UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number 001-38360

 

Solid Biosciences Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

 

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 337-4680

 

 

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

 

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

None

(Title of class)

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

As of June 28, 2019, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the Registrant’s common stock  held by non-affiliates was $100.9 million, based on the last reported sale price of such stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market as of such date.  

The number of shares of Registrant’s common stock outstanding as of February 15, 2020 was 46,068,049.

 

 

 

 

---

Table of Contents

 

 

i

---

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes forward-looking statements, which involve risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms “believe,” “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “seek,” “predict,” “aim,” “continue,” “possible,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would” or “should” or, in each case, their negative, or other variations or comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include all matters that are not historical facts. They appear in a number of places throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We derive many of our forward-looking statements from our operating budgets and forecasts, which are based upon many detailed assumptions. While we believe that our assumptions are reasonable, we caution that it is very difficult to predict the impact of known factors, and, of course, it is impossible for us to anticipate all factors that could affect our actual results. All forward-looking statements are based upon information available to us on the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include, among other things, statements about:

By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and that our actual results of operations, financial condition, business and prospects may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, even if our results of operations, financial condition, business and prospects are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, those results may not be indicative of results in subsequent periods.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms “Solid,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Solid Biosciences Inc. unless the context indicates otherwise.

 

ii

---

PART I

Overview

Our mission is to cure Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD, a genetic muscle-wasting disease predominantly affecting boys, with symptoms that usually manifest between three and five years of age. DMD is a progressive, irreversible and ultimately fatal disease that affects approximately one in every 3,500 to 5,000 live male births and has an estimated prevalence of 10,000 to 15,000 cases in the United States alone. DMD is caused by mutations in the dystrophin gene, which result in the absence or near-absence of dystrophin protein. Dystrophin protein works to strengthen muscle fibers and protect them from daily wear and tear. Without functioning dystrophin and certain associated proteins, muscles suffer excessive damage from normal daily activities and are unable to regenerate, leading to the build-up of fibrotic, or scar, and fat tissue. There is no cure for DMD and, for the vast majority of patients, there are no satisfactory symptomatic or disease-modifying treatments. Our efforts are focused on our lead product candidate, SGT-001, a gene transfer candidate under investigation for its ability to drive functional dystrophin protein expression in patients’ muscles and improve the course of the disease. Based on our preclinical program that included multiple animal species of different phenotypes and genetic variations, as well as preliminary clinical trial biomarker results, we believe that SGT-001, has the potential to slow or even halt the progression of DMD, regardless of the type of genetic mutation or stage of the disease.

For patients suffering from DMD, symptoms usually begin to manifest between three and five years of age, when they fail to reach developmental milestones or experience motor function challenges, such as difficulty walking or climbing stairs. As the disease progresses, patients with DMD experience frequent falls; can no longer run, play sports or perform most daily functions; and are further weakened by physical activity. By their early teens, DMD patients typically lose their ability to walk and ultimately become dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. By their 20s, patients essentially become paralyzed from the neck down and require a ventilator to breathe. Though disease severity and life expectancy vary, a DMD patient’s quality of life dramatically decreases over time, with death typically occurring by early adulthood from either cardiac or respiratory complications.

Our founders, who are personally touched by the disease, created a biotechnology company purpose-built to accelerate the discovery and development of meaningful therapies for all patients affected by DMD. Through this disease-focused business model, our research team, led by experts in DMD biology and drug development, along with key opinion leaders in DMD, continuously evaluate emerging science to identify high-potential product candidates. Our selection process includes extensive diligence and initial pharmacology research with highly specific, predefined criteria, which provide us with confidence in our development program decisions. Through this data-driven selection process, we have evaluated a number of programs and identified gene therapy as a potentially beneficial approach for DMD, and thus initiated development of our lead product candidate SGT-001.

