination therapy with

102

statins. The primary endpoints were the percent changes in LDL-C and HDL-C levels from baseline to week 12 of the trial, which were met for both doses. The 5 mg dose of obicetrapib resulted in a mean reduction of LDL-C by 45% and increased HDL-C by 161%, compared to placebo. In patients treated with 10 mg obicetrapib plus statin therapy (20 mg atorvastatin or 10 mg rosuvastatin), LDL-C levels were approximately 50% lower and HDL-C levels were approximately 140% higher, respectively, than those observed in patients receiving statin therapy alone.

103

Key secondary endpoints included percent changes in ApoB and apolipoprotein A1 (“ApoA1”). In patients treated with 5 mg obicetrapib, ApoB was reduced by 33.8%, while ApoA1 levels increased by 58.3%. A daily dose of 10 mg obicetrapib on top of statin therapy resulted in an ApoB reduction of 30% and an ApoA1 increase of 54.1% than those observed in patients receiving statin therapy alone. Other secondary endpoints included percent change in ApoE, nascent HDL levels and ABCA-1 efflux. A summary of certain of these results follows:

A total of 284 patients experienced at least one TEAE, of which 95 experienced a suspected study drug-related TEAE. For all treatment groups, the most common TEAEs were the common cold and headache (22.9% and 13.2%, respectively). Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity with only 13 patients experiencing a severe TEAE, two of which were suspected to be related to the study drug (one subject in the placebo group and one subject in the atorvastatin 20 mg and obicetrapib 10 mg combination). Prevalence, incidence and severity of TEAEs were similar across all treatment groups. There were eight patients with a treatment-emergent serious adverse event (“TESAE”), none of which were study drug related, and no deaths occurred during the study.

Our Phase 2b ROSE trial, which was completed in August 2021, was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial among 120 patients with mild dyslipidemia who were already receiving high-intensity statin therapy. The trial involved a once-daily oral dose of obicetrapib at either 5 mg or 10 mg dose level for eight weeks. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial was LDL-C reduction from baseline and was met for both doses. Obicetrapib had a rapid effect, with LDL-C levels dropping dramatically in the first four weeks of the study and remaining relatively steady for the remaining four weeks of the study. At the 5 mg dose level,

104

approximately 20% of patients experienced a decrease in median LDL-C levels of over 60%; at the 10 mg dose level, that percentage nearly doubled. A summary of these statistically significant results is as follows:

Median (min, max) LDL-C levels (mg/dL) at baseline and EoT

We also observed median percent reductions in ApoB of 24.4% and 29.8%; decreases in non-HDL-C of 38.9% and 44.4%; increases in HDL-C of 135.4% and 165.0%; and decreases in Lp(a) of 33.8% and 56.5%, in each case at the 5 mg and 10 mg doses, respectively. These statistically significant results are summarized as follows:

Percent Change from Baseline to 8 Weeks in Lipid Biomarkers

105

Overall, obicetrapib as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy at both doses was observed to be well-tolerated compared to placebo. TEAEs were reported by 15 subjects in the 5 mg group and eight subjects in the 10 mg group, compared with 19 subjects in the placebo group. Some of the TEAEs in the study reported by more than one subject in any treatment group were muscle spasms (none in either of the obicetrapib groups and two subjects in the placebo group), fatigue (two subjects in the 5 mg group, one subject in the 10 mg group, and two subjects in the placebo group), basal cell carcinoma (none in either of the obicetrapib groups and two subjects in the placebo group), nausea (one subject in the 5 mg group and two subjects in the placebo group), Type 2 diabetes mellitus (two subjects in the 5 mg group and none in the 10 mg or placebo groups) and hypertension (two subjects in the 5 mg group and no subjects in either the 10 mg or placebo groups). All other TEAEs were experienced by only one or no subjects in each treatment group. TEAEs that were considered by the investigator to be related to study treatment were reported by three subjects (two subjects in the 5 mg group and one subject in the 10 mg group), compared with four subjects in the placebo group. There were no TEAEs leading to death. One subject in the placebo group had a TEAE leading to discontinuation. The majority of TEAEs were mild and moderate in severity; one subject in the placebo group had a severe TEAE. There were two serious TEAEs, both of which occurred in the placebo group.

Based on our ROSE trial and the enhanced LDL-C reduction capability of a 10 mg dose compared with 5 mg and the safety profile we observed, we selected a 10 mg dose for our Phase 3 lipid trials and CVOT.

Our Phase 2b OCEAN trial, which we completed in June 2021, evaluated the effect of obicetrapib as a combination therapy with ezetimibe on LDL-C levels. This randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial among 100 patients with mild dyslipidemia involved once-daily oral 5 mg dose of obicetrapib alone and as a combination therapy with 10 mg of ezetimibe, compared to both placebo and ezetimibe alone, for eight weeks.

106

The primary endpoint of the trial was percent change in LDL-C compared to baseline, which was met. We observed that obicetrapib 5 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg and their combination each significantly reduced LDL-C from baseline and compared with placebo, with statistically significant reductions compared to baseline measured at 34.4%, 14.8% and 52.0%, respectively, compared to a 1.4% reduction in the placebo group. The results are summarized as follows:

Median (min, max) LDL-C levels (mg/dL) at baseline and EOT

We also observed median ApoB reductions of 23.5%, 8.9% and 34.8% for obicetrapib 5 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg and their combination, respectively, compared to 0.9% reduction in the placebo group.

Median (min, max) ApoB levels (mg/dL) at baseline and EOT

Obicetrapib 5 mg alone and as a combination therapy with ezetimibe 10 mg taken once daily for eight weeks displayed a favorable tolerability profile. TEAEs were reported by four subjects in the obicetrapib 5 mg group and nine subjects in the combination group, compared with eight subjects in the ezetimibe 10 mg group and six subjects in the placebo group. The TEAEs in the study reported by more than one subject in any treatment group were diarrhea (no subjects and two subjects in the obicetrapib 5 mg and combination groups, respectively, and two subjects and no subjects in the ezetimibe 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively) and headache (no subjects

and one subject in the obicetrapib 5 mg and combination groups, respectively, and two subjects and one subject in the ezetimibe 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively). All other TEAEs were experienced by one or no subjects in each treatment group. TEAEs that were considered to be related to study treatment were reported by one subject and three subjects in the obicetrapib 5 mg and combination groups, respectively, compared with three subjects and four subjects in the ezetimibe 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. There were no TEAEs leading to death. One subject in the ezetimibe 10 mg group had a TEAE leading to discontinuation of the study

107

drug, compared to no subjects in the 5 mg group and two subjects in the combination group. The majority of TEAEs were mild and moderate in severity, and one subject in the ezetimibe 10 mg group had a severe TEAE.

ROSE2 Clinical Trial

On June 3, 2023, we announced full results from our Phase 2 ROSE2 trial, our clinical trial evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy. ROSE2 met its primary and secondary endpoints, with statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in LDL-C and ApoB observed. Statistically significant improvements in non-HDL-C and total and small LDL particles (“LDL-P”) were also observed. We also observed significant improvements in Lp(a). In addition, the combination of obicetrapib and ezetimibe was observed to be well-tolerated, with a safety profile observed to be comparable to placebo.

ROSE2 was designed as a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib 10 mg in combination with ezetimibe 10 mg as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy. Patients were randomized to receive combination therapy, obicetrapib 10 mg or placebo for a 12 week treatment period. A total of 119 patients enrolled in ROSE2, of whom 97 were included in the on-treatment analysis. Certain patients were excluded from the on treatment population as a result of suspected non-adherence to the trial protocol. Patients presented at baseline with a fasting LDL-C greater than 70 mg/dL and triglycerides less than 400 mg/dL and all were receiving a stable dose of high-intensity statin therapy.

The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to week 12 in Friedewald-calculated LDL-C for the obicetrapib plus ezetimibe combination treatment group compared with placebo. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the percent changes from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C for obicetrapib monotherapy compared with placebo and in ApoB for the obicetrapib plus ezetimibe combination compared with placebo and the obicetrapib monotherapy compared with placebo. Exploratory endpoints included the percent changes from baseline to week 12 in lipoprotein(a), non-HDL-C, HDL-C, total and small LDL-P assessed by NMR, and the proportion of patients at the end of treatment who achieved LDL-C levels below 100 mg/dL, 70 mg/dL and 55 mg/dL for the obicetrapib plus ezetimibe combination and obicetrapib monotherapy groups compared with placebo.

A summary of key observations from the ROSE2 trial is set forth below:

Topline Results

The p-value for the LS mean for each endpoint presented in the table below compared to placebo was <0.0001. The table below shows the median percent change from baseline in patients receiving the combination of obicetrapib and ezetimibe, obicetrapib monotherapy and placebo.

Median Percent Change from Baseline

108

In addition, we observed median reduction in Lp(a) of 47.2% and 40.2% in the monotherapy and combination arms, respectively.

Percent Change from Baseline to 12 Weeks in Lipid Biomarkers

In addition, the combination of obicetrapib plus ezetimibe resulted in significantly more patients achieving LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL, 70 mg/dL and 55 mg/dL than the placebo group (100%, 93.5% and 87.1%

109

compared to 66.7%, 16.7% and 0.0%, respectively) (p<0.05 compared to placebo for combination therapy). These results are presented in further detail below:

Overall, obicetrapib alone and in combination with ezetimibe was observed to be well-tolerated compared to placebo. TEAEs were reported by 11 subjects in the combination group, eight subjects in the monotherapy group and 16 subjects in the placebo group. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most prevalent TEAEs being nausea (two subjects in the placebo group and two subjects in the combination group), urinary tract infection (two subjects in the placebo group and one subject in the combination group) and headache (two subjects in the placebo group and one subject in the monotherapy group). One TESAE was observed in each of the placebo (nervous system disorder) and monotherapy groups (cardiac disorder), neither of which was considered by the investigator to be related to trial treatment. Overall, no drug-related, TESAEs were observed, and there were no TEAEs leading to death. One subject in the combination group had a TEAE leading to discontinuation of the trial drug, compared to two in the monotherapy group and two in the placebo group. There were two severe TEAEs in the placebo group (both nervous system disorders) and one in the monotherapy group (a cardiac disorder).

We believe that the stronger observed LDL-C lowering among patients receiving the combination therapy as compared with those receiving ezetimibe in combination with statins is potentially due to the synergistic mechanisms of action for each of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. While obicetrapib is designed to promote the expression of LDL receptors in the liver, there is evidence that CETP inhibition also promotes cholesterol excretion into the intestines, where ezetimibe is designed to block cholesterol reabsorption into the body. Therefore, the combined mechanism is expected to synergistically enhance fecal sterol removal of cholesterol, as shown in the figure below.

110

As suggested by the calculations below, we believe that LDL-C lowering effects of ezetimibe can be enhanced by introducing obicetrapib to help facilitate this synergistic mechanism of action.

The calculations above are not based on a head-to-head comparison or clinical study and are hypothetical calculations. These calculations are based on the findings in our ROSE2 trial with respect to the figures on the bottom right and the findings of source noted above with respect to the figures on the bottom left, and assume one patient was treated with each drug independently.

With the data and learnings from our ROSE2 trial, we have selected a formulation for a fixed-dose combination tablet of obicetrapib and ezetimibe and plan to advance the compound into a Phase 3 trial in the first quarter of 2024, with the goal of submitting an NDA for the combination shortly after submission of an NDA for the obicetrapib monotherapy. We are designing the trial as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with the primary efficacy endpoint of percent change from baseline in LDL-C compared to placebo. We plan to enroll 400 adults with a fasting LDL-C greater than 70 mg/dL with ASCVD or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. An End-of-Phase 2 meeting has been granted by FDA and scheduled for June 2023 to review the design of our Phase 3 trial. If this Phase 3 trial is commenced on schedule, we currently expect to report data in the first half of 2025.

Japan Phase2b Clinical Trial

On June 5, 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2b Japan trial evaluating the effects of three doses of obicetrapib (2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg) on LDL-C levels. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib as an adjunct to stable statin therapy in Japanese patients. The trial was conducted at hospitals and clinics across Japan. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to end of treatment (day 56) in LDL-C for each obicetrapib group compared to placebo. The trial enrolled 102 adult participants, who were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive obicetrapib 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg or placebo for the 56-day treatment period. Patients treated with obicetrapib 2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg achieved a median reduction in LDL-C of 24.8%, 31.9%, and 45.8%, respectively, as compared to patients treated with placebo, who achieved a median reduction in LDL-C of 0.9%. In addition, patients treated with obicetrapib 10 mg achieved a median reduction in ApoB of 29.7%, compared to a 0.4% reduction in patients treated with placebo, and a median reduction in non-HDL-C of 37.0%, as compared to a 0.4% reduction in patients treated with placebo. The p-value for each endpoint in the obicetrapib arms of the trial compared to placebo was <0.0001. Overall, the different dosages of obicetrapib were observed to be generally well-tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to placebo. TEAEs were reported by 15 subjects in the 10 mg group, eight subjects in the 5 mg group, nine subjects in the 2.5 mg group and 15 subjects in the placebo group. Adverse events observed to date were primarily mild. One TESAE was observed in the 5 mg group, but it was not considered by the investigator to be related to trial treatment. Overall, no drug-related TESAEs were observed, and there were no TEAEs leading to death.

111

Phase 1 Clinical Trials

We have completed seven Phase 1 clinical trials of obicetrapib in healthy patients to date, which are summarized in the below table.

112

113

Obicetrapib for Other Therapeutic Areas

Alzheimer’s disease

According to the World Health Organization, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias affect approximately 55 million people as of 2021, and this is expected to increase to 78 million in 2030 and 139 million in 2050. Alzheimer’s disease is the most prevalent form of dementia, resulting in the generalized degeneration of the brain.

In a healthy brain, excess cholesterol levels in the neurons and amyloid-beta (“Ab”) peptide removal from cerebral spinal fluid are regulated properly. The brain is the most cholesterol-rich organ in the body; comprising only two percent of the body’s mass, it contains approximately 20% of the body’s cholesterol, which is recycled and redistributed through an ApoE-mediated lipoprotein pathway. Inside populations of cells called astrocytes, ApoE binds with cholesterol that has been released into the brain by neurons and converts it into a different form of cholesterol that is transported out of the brain into the systemic circulation. In addition to ApoE, the protein associated with HDL, ApoA1, also acts as the brain’s “vacuum cleaner,” by removing toxic cholesterol from peripheral tissue to promote healthy cell function and survival. In addition, small HDL particles that transverse the blood brain barrier remove excess Ab peptides in cerebral spinal fluid for ultimate conversion and transport out of the brain.

114

Alzheimer’s disease, however, is characterized in part by the aggregation of Ab peptides into amyloid plaques in cerebral spinal fluid, facilitated by the presence of excess cholesterol in cell membranes. Thus, the accumulation of cholesterol in cell membranes and the ineffective clearance of Ab plaques by ApoE and ApoA1 in their HDL forms is associated with the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Importantly, certain forms of ApoE (in particular, ApoE4) are worse at Ab transport than others, such as ApoE2, and are known to be associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Further, CETP activity has been detected in astrocytes, the cells where ApoE bind with cholesterol, indicating the potential for a CETP inhibitor to function in the brain similarly to its lipid-modifying effects in the cardiovascular system. Genetic studies have shown that CETP loss of function mutations mitigate the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in patients with the ApoE4 genotype.

Based on these observations as well as the marked increases of ApoA1 observed in our Phase 2 clinical trials and the increases in ApoE observed in the TULIP trial, we have conducted preclinical assessments of obicetrapib for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. In initial animal testing, we observed, in preliminary data, a statistically significant reduction in Ab42 over the total Ab ratio in the CSF of mice, a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease activity.

Following a Type B meeting in June 2021, the FDA confirmed that our preclinical data are sufficient to support a proposed clinical trial of obicetrapib for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. We commenced a Phase 2a clinical trial in early 2022 in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease and the ApoE4 mutation to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tolerability of obicetrapib. In this trial, obicetrapib at a 10 mg dose is being administered orally for 24 weeks, and the primary endpoints being evaluated are the change in levels of apolipoproteins in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid from baseline to the end of the 24-week trial period.

Manufacturing and Supply

We currently have no manufacturing facilities and a small but experienced group of personnel managing manufacturing activities. We rely on several contract manufacturers to produce both drug substances and drug products required for our clinical trials. Obicetrapib fixed-dose combination tablets are manufactured and tested in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice at facilities in the United States, Canada and Italy.