Our product candidates

SGT-001 is our lead gene transfer candidate and the focus of our research and development efforts. Gene transfer, a type of gene therapy, is designed to address diseases caused by mutated genes through the delivery of functional versions of those genes, called transgenes. The transgenes are then utilized by the body to produce proteins that are absent or not functional prior to treatment, potentially offering long-lasting beneficial clinical effects. SGT-001 is designed to address the underlying genetic cause of DMD by delivering a synthetic transgene that produces dystrophin-like protein that is only expressed in muscles of the body, including cardiac and respiratory muscles. Our SGT-001 vector is derived from a naturally occurring, non-pathogenic virus called adeno-associated virus, or AAV, which was selected for its ability to efficiently enter skeletal, diaphragm and cardiac muscle tissues. The vector is designed to carry a synthetic dystrophin transgene construct, called microdystrophin, that retains the most critical components of the full-size dystrophin gene yet is small enough to fit within AAV packaging constraints. These components not only include the domains necessary to confer protection against muscle damage, but also to drive the expression of key dystrophin associated proteins, such as neuronal Nitric Oxide Synthase, or nNOS. Inclusion of this nNOS coding region of the dystrophin protein may result in microdystrophin protein that has unique activity, restore nitric oxide production in the muscle and potentially provide important functional benefits such as diminished muscle fatigue and protection against ischemic muscle damage. In our Investigational New Drug Application-, or IND, enabling preclinical program, we have studied the efficacy, safety and durability of SGT-001 in multiple preclinical models and its functional benefits in DMD animal studies. In contrast to other therapeutic approaches that are designed to target specific mutations in the dystrophin gene, we believe SGT-001 is a mutation agnostic approach.

SGT-001 has been granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation, or RPDD, and Fast Track Designation, in the United States and Orphan Drug Designations in both the United States and European Union. The safety and efficacy of SGT-001 are under evaluation in a randomized, controlled, open-label, single-ascending dose Phase I/II clinical trial called IGNITE DMD, which is currently on clinical hold.

1

---

In the fourth quarter of 2017, we initiated IGNITE DMD to evaluate SGT-001 in ambulatory and non-ambulatory males with DMD aged four to 17 years. The primary objectives of IGNITE DMD are to assess the safety and tolerability of SGT-001, as well as efficacy as defined by SGT-001 microdystrophin protein expression. The clinical trial is also designed to assess other parameters of muscle function and mass, respiratory and cardiovascular function, serum and muscle biomarkers associated with SGT-001 microdystrophin production, SGT-001 microdystrophin associated biochemical properties (e.g. nNOS binding) and patient and parent reported outcomes and quality of life measures, among other endpoints. In February 2019, we announced preliminary findings based on three-month biopsy data from the first three patients dosed with 5E13 vg/kg of SGT-001, the lowest dose outlined in the trial protocol. In one patient, SGT-001 microdystrophin was detected via western blot below the five percent level of quantification of the assay and in approximately 10 percent of fibers via immunofluorescence. Due to these findings, and in consultation with the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, in May 2019 we announced that we had initiated dosing of the next cohort of patients at 2E14 vg/kg.  In August 2019, we amended our protocol to remove the matched patient control arm for the rest of the 2E14 vg/kg cohort in the IGNITE DMD trial and to provide measures to potentially improve safety, such as initially proceeding to dose patients weighing 25 kg or less.

In November 2019, IGNITE DMD was placed on clinical hold by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, as a result of a serious adverse event, or SAE, experienced by the third patient dosed in the 2E14 vg/kg cohort. The SAE, deemed related to the study drug, was characterized by complement activation, thrombocytopenia, a decrease in red blood cell count, acute kidney injury, and cardio-pulmonary insufficiency. Neither cytokine- nor coagulopathy-related abnormalities were observed. In December 2019, we reported that the SAE was fully resolved and the patient had resumed his normal activities. We continue to make progress to address the clinical hold and determine the path forward for SGT-001.