Marketing and Sales

We do not currently have our own marketing, sales or distribution capabilities. In order to commercialize obicetrapib or any future product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, we currently plan to develop our own sales and marketing infrastructure in the United States and have entered, and expect to continue to enter, into arrangements with third parties to perform these services outside of the United States. We may also opportunistically seek strategic collaborations to maximize the commercial opportunities for our future product candidates inside and outside the United States. We have entered into a license agreement with Menarini, pursuant to which Menarini has been granted the exclusive rights to commercialize obicetrapib 10 mg either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe in the majority of European countries, if approved. As any future product candidates near regulatory approval and potential commercial launch, we plan to assess our options for commercializing each respective product candidate and may choose to commercialize themselves ourselves or with a partner.

Menarini License

On June 23, 2022, we entered into the Menarini License, pursuant to which we granted Menarini an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under certain of our intellectual property and our regulatory documentation to undertake post approval development activities and commercialize multiple brands of obicetrapib in a single unit dose of 10 mg or less, either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe (the “Licensed Products”), for any use in the majority of European countries (the “Menarini Territory”). We retained all rights to obicetrapib in all other territories and in other dosages.

115

We are solely responsible for conducting the development activities to obtain regulatory approval for obicetrapib. Menarini may conduct market access studies, medical affairs activities, non-registration studies and Phase IV clinical trials in the Menarini Territory. Menarini will be responsible for submitting and obtaining the required regulatory approvals to commercialize obicetrapib (at the licensed dosage) in the Menarini Territory and will own the regulatory approvals, if received. Menarini will also be solely responsible for commercializing obicetrapib (at the licensed dosage), if approved, and will be required to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize obicetrapib in the Menarini Territory.

Pursuant to the Menarini License, Menarini made an upfront payment to us of €115.0 million. Menarini has also committed to providing €27.5 million in funding for our research and development activities over several years, together with bearing 50% of any development costs incurred in respect of the pediatric population in the Menarini Territory. We are also eligible to receive up to an additional €863 million upon the achievement of various clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones. If obicetrapib is approved and successfully commercialized by Menarini, we will be entitled to tiered royalties ranging from the low double digits to the mid-twenties as a percentage of net sales in the Menarini Territory, with royalty step-downs in the event of generic entrance or in respect of required third-party intellectual property payments.

The Menarini License will expire on the last to expire royalty term, which is determined on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis, and is the later of (i) the expiration of the last to expire licensed patent that includes a valid claim in the country, (ii) expiration of regulatory exclusivity granted by the prevailing governmental authority for the licensed product in the country or (iii) 12 years from the first commercial sale of the licensed product in the country.

In addition, Menarini is expected to purchase obicetrapib and ezetimibe product from us in accordance with a supply agreement to be entered into by Menarini and us (the “Supply Agreement”). We will supply all required quantities of obicetrapib and ezetimibe product for the Menarini Territory as set forth in the Supply Agreement.

Through June 30, 2023, we received one milestone payment from Menarini under the Menarini License upon the achievement of a clinical milestone.

Intellectual Property

Our future commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important inventions, to obtain and maintain know-how related to our business, including our product candidates, to defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular our patent rights, to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing, misappropriating, or violating the valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. Our ability to preclude or restrict third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing competing molecules to our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents and trade secrets that cover these activities.

We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

We strive to protect and enhance our proprietary inventions and improvements that we consider commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining, and defending U.S. and foreign patent rights. All of the issued patents and pending patent applications in our patent portfolio are owned by our subsidiary, NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V., Dutch Chamber of Commerce registry number 55971946. As of June 30, 2023, we owned eight issued U.S. patents and fourteen pending U.S. patent applications. We also owned 100 granted European patents and three pending European patent applications, two granted Chinese patents and seven

116

pending Chinese patent applications. In addition, we owned 76 granted patents and 29 pending patent applications in other foreign jurisdictions, including international applications under the PCT.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. We cannot predict whether any patent applications we pursue will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction, or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors.

In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is granted, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our products will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we license or may own in the future may be challenged, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before our product candidate can be commercialized successfully, any related patents may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercial launch, thereby limiting the protection such patent would afford the applicable product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

For any individual patent, the term depends on the applicable law in the country in which the patent is issued. In most countries where we have patents and patent applications, including the United States, patents have a term of 20 years from the application filing date or earliest claimed nonprovisional priority date. In the United States, the patent term may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent that expires earlier. The term of a U.S. patent may also be lengthened by a patent term adjustment that is awarded by the USPTO, in order to address administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent.

In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for patent term extension in order to restore the period of a patent term lost during the premarket FDA regulatory review process. Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the natural expiration of the patent (but the total patent term, including the extension period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval). The patent term extension period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of a clinical investigation involving human beings is begun and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for patent term extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The application for patent term extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any Patent Term Extension in consultation with the FDA.

Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO and other patent offices may be significantly revised before issuance, if granted at all.

For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The issued patents and patent applications for obicetrapib are detailed below.

Obicetrapib First Generation Patents

The patent portfolio for obicetrapib composition of matter includes a first generation patent family directed generally to compounds, pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compounds, and methods of treatment using the compounds and pharmaceutical compositions. We have two granted patents in the United States covering a genus of compounds that includes obicetrapib and claims that more narrowly cover the obicetrapib compound, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treatment. In Asia, we have one granted patent in

117

China, two granted patents in Japan, one granted patent in the Republic of Korea, one granted patent in Taiwan and one granted patent in Singapore. We have one granted patent in India. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Canada and one granted patent in Mexico. In addition we have 12 granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in Argentina and Thailand. Patents, and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire between April 2025 and August 2027, without taking potential patent term extensions into account. The first generation portfolio also includes a patent family covering a method of synthesizing obicetrapib. We have one patent in the United States, five patents in Europe including the United Kingdom, and one patent in Japan. Patents in this family are expected to expire between March 29, 2027 and March 31, 2029, not including patent term extensions.

Obicetrapib Second Generation Patents

Our second generation obicetrapib patent portfolio includes a patent family directed to solid oral dosage forms containing 5 to 10 mg of obicetrapib, including tablet forms, and methods of treatment comprising administration of 1 to 25 mg of obicetrapib daily. We have three granted patents in the United States. We have 39 granted patents in Europe. In Asia, we have no granted patents in China, one granted patent in the Republic of Korea, one granted patent in Japan, one granted patent in Taiwan, one granted patent in Singapore and one granted patent in Hong Kong. We have one granted patent in India. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Mexico and one granted patent in Canada. In addition, we have 16 granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in Argentina, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Libya, Peru, Thailand and Venezuela. Patents, and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in February 2034, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account.

We also have a patent family directed to compositions that contain obicetrapib and a statin, methods of treating with compositions that contain obicetrapib and a statin, and in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions, methods of use in which obicetrapib and a statin are separately administered. We have one granted patent in the United States and an application to reissue the patent with additional claims covering separate administration of obicetrapib and a statin. We have no granted patents in Europe. In Asia, we have no granted patents in China, two granted patent in Japan, one granted in the Republic of Korea and two granted patent in Taiwan. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Mexico and one granted patent in Canada. In addition, we have two granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in China, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Europe and Venezuela. Patents, and patent applications if granted, are expected to expire between February 2034 and August 2035, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account.

In addition, we have a patent family that claims a synthetic intermediate used in the synthetic process we intend to use commercially, as well as processes to make that intermediate. We have one issued US patent and 39 granted patents in Europe. In Asia, we have one granted patent in China, one granted patent in Hong Kong, one granted patent in Japan, one granted patent in Singapore, one granted patent in Taiwan and one granted patent in India. In North America outside of the United States, we have one granted patent in Mexico and one granted patent in Canada. In addition, we have 14 granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions. Patent applications are pending in Argentina, Europe, Republic of Korea and Venezuela. Patents, and patent applications if granted, are expected to expire in July 2035, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account.

Obicetrapib Third Generation Patents

We have one pending US provisional application covering the solid salt form of obicetrapib that we intend to commercialize and the process for its commercial synthesis. Patents, and patent applications if granted, are expected to expire in July 2043, without taking potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustment into account.

118

We also have patent families directed to compositions and methods of use of obicetrapib as a combination therapy. These families all consist of pending applications. Two of these families are directed to combinations with ezetimibe, one of which is for use in certain subpopulations of patients. Patents if granted are expected to expire in February 2042 and August 2043. Another family is directed to a combination with statins, for use in certain subpopulations. Patents if granted are expected to expire in July 2042. Finally, we have two families directed to combinations with SGLT2 inhibitors. If granted, these patents are expected to expire in December 2042 and April 2044.

In addition, we have two patent families covering methods of using obicetrapib to treat neurodegenerative diseases. The first of these families currently consists of a pending international PCT application, and a pending European application. The second consists of a U.S. provisional application. Any patents that grant from these families will expire respectively in March 2042 and September 2043, without taking into account potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustments.

Trade Secrets

We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, confidential information and continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in our field and protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. While we take measures to protect and preserve our trade secrets, such measures can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our collaborators, employees and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. We cannot guarantee, however, that we have executed such agreements with all applicable counterparties. Furthermore, these agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors and other third parties, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. To the extent that our collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Competition

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical companies, smaller biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies and generic drug companies. Many of our potential competitors have greater financial and technical human resources than we do, as well as greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products, and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our potential competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA-approved drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Finally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our product candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our obicetrapib product candidate, if approved, will be its enhanced LDL-lowering capability as a monotherapy or as a combination therapy, tolerability profile, convenience of oral dosing, price and availability of reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors, and effect on other predictors of disease risk.

We are currently developing obicetrapib primarily for the treatment of patients at high cardiovascular risk with elevated levels of LDL-C as an adjunct to statins. If approved, obicetrapib would compete with approved non-

119

statin treatments such as ezetimibe, Nexletol/Nexlizet and PCSK9 inhibitors such as Repatha, Praluent and Leqvio. There are also a number of product candidates in clinical development by third parties, such as Amryt Pharma, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, CVI Pharmaceuticals, Innovent Biologics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Matinas BioPharma, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others, that are intended to treat CVD.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing, and export and import of drug products. We, along with any third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval of our products and product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA, as amended, and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the United States, and this process generally involves the following:

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, a sponsor 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

120

protocol(s) for clinical studies. 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. Some long-term preclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. 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 or not allowing it to commence on the terms originally specified in the IND.

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, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, 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. 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. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

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

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

121

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be conducted after initial marketing approval and may be used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

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 and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report 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 AEs, 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.

In addition, 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.

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 nonclinical 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 can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

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

122

for filing. Once accepted 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 (“PDUFA”), guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the filing date to complete its initial review and act on a standard NDA for a drug that is a new molecular entity, and of ten months from the date of NDA receipt to review and act on a standard NDA for a drug that is not a new molecular entity. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

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 designated specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs and assure the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or its drug substance will be produced, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A CRL will describe all of the deficiencies that the FDA has identified in the NDA, except that where the FDA determines that the data supporting the application are inadequate to support approval, the FDA may issue the CRL without first conducting required inspections and/or reviewing proposed labeling. In issuing the CRL, the FDA may recommend actions that the applicant might take to place the NDA in condition for approval, including requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may delay or refuse approval of an NDA if applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied, require additional testing or information and/or require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor safety or efficacy of a product.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail 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 (“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, assessment plans, and/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. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-marketing 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 or surveillance programs.

In addition, the PREA requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of administration. Under PREA,

123

original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current, or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

U.S. Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA offers a number of expedited development and review programs for qualifying product candidates. For example, the Fast Track program is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track designated product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the applicable FDA review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product candidate may be eligible for priority review. A Fast Track-designated product 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. Rolling review may occur 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.

A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive Breakthrough Therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or as a combination therapy with one or more other drugs 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.

A marketing application for a drug submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product candidate with a Fast Track designation and/or Breakthrough Therapy designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available alternatives for such disease or condition. For new-molecular-entity NDAs, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date, or with respect to non-new-molecular-entity NDAs, within six months of the NDA receipt date.

Additionally, product candidates studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may utilize an accelerated approval pathway upon a determination that the product has an effect on (1) a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or (2) 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 accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies

to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to withdrawal of its approval if, for example, the sponsor

124

fails to conduct the required post-marketing studies or if such studies fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, for products being considered for accelerated approval, the FDA generally requires, unless otherwise informed by the agency, that all advertising and promotional materials intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days of marketing approval be submitted to the agency for review during the pre-approval review period, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, priority review designation, and the accelerated approval pathway do not change the scientific or medical standards for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval, but may expedite the development or review process. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDA provides periods of non-patent regulatory exclusivity, which provides the holder of an approved NDA limited protection from new competition in the marketplace. Five years of exclusivity are available to new chemical entities (“NCEs”). An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion, excluding those appended portions of the molecule that cause the drug to be an ester, salt, including a salt with hydrogen or coordination bonds, or other noncovalent, or not involving the sharing of electron pairs between atoms, derivatives, such as a complex (i.e., formed by the chemical interaction of two compounds), chelate (i.e., a chemical compound), or clathrate (i.e., a polymer framework that traps molecules), of the molecule, responsible for the physiological or pharmacological activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review or approve an ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the same active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, however, may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification of patent invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringement is filed.

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 ingredient for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a 505(b)(1) NDA; however, an applicant submitting a 505(b)(1) NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The FDA may also grant pediatric exclusivity, which provides a six-month extension to existing regulatory or patent exclusivity. To be eligible for pediatric exclusivity, FDA must issue a Written Request detailing the studies to be performed and the timeframe for their completion. If an applicant agrees to perform the studies as outlined in the Written Request, the applicant must submit study reports at least nine months prior to the expiry of the exclusivity that is to be extended. The study reports must demonstrate that the applicant has met the conditions of the Written Request.

U.S. Post-approval Requirements

Drug 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, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. In rare cases, pre-

125

approval of promotional materials may be required. 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. Further, for certain modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain prior FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement, which may require the development and submission of additional data. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs 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. Manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and other tracking requirements and must notify the FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States. 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 AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity, and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising, and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available

products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in

126

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. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling.

Other Healthcare Laws

In the United States, drug manufacturers and sponsors are subject to a number of federal and state healthcare regulatory laws that restrict business practices in the healthcare industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, federal and state anti-kickback, false claims, and other healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as follows:

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving, or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for, or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any good, facility, item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The federal false claims laws, including the civil FCA, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease, or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Actions under the civil FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil FCA.

In addition, the civil monetary penalties statute, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits, among other things, the offer or transfer of remuneration, including waivers of copayments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof), to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state healthcare program.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations, which impose obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” and their respective subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance

127

Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMMS”), information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), certain other healthcare professionals including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMMS ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified-nurse midwives).

There are federal price reporting laws, which require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, and such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/or discounts on approved products.

Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales, and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing information and marketing expenditures or which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; and state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Violations of any of these laws and other applicable healthcare fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including fines and civil monetary penalties, the possibility of exclusion from federal healthcare programs (including Medicare and Medicaid), disgorgement and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies. Similar sanctions and penalties, as well as imprisonment, also can be imposed upon executive officers and employees of such companies.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any pharmaceutical 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. In the United States, no uniform policy exists for coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products among third-party payors. Therefore, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved.

Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication, or place products at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing obligation imposed on patients. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, and they often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, which can be a time- consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved.

128

Moreover, as a condition of participating in, and having products covered under, certain federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, we are subject to federal laws and regulations that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price (“AMP”), and Best Price, Medicare Average Sales Price, the 340B Ceiling Price and Non-Federal AMP reported to the Department of Veteran Affairs, and with respect to Medicaid, pay statutory rebates on utilization of manufacturers’ products by Medicaid beneficiaries. Compliance with such laws and regulations require significant resources and any findings of non-compliance may have a material adverse effect on our revenues.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In the United States, by way of example, in March 2010, the ACA was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; required manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer point-of-sale discounts (increased to 70%, effective as of January 1, 2019) off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; 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 the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; created 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 CMMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, administrative, executive and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. In December 2017, Congress repealed the tax penalty, effective January 1, 2019, for an individual’s failure to maintain ACA-mandated health insurance as part of the Tax Act. President Biden issued an executive order that 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. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. Further, there have been a number of health reform initiatives by the Biden administration that have impacted the ACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the IRA into law, which sets forth meaningful changes to drug product reimbursement by Medicare. Among other actions, the IRA permits HHS to engage in price-capped negotiation to set the price of certain drugs and biologics reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. The IRA contains statutory exclusions to the negotiation program, including for certain orphan designated drugs for which the only approved indication (or indications) is for the orphan disease or condition. Should our product candidates be approved and covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, and fail to fall within a statutory exclusion, such as that for an orphan drug, those products could, after a period of time, be selected for negotiation and become subject to prices representing a significant discount from

average prices to wholesalers and direct purchasers. The IRA also establishes a rebate obligation for drug manufacturers that increase prices of Medicare Part B and Part D covered drugs at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. The inflation rebates may require us to pay rebates if we increased the cost of a covered Medicare Part B or Part D approved product faster than the rate of inflation. In addition, the law eliminates the “donut hole”

129

under Medicare Part D beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket maximum and 20% once the out-of-pocket maximum has been reached. Our cost-sharing responsibility for any approved product covered by Medicare Part D could be significantly greater under the newly designed Part D benefit structure compared to the pre-IRA benefit design. Additionally, manufacturers that fail to comply with certain provisions of the IRA may be subject to penalties, including civil monetary penalties. The IRA is anticipated to have significant effects on the pharmaceutical industry and may reduce the prices we can charge and reimbursement we can receive for our products, among other effects. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA.