In December 2019, we announced preliminary findings based on three-month biopsy data from the first two patients dosed with 2E14 vg/kg of SGT-001. Using two independent immunofluorescence assays, 10% to 20% of microdystrophin positive muscle fibers were determined to express SGT-001 microdystrophin in the fourth patient and 50% to 70% of microdystrophin positive muscle fibers in the fifth patient. Immunofluorescence also showed clear stabilization and co-localization of nNOS and beta-sarcoglycan with SGT-001 microdystrophin in both patients. Using western blot, the expression levels for the fourth patient were detectable and estimated to be near the assay’s level of quantification which is 5% of non-dystrophic control samples, with one assay replicate at 5.5%. Expression for the fifth patient was 17.5% of normal control samples. The levels of serum creatine kinase, a highly variable biochemical marker of muscle damage, declined from baseline in both patients.

In March 2020, we announced data from the third patient dosed in the 2E14 vg/kg dose cohort of IGNITE DMD, including three-month biopsy data. Using immunofluorescence assays, 50% to70% of the muscle fibers were determined to express SGT-001 microdystrophin. Immunofluorescence also showed stabilization and co-localization of nNOS and beta-sarcoglycan with SGT-001 microdystrophin. Using western blot, microdystrophin expression was 8% of normal control samples. In addition, the level of serum creatine kinase decreased from baseline.

We believe the unique functionality of our SGT-001 microdystrophin may result in functional benefits including diminished muscle fatigue and protection against ischemic muscle damage, which can lead to loss of functional muscle. Collectively, we believe these data provide evidence supporting the biological activity of SGT-001 and provide support for continued development.

Taking into account the prevalence and incidence of DMD and the anticipated dosing requirements for gene transfer, we anticipate that there will be a need for a substantial supply of SGT-001 for clinical trials and, if approved, for commercial markets. Through significant targeted investments to address this challenge, we have developed a manufacturing process that we believe can scale to adequately support our needs for clinical trials, commercial launch and beyond. Our in-house scientists are continuing to work to increase the productivity, efficiency and purity of our manufacturing process.

In conjunction with our development of SGT-001, we believe it is critical to continue to invest time and resources in tools and technologies designed to help us more effectively understand DMD, accurately monitor disease progression and assist patients in daily life. As part of this goal, we are developing biomarkers and sensors that may allow us to identify treatment targets faster, measure the therapeutic impact of potential product candidates better and reach decision points earlier.

 

We seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position through a combination of patents, trade secret laws, proprietary know-how, continuing technological innovation, and entering into non-disclosure, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements. For our gene transfer programs, we have exclusively licensed four issued U.S. patents, and nine issued patents and ten pending patent applications in foreign jurisdictions. We have filed eight pending U.S. patent applications, two pending PCT international patent applications, and one pending patent application in Taiwan. We intend to continue building out our intellectual property protection to further strengthen our position in the DMD field.

2

---

Who we are

Solid Biosciences was founded in 2013 by our Chief Executive Officer, Ilan Ganot, our Chairman of the Board, Andrey Zarur, our former President, Gilad Hayeem, our board member Matthew Arnold and our Head of Patient Advocacy Annie Ganot, with the goal of developing meaningful therapies for patients with DMD. Solid is the English translation of Eytani, the Hebrew name of Ilan and Annie Ganot’s son, who was diagnosed with the disease in 2012. Our founders, unsatisfied with the existing therapeutic landscape, proceeded to raise funds to execute on our disease-focused business model. We assembled a passionate management team and scientific advisory board composed of individuals with extensive experience in DMD, gene therapy, product discovery, research and development, manufacturing, business strategy and finance.

In 2015, we began exclusively licensing the elements of the construct for SGT-001 and other elements of our gene transfer program from the University of Michigan, the University of Missouri and the University of Washington. Since then, we have continued to use our extensive network across the academic, business and patient communities to identify, vet and pursue high-potential complementary product candidates to address the needs of DMD patients.