In addition, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. This 2% reductions was temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since been reinstated and, unless Congress and/or the Executive Branch take additional action, will begin to increase gradually starting in April 2030, reaching 4% in April 2031, until sequestration ends in October 2031. Further, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments from providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 also introduced a quality payment program under which certain individual Medicare providers will be subject to certain incentives or penalties based on new program quality standards. In November 2019, CMS issued a final rule finalizing the changes to the Medicare Quality Payment Program.

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 30, 2020, HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The IRA delayed the implementation of the rule to January 1, 2032. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers; the implementation of these provisions has also been delayed by the IRA until January 1, 2032. In addition, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate price cap, currently set at 100% of the a drug’s average manufacturer price for single source and innovator multiple source products, beginning on January 1, 2024. Further, in July 2021, the Biden Administration released an executive order that included multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug price reform. The plan sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions by HHS. No legislative or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of the budget reconciliation process.

Additionally, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs HHS to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs and biologics covered under Medicare, and subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum

130

fair price” under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions will take effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023, although they may be subject to legal challenges. It is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated but is likely to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry.

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 and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine which drugs and suppliers will be included in their healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.

We expect additional state and federal healthcare reform measures to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or additional pricing pressure.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws, including HIPAA, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and the GDPR, govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to make compliance efforts more challenging, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in the EU

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales, manufacturing and distribution of our product candidates to the extent we choose to sell any of our product candidates outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we or our third-party partners must obtain approval of a product by equivalent competent authorities in foreign jurisdictions before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. As in the United States, post-approval regulatory requirements, such as

those regarding product manufacture, marketing, or distribution would apply to any product that is approved outside the United States.

The process governing the marketing authorization (“MA”) of medicinal products in the EU entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety, quality and efficacy of the medicinal product for each proposed therapeutic indication.

131

It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of an MAA and granting of an MA by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the EU.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which consists of the 27 EU member states, as well as Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Failure to comply with EU and member state laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant 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.

EU Non-Clinical Studies and Clinical Trials

Similar to the United States, the various phases of non-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 chemical substances. Non-clinical health and environmental safety studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice (“GLP”), as set forth in Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical health and environmental safety 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.

Until recently, the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, the Directive 2003/94/EC on GMP and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU member states governed the system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU. As of January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 took effect and replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/556 replaces the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC, and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1569 replaces the GMP Directive 2003/94/EC with respect to investigational medicinal products. Pursuant to transitional provisions under the Regulation, trials may continue to be governed by the national implementations of the Directives until January 31, 2025 if (i) a request for approval was submitted prior to January 31, 2022 or (ii) a request for approval was submitted prior to January 31, 2023 and the sponsor elected to follow the national implementations of the Directives instead of the Regulation. All ongoing clinical trials in the EU will be subject to the requirements of the Regulation after January 31, 2025.

The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”); a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application, as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is jointly assessed by the competent authorities of all EU member states in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (member states concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each member state concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU member state. However, overall related timelines are defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

Under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the Clinical Trials Regulation, clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization (“ICH”), guidelines on 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.

132

Under the Clinical Trials Directive, the sponsor was obliged to take out a clinical trial insurance policy and/or maintain an appropriate indemnity or compensation scheme for clinical trial subjects, and in most EU member states, the sponsor was liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial. Similarly, the Clinical Trials Regulation prescribes that member states must implement a scheme providing for compensation for damage caused by participation in clinical trials within their territory in the form of insurance, a guarantee, or a similar arrangement that is equivalent as regards its purpose and which is appropriate to the nature and the extent of the risk.

Under the applicable regulatory system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU member states in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee has issued a related favorable opinion. The application for authorization of a clinical trial must be accompanied by, among other documents, 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 as prescribed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 and the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/556, as applicable, and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or to other information submitted with the clinical trial application must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent national authorities and ethics committees. Medicinal products used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP, including in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1569.

EU Marketing Authorizations

To obtain an MA for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU member states (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU.

The centralized procedure comprises a single application, evaluation and authorization and provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional.

Under the centralized procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”), is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA.

Under the centralized procedure in the EU, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest

from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (not including clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized MA procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU member state in which the product is

133

to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU member states who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU member state cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the Heads of Medicines Agencies’ Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures—Human for review. If such referral is decided by majority vote, the subsequent decision of the European Commission is binding on all EU member states.

The mutual recognition procedure allows companies that have a medicinal product already authorized in one EU member state to apply for this authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EU member states. Like the decentralized procedure, the mutual recognition procedure is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU member states of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU member states. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU member state requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another EU member state.

In principle, an MA has an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU member state in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document, providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU member states may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five-year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines (“PRIME”), scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that show the potential to target unmet medical needs. It permits increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicinal products, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help the product reach patients as early as possible. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation are potentially eligible for accelerated assessment of their MAA although this is not guaranteed. Benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

In the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring

increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once the specific obligations under the conditional MA are fulfilled (such as the completion of certain ongoing or new studies) and the complete data confirm that the medicinal product’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks, the conditional MA can be converted into a traditional MA. However, if the specific obligations are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the MA will cease to be renewed.

An MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has

134

been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional MA, an MA granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data on the medicinal product’s efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the MA is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

In addition to an MA, various other requirements apply to the manufacturing and placing on the EU market of medicinal products. Manufacture of medicinal products in the EU requires a manufacturing authorization, and import of medicinal products into the EU requires a manufacturing authorization allowing for import. The manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance. These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing medicinal products and APIs, including the manufacture of APIs outside of the EU with the intention to import the APIs into the EU. Similarly, the distribution of medicinal products within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including good distribution practice (“GDP”) standards and the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU member states. MA holders, manufacturing and import authorization (“MIA”) holders or distribution authorization holders may be subject to civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including suspension of manufacturing authorization, in case of non-compliance with the EU or EU member states’ requirements applicable to the manufacturing of medicinal products.

EU Data and Market Exclusivity

The EU provides opportunities for data and market exclusivity related to MAs. Upon receiving an MA, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and ten years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar product manufacturers from referencing the innovator’s data in generic or biosimilar MAAs for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the 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.

In the EU, there is a special regime for biosimilars products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials regarding biosimilarity must be provided in support of an MAA.

EU Post-Approval Requirements

Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products.

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 or the competent regulatory

135

authorities of the individual EU member states. The holder of an 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 (“PSURs”).

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan 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.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU member states’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals or organizations, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. Although these 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. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics (“SmPC”), as approved by the competent authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products is also prohibited in the EU. There is also a prohibition on the offer or supply of inappropriate inducements to prescribe, subject to exemptions in certain jurisdictions, such as benefits that inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine.

Japanese Drug Regulation

Japan is a member of the ICH, and has pharmaceutical law and regulations that are similar in many respects those of the United States and the European Union. Those requirements are embodied in the Act on Securing Quality, Efficacy and Safety of Products Including Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices (also known as the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act) and related cabinet orders, Ministerial ordinances, and guidelines.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in Japan must be conducted in accordance with Japanese regulations and the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (“GCP”). If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not an entity within Japan, it must appoint a domestic entity to act as its agent and carry out obligations on the overseas sponsor’s behalf. The sponsor must hold a clinical trial insurance policy, and in accordance with industry practice, should establish a compensation policy for the injuries from the trial.

Prior to the commencement of human drug clinical trial, the sponsor must complete a pre-clinical safety evaluation of the investigative product and submit a clinical trial notification, including the clinical trial protocol, to the Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare’s (“MHLW’s”) PMDA. This notification must be submitted after obtaining agreement of the IRB in relevant clinical trial institution(s). If the authorities do not raise an issue or comment on the notification application within 30 days, the sponsor may proceed to conclude clinical trial agreement(s) with the site(s) and commence the clinical trial.

Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted must be cleared by the IRB and notified to the authorities. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Japan’s GMP.

Non-clinical studies performed to demonstrate the safety of new chemical or biological substance must be conducted in compliance with the principles of Japanese Good Laboratory Practice rules (“GLP”), which reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) requirements. Currently, Japan and

136

EU have a mutual recognition agreement for GLP, and data generated compliant with EU requirements will be accepted by the Japanese authorities. There is no similar agreement with the United States, but this is not a significant issue because of the OECD arrangement.

To market an innovative medicinal product in Japan, domestic or overseas applicant must obtain government approval (or marketing authorization) through a new drug application. If the product is designed for treating certain difficult diseases or those for which the patient population is limited and demonstrates unique therapeutic value, the applicant may be able to obtain designation as an orphan drug product. There are also expedited programs for (i) truly innovative products for grave diseases with a unique mechanism of action (provided that development in Japan is concurrent or ahead of other jurisdictions) and (ii) products that satisfy certain unmet medical needs.

The evaluation of new drug applications is based on PMDA’s assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. Once PMDA completes its review, the matter is considered by the advisory committee of experts, and the government grants approval upon any positive recommendation from the committee. If foreign data are part of the application, a dose response clinical trial for Japanese subjects may be required to ensure that data can be extrapolated to Japan’s population.

Separate from the approval requirement, it is also mandatory that the marketing authorization holder or its partner in Japan possess a drug marketing license. Companies in Japan that actually manufacture drugs must possess a drug manufacturing license, and overseas manufacturers must obtain a manufacturing certification.

People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) Drug Regulation

China heavily regulates the development, approval, manufacturing, and distribution of drugs, including biologics. For purposes of the below description of drug regulation in China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, which are governed by separate drug laws, are excluded. The regulatory requirements applicable depend, in part, on whether the drug is made and finished in China, which is referred to as a domestically manufactured drug, or made abroad and imported into China in finished form, which is referred to as an imported drug, as well as the approval or “registration” category of the drug. For both imported and domestically manufactured drugs, China requires regulatory approval for a clinical trial application (“CTA”) to conduct clinical trials in China and submit China clinical trial data, prior to submitting an application for marketing approval. For imported drugs, the sponsor and marketing authorization holder must be an overseas company that, if the drug is already approved abroad, holds a marketing authorization in another country.

China also prioritizes review and approval of drugs and improvements to drugs (e.g., new indications, routes of administration) that have not yet been approved in any other jurisdiction (i.e., new to the world). In addition, China has created a set of expedited programs for drugs in high priority disease areas and drugs that more effectively treat life-threatening illnesses or that are needed for national emergencies.

The framework law in the drug space in China is the PRC Drug Administration Law (“DAL”). The DAL is implemented by various regulations and rules. The primary drug authority that regulates the life cycle of drugs is the NMPA. The NMPA has its own set of regulations, rules and guidelines further implementing the DAL. The rule governing CTAs, marketing approval, and post-approval amendment and renewal is known as the Drug Registration Regulation (“DRR”).

NMPA’s Center for Drug Evaluation (“CDE”) approves clinical trials and conducts the technical evaluation of each drug and biologic marketing application to assess safety and efficacy. Provincial-level medical products administrations help to enforce these rules, and issue entity licenses to domestic companies, such as drug manufacturing and distribution licenses.

The National Health Commission of the PRC (“NHC”) is China’s primary healthcare regulatory agency. It is responsible for regulating the health care system, including the licensure of medical institutions, which also serve as clinical trial sites, and credentialing of medical personnel.

137

PRC Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the NMPA

Among other expedited programs, China administers a Breakthrough Therapy Designation. To qualify, a drug must be new to the world, intended to treat a life-threatening disease or one that can seriously impact quality of life, and for which there is no existing therapy in China or a demonstrated substantial improvement over available therapies. Drugs that are designated as breakthrough therapies will receive priority in meeting scheduling, enhanced guidance from CDE to expedite drug development, and may also qualify for other expedited programs, such as priority review and conditional approval.

PRC Non-Clinical Research

The NMPA requires preclinical data to support registration applications for imported and domestic drugs. For domestic laboratories, NMPA oversees an accreditation program pursuant to China’s Good Laboratories Practice. If the pre-clinical research is conducted outside of China, then the applicant must sign and submit a certification with its CTA and marketing application stating that such research was conducted in accordance with applicable good laboratory practice rules.

PRC Clinical Trials and Regulatory Approval

Upon completion of preclinical studies, a sponsor will often need to conduct clinical trials in China to support registration. The materials required for a clinical trial application are substantial even at the CTA stage, including detailed manufacturing information. Drug registration trials in China many only be conducted after obtaining approval of a CTA submitted to CDE, approval of the ethics committee at each accredited hospital site, and human genetic resource approval (“HGR”), which is required for the collection of samples and certain associated data. CTAs may be approved in 60 business days if there is no comment from CDE, and the other applications can take approximately 3-4 months each. Prior to consenting subjects, information about clinical trials must be registered on a CDE-administered platform and continually updated during the trial, and certain information, not including the protocol, is made publicly available on the platform.

PRC Trial Exemptions and Acceptance of Foreign Data

The NMPA may reduce requirements for clinical trials and data, depending on the drug and the existing data. In some cases, NMPA has granted waivers for certain phases of trials and has stated that it will accept data generated abroad (even if not part of a global study with a site in China), including early phase data, that meets its requirements. According to the Technical Guidance Principles on Accepting Foreign Drug Clinical Trial Data the data from foreign clinical trials must meet China’s authenticity, completeness, accuracy, and traceability requirements, and be obtained consistent with the relevant requirements under the China’s Drug Good Clinical Practice rule (“GCP”). Sponsors must be attentive to potentially meaningful ethnic differences in the subject populations.

PRC Clinical Trial Process and Good Clinical Practices

Pre-market drug clinical trials may have three phases, which can each require a CTA (unless one CTA covers all three). These clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with a protocol that NMPA, various ethics committees at different sites, and the Ministry of Science and Technology (which grants HGR approvals) all review as part of the aforementioned approvals, and in accordance with applicable drug rules, including China’s Drug GCP, issued jointly by NMPA and NHC. Trials must also be conducted at sites that have received credentials from the NHC and NMPA.

China is a member of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”), so its GCP resemble the ICH GCP in a great many respects. However, there are some differences. For example, under China’s GCP the sponsor must provide legal and economic

138

guarantee to the investigator for clinical trial-related injuries, but harm or death caused by medical negligence is excluded. The drug rules contain procedures for amending the clinical trial approval, including obtaining approval for safety-related protocol amendments. NMPA (specifically, its Center for Food and Drug Inspections) has the power to audit trials and sites for GCP compliance during and after the clinical trial.

PRC Drug Marketing Application and Approval

Upon completion of the development process, the applicant may submit a marketing authorization application to CDE. CDE will organize pharmaceutical, medical, and other technical personnel to conduct a review of the safety, efficacy, and quality controllability of the drug based on the application materials submitted, and the results of a verification and inspection (if required). If NMPA decides to approve the drug based on CDE’s opinion, it will issue a drug registration certificate (i.e., a marketing authorization). A marketing authorization must be renewed every five years.

As the marketing authorization holder (“MAH”), a drug company is responsible for the life cycle of the product, including development, production and distribution, post-market studies, routine annual reporting, and safety monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions, among other obligations. The MAH may engage third parties to fulfill some of these obligations, such as appropriately-qualified manufacturers and distributors. If the MAH is overseas, as is required for imported drugs, the MAH must appoint an agent, which must be an entity in China that assists with meeting regulatory obligations. Marketing authorizations can be transferred to entities with the required capacity.