Since our inception, we have raised private capital from a group of top-tier corporate and private investors. In addition, three leading U.K.-based DMD charities provided initial seed funding for our gene transfer program in return for equity in our company, and we have accepted additional contributions from several DMD charities to fund our early-stage research programs. In January 2018, we completed our initial public offering resulting in net proceeds of $129.1 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. In July 2019, we completed a private placement of shares of our common stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase shares of our common stock resulting in net proceeds to us of $57.9 million, after deducting offering costs.

We operated as a Delaware limited liability company under the name Solid Biosciences, LLC until immediately prior to the effectiveness of our registration statement on Form S-1 on January 25, 2018, at which time we converted into a Delaware corporation pursuant to a statutory conversion and changed our name to Solid Biosciences Inc.

Mission

Our mission, which guides every aspect of our operations, is to cure DMD. Underscoring this mission, our disease-focused business model is founded on the following fundamental values:

About Duchenne muscular dystrophy

DMD is an X-chromosome-linked, muscle-wasting disease, predominantly affecting boys. Progressive, irreversible and ultimately fatal, DMD occurs in approximately one in every 3,500 to 5,000 live male births and has an estimated prevalence of 10,000 to 15,000 cases in the United States alone. In DMD, mutations in the dystrophin gene result in the body’s inability to produce functioning dystrophin protein, which works to strengthen muscle fibers and protect them from daily wear and tear. Dystrophin protein also serves as the cornerstone of the dystrophin glycoprotein complex, or DGC, a group of proteins that links the inner and outer components of muscle cells to ensure proper muscle function.

Without dystrophin and the DGC, muscles suffer excessive damage from normal daily activities and are unable to regenerate, leading to the build-up of scar and fat tissue. More than 1,000 dystrophin gene mutations, which can be inherited or can occur spontaneously, have been identified in people with DMD.

For patients suffering from DMD, symptoms usually begin to manifest between three and five years of age, when they fail to reach developmental milestones or experience motor function challenges, such as difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Muscle wasting initially presents in the legs and pelvic area, then in the muscles of the shoulders, neck and arms. As the disease progresses, patients with DMD experience frequent falls, can no longer run, play sports or perform most daily functions, and are further weakened by physical activity. In addition to physical challenges, DMD also commonly involves cognitive difficulties and behavioral challenges.

3

---

By their early teens, DMD patients typically lose their ability to walk and become dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. By their 20s, patients essentially become paralyzed from the neck down and require a ventilator to breathe. Though disease severity and life expectancy vary, a patient’s quality of life dramatically decreases over time, with death typically occurring by early adulthood from either cardiac or respiratory complications.

Need for effective therapies

There is no cure for DMD and, for the vast majority of patients, there are no satisfactory symptomatic or disease-modifying treatments.

Glucocorticoid treatment, the current standard-of-care, has been shown to temporarily improve muscle strength, prolong the period of ambulation and slow the progression of DMD. However, glucocorticoid use is associated with well-known adverse events, such as severe weight gain, stunted growth, weakening of bone structure and metabolic dysfunctions, among others. The most commonly used glucocorticoids include prednisone and deflazacort (EMFLAZA).

In recent years, certain regulators have conditionally approved three new therapies which target specific mutations in the dystrophin gene. These therapies are indicated for only a small portion of the DMD patient population, and their respective efficacy profiles still need to be fully understood.

Current best practices for treating DMD patients also dictate a multidisciplinary approach to disease management, which includes physical and occupational therapy to preserve strength, function and flexibility, orthopedic management to reduce the risk of scoliosis and other bone and joint problems, pulmonary, cardiac and gastrointestinal management, and psychosocial management to support behavior and learning.

Burden of disease

Despite recent therapeutic advances, DMD represents a significant societal and economic burden. The economic burden, estimated at $1.2 billion annually in the United States (excluding