Both investigational and marketed drugs must be made in accordance with China GMPs. Domestic manufacturers must have a drug manufacturing license, and overseas manufacturers must certify that they will make drugs in accordance with GMP and meet their home country’s requirements. Drugs must be distributed in China by licensed drug distributors.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of June 30, 2023, we had 22 full-time employees, consisting of clinical, research and development, business development, regulatory, finance and operational personnel. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. We have also engaged consultants to assist with our clinical development and regulatory obligations. We engage a total of eight independent contractors. These independent contractors provide a diverse array of services, which includes assisting with our clinical development and regulatory obligations.

NewAmsterdam Pharma does not directly employ anyone or engage any independent contractors (zelfstandigen zonder personeel). No Works Council or other employee representative body (personeelsvertegenwoordiging) is established within NewAmsterdam Pharma Holding B.V. or NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V.

We recognize that our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate exceptional employees is vital to ensuring our long-term competitive advantage. Our employees are critical to our long-term success and are essential to helping us meet our goals. Among other things, we support and incentivize our employees in the following ways:

139

Facilities

We have our corporate headquarters at Gooimeer 2-35, 1411 DC, Naarden, the Netherlands, where we lease a small office space pursuant to a lease agreement entered into on July 3, 2020 which will continue until terminated by either us or the landlord upon one-month prior written notice. This facility houses our operations, human resources, information technology, finance, clinical operations and program management functions.

We also lease an administrative office of approximately 1,375 square feet, located at 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite #105, Aventura, FL 33180. This office space houses our U.S. administration, human resources, information technology, finance, clinical operations and program management functions.

We believe that these existing facilities will be adequate for our near-term needs. If required, we believe that suitable additional or alternative space would be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms. We are not aware of any environmental issues or other constraints that would materially impact the intended use of our facilities.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in material legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are currently not party to any legal proceedings material to our operations or of which any of our property is the subject, nor are we aware of any such proceedings that are contemplated by a government authority.

Corporate History

We were incorporated as a Dutch private limited liability company (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) on June 10, 2022 and converted our corproate form into a Dutch public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) on November 21, 2022. In connection with such conversion, we changed our name to “NewAmsterdam Pharma Company N.V.” We are registered with the Commercial Register of the Netherlands Chamber of Commerce under the registration number 86649051 and our corporate seat (statutaire zetel) is in Naarden, the Netherlands. Our principal business address is business address is Gooimeer 2-35, 1411 DC Naarden, the Netherlands.

NewAmsterdam Pharma was incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Netherlands as a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) under the name NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. with a corporate seat (statutaire zetel) in Naarden, the Netherlands on October 17, 2019. NewAmsterdam Pharma changed its name to NewAmsterdam Pharma Holding B.V. in October 2021. Our principal executive office is at Gooimeer 2-35, 1411 DC, Naarden, the Netherlands. NewAmsterdam Pharma’s principal subsidiary, Dezima Pharma B.V., a private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid), was incorporated on August 31, 2012, pursuant to the laws of the Netherlands with its corporate seat (statutaire zetel) in Breda, the Netherlands. Dezima Pharma B.V. changed its name to NewAmsterdam Pharma B.V. in October 2021.

On April 9, 2020, NewAmsterdam Pharma entered into a share sale and purchase agreement with Amgen to purchase all of the outstanding share capital of Dezima, such that Dezima became our wholly owned subsidiary. As consideration for the sale of the outstanding shares of capital stock in Dezima, NewAmsterdam Pharma paid Amgen one Euro and granted Amgen the right to receive ordinary shares in the event NewAmsterdam Pharma closed an initial public offering or the right to receive a portion of the proceeds NewAmsterdam Pharma would receive upon consummation of certain corporate transactions. NewAmsterdam Pharma separately entered into a

140

profit right and waiver agreement with MTPC pursuant to which MTPC waived certain historical intellectual property rights and related payment rights in exchange for the right to receive ordinary shares in the event NewAmsterdam Pharma closed an initial public offering or the right to receive a portion of the proceeds NewAmsterdam Pharma would receive upon consummation of certain corporate transactions. See the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Contractual Obligations and Commitments—2020 SPA and Profit Right Agreement” for additional detail.

From October 2019 until June 30, 2023, NewAmsterdam Pharma has made $42,539 in principal capital expenditures, relating primarily to the purchase of computers and office equipment. These expenditures related primarily to clinical costs and manufacturing.

141

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as at June 30, 2023 and for the six months ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, including the notes thereto, included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our consolidated financial statements are presented in euros and have been prepared in accordance with IFRS and our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are presented in Euro and have been prepared in accordance with IAS 34. Financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS may differ in material respects from generally accepted accounting principles in other jurisdictions, including U.S. GAAP but which our management believes is relevant to an assessment and understanding of our financial condition and results of operations. The following discussion includes forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors, including but not limited to those described under “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” included elsewhere in this prospectus.

For a discussion of (i) our consolidated statements of operations and consolidated statements of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2020, and a discussion of our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2020 and (ii) our consolidated statements of operations and consolidated statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2021, and a discussion of our results of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2022 as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2021, refer to the section titled “Management’s Discussion And Analysis Of Financial Condition And Results Of Operations” in the Registration Statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-268888) filed on January 17, 2023.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing oral, non-statin medicines for patients at high risk of CVD with residual elevation of LDL-C, for whom existing therapies are not sufficiently effective or well-tolerated. There exists a significant unmet need for a potent, cost-effective and convenient LDL-lowering therapy as an adjunct to statins, a class of lipid-lowering medications that are the current standard of care for high-risk CVD patients with high cholesterol. Our lead product candidate, obicetrapib, is a next-generation, oral, low-dose CETP inhibitor, that is currently in four ongoing Phase 3 and Phase 2b clinical trials as both a monotherapy and a combination therapy with ezetimibe for lowering LDL-C and preventing MACE. We believe that CETP inhibition may also play a role in other indications by potentially mitigating the risk of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes.

CVD is a leading cause of death worldwide and the top cause of death in the United States. ASCVD is primarily caused by atherosclerosis, which involves the build-up of fatty material within the inner walls of the arteries. Atherosclerosis is the primary cause of heart attacks, strokes and peripheral vascular disease. One of the most important risk factors for ASCVD is hypercholesterolemia, which refers to elevated LDL-C levels within the body, commonly known as high cholesterol.

A significant proportion of patients with high cholesterol do not achieve acceptable LDL-C levels using statins alone. We estimate that there are more than 35 million patients in the EU5 and in the United States who are not achieving LDL-lowering goals on the current standard of care. Existing non-statin treatment options have been largely unable to address the needs of patients with high cholesterol due to modest efficacy, prohibitive pricing, or an inconvenient and painful injectable administration route. It is estimated that over 75% of ASCVD outpatients prefer oral drugs to injectable therapies.

Our product candidate, obicetrapib, is a next-generation, oral, low-dose CETP inhibitor that we are developing to potentially overcome the limitations of current LDL-lowering treatments. We believe that obicetrapib has the

142

potential to be a once-daily oral CETP inhibitor for lowering LDL-C, if approved. In our Phase 2 ROSE2 clinical trial evaluating obicetrapib in combination with ezetimibe as an adjunct to high-intensity statin therapy, obicetrapib met its primary and secondary endpoints, with statistically significant, clinically meaningful reductions in LDL-C and ApoB observed. In three of our Phase 2 trials, TULIP, ROSE and OCEAN, evaluating obicetrapib as a monotherapy or a combination therapy, we observed statistically significant LDL-lowering activity combined with generally moderate side effects and no drug-related, TESAEs. Obicetrapib has demonstrated strong tolerability in more than 800 patients with low or elevated lipid levels (“dyslipidemia”) in our clinical trials to date. Obicetrapib is also expected to be relatively low in cost to manufacture compared to most other branded LDL-lowering therapies on the market. We believe that the estimated low cost of goods for obicetrapib will enable favorable pricing and position it to significantly improve patient access compared to existing non-statin treatments. Furthermore, we believe that obicetrapib’s oral delivery, demonstrated activity in low doses, chemical properties and tolerability make it well-suited for combination approaches. We are developing a fixed dose combination of obicetrapib 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg, which has been observed to demonstrate even greater potency in one of our clinical trials to date.

Lowering of LDL-C, and particularly ApoB-containing lipoproteins, has been associated with MACE benefit in trials of LDL-lowering drugs, including the REVEAL trial with the CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. We are performing a CVOT to reconfirm this relationship.

Our goal is to develop and commercialize a LDL-lowering monotherapy and combination therapy, which offers the cost and convenience advantages of a once-daily oral pill, and fulfills the significant unmet need for an effective and convenient LDL-lowering therapy. If we obtain marketing approval, we intend to commercialize obicetrapib for patients suffering from CVD independently and with strategic partners in certain jurisdictions. We have partnered with Menarini to provide them with the exclusive rights to commercialize obicetrapib 10 mg either as a sole active ingredient product or in a fixed dose combination with ezetimibe in the majority of European countries, if approved. Subject to receipt of marketing approval, our current plan is to pursue development and commercialization of obicetrapib in the United States ourselves, and to consider additional partners for jurisdictions outside of the United States and the EU, including in Japan, China and the United Kingdom. In addition to our partnership with Menarini, we may in the future utilize a variety of types of collaboration, license, monetization, distribution and other arrangements with other third parties relating to the development or commercialization, once approved, of obicetrapib or future product candidates or indications. We are also continually evaluating the potential acquisition or license of new product candidates.

Recent Developments

Impact of the Conflict in Ukraine

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, economic uncertainties have arisen which may negatively affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. These uncertainties include, among other things, downturns in the financial markets or in economic conditions, increases in oil prices, inflation, increases in interest rates, supply chain disruptions, and declines in consumer confidence and spending. We have assessed that the conflict in Ukraine did not have a material or direct impact on our operations or financial position. The duration of uncertainties and the ultimate financial effects resulting from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We will continue to monitor these situations very closely and implement further measures if we believe they are required.

Key Operational Highlights from the Six Months Ended June 30, 2023

Changes to our Board of Directors and Management

143

Ongoing Clinical Trial Announcements

Completion of Secondary Offering

On June 6, 2023, the Company and certain shareholders, including affiliates of Forbion, entered into the Underwriting Agreement with the Underwriters pursuant to which certain shareholders agreed to sell, in an underwritten public offering, 13,857,415 Ordinary Shares at a public offering price of $11.50 per Ordinary Share. In connection with the Secondary Offering, certain of the participating Selling Securityholders granted the Underwriters a 30-day option to purchase an additional 2,078,612 Ordinary Shares at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions, which option was partially exercised for 1,930,280 additional Ordinary Shares in connection with the closing of the Secondary Offering. The Company did not sell any Ordinary Shares in the Secondary Offering and did not receive any proceeds from the Secondary Offering.

Components of our Results of Operations

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from the sale of pharmaceutical products. Our revenue has been solely derived from our license agreement with Menarini. Pursuant to our exclusive License Agreement, dated June 23, 2022, with Menarini (the “Menarini License”), we received a non-refundable, non-creditable upfront amount of €115.0 million from Menarini on July 7, 2022, of which €93.5 million was recognized as revenue upon the execution of the Menarini License on June 23, 2022 and €4.0 million was subsequently recognized as revenue in 2022. In the six months ended June 30, 2023, €9.6 million of revenue was recognized, partially related to the achievement of a clinical milestone and partially related to the recognition of additional amounts of the deferred portion of the upfront payment received from Menarini. Additionally, in partial contribution to our costs of development of the licensed products, Menarini may pay us €27.5 million, payable in two equal annual installments. Due to the scientific uncertainties around the commercialization of the licensed products based on the success of clinical trials, out of our control, the fixed €27.5 million is considered constrained at contract

144

execution and is not initially recognized within the transaction price until it becomes highly probable of no significant revenue reversal. At the end of each reporting period, we will assess the probability of significant reversals for any amounts that become likely to be realized prior to recognizing the fixed consideration associated with these payments within the transaction price.

Under the Menarini License, we are also entitled to receive fixed reimbursement payments for our continued development costs, certain cost sharing payments, sales-based royalties, as well as payments based upon the achievement of defined development, regulatory and commercial milestones. These milestones are contingent payments and represent variable considerations that are not initially recognized within the transaction price. Our ability to receive and generate revenue from these payments is dependent upon a number of factors, including our ability to successfully complete the development of and obtain regulatory approval for obicetrapib within the Menarini Territory. The uncertainty of achieving these milestones significantly impacts our ability to generate revenue. We achieved a milestone pursuant to the Menarini License in January 2023 in connection with the announcement of topline data from our ROSE2 trial. At the end of each reporting period, we will assess the probability of significant reversals for any amounts that become likely to be realized prior to recognizing the variable consideration associated with these payments within the transaction price.

We do not expect to generate any revenue from product sales for the foreseeable future. Any revenue generated from potential future collaborations may vary due to the many uncertainties in the development of obicetrapib and other factors.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses are recognized as an expense when incurred and are typically made up of costs from our clinical and preclinical activities, drug development and manufacturing costs, and costs for CROs and investigative sites. Costs for certain development activities, such as clinical trials, are recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks using data provided by vendors of their actual costs incurred. At each statement of financial position date, we estimate the level of services provided by vendors and the associated expenditure incurred for the services performed.

All such costs are for the purpose of advancing our product candidate to successfully complete clinical development, attain regulatory approval and, if approved, commercialize our product candidate. We commenced a Phase 3 CVOT trial and two other Phase 3 trials in 2022. Much of our current focus in the Phase 3 trials is on project startup activities, the search for qualified investigator sites and patient enrollment and screening. Research and development expenses consist of the following:

145

We expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially in the future as we advance obicetrapib through clinical trials and pursue regulatory approval. The process of conducting the necessary clinical trials to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming. Clinical trials generally become larger and more costly to conduct as they advance into later stages and, in the future, we will be required to make estimates for expense accruals related to clinical trial expenses. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and estimated costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the development of obicetrapib. See the section entitled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Product Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization” for more information regarding the risks associated with clinical development.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

We recognize selling, general and administrative expenses on the accrual basis when incurred. These expenses mainly relate to consultant fees, employee costs, legal costs, marketing and communication, intellectual property costs due to increased efforts to drug patent development and protection globally, and general overhead costs.

Due to our planned substantial increase in research and development expenses, as discussed above, we also expect that our selling, general and administrative expenses may increase. We will incur increased accounting, audit, legal, regulatory, compliance, director and officer insurance costs as well as investor and public relations expenses associated with being a public company. Additionally, if and when a regulatory approval of a product candidate appears likely, we anticipate an increase in payroll and expenses as a result of our preparation for commercial operations.

Finance Income

Finance income is recognized using the effective interest rate method. Finance income for the six months ended June 30, 2023 is related to interest earned on cash balances. Finance income for the six months ended June 30, 2022 is related to the €709 thousand loan provided to our chief executive officer, Michael Davidson, M.D., pursuant to the loan agreement, dated June 28, 2021 (the “Davidson Loan Agreement”). The principal amount of the Davidson Loan Agreement was used to pay for depository receipts issued by Stichting Administratiekantoor EPNAP, a Dutch foundation which holds shares on behalf of certain of our shareholders, to Dr. Davidson.

On July 19, 2022, Dr. Davidson repaid the entire principal amount outstanding under the Davidson Loan Agreement, plus outstanding unpaid interest.

Finance Expense

Finance expense is recognized using the effective interest rate method and relates to our negative interest charged on cash balances in the six months ended June 30, 2022 and the interest on lease liabilities in the six months ended June 30, 2023 and 2022.

Net Foreign Exchange Gain/Loss

Our exchange gain relates mainly to cash balances denominated in foreign currencies, but also to transactions denominated in foreign currencies. In the first half of 2023, we reassessed its functional currency and determined the United States Dollar to be our functional currency beginning January 1, 2023. Prior to January 1, 2023, our functional currency was Euro. As such, our foreign currency exposure at June 30, 2023 is mainly related to Euros, British Pounds, Canadian Dollars and Japanese Yen while our foreign currency exposure at December 31, 2022 is mainly related to U.S. Dollars, British Pounds, Canadian Dollars and Japanese Yen. As at June 30, 2023, our net exposure to foreign currency risk was $158.4 million, mainly related to the Euro, as compared to €268.2 million as at December 31, 2022, mainly related to the U.S. Dollar.

146

Income Tax

We have a history of losses and therefore have not paid corporate tax. We expect to continue incurring losses as we continue to invest in our clinical and preclinical development programs. Consequently, we do not have any deferred tax assets on our statement of financial position.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Six Months Ended June 30, 2023 and June 30, 2022

The following table summarizes our consolidated statements of profit or loss for each period presented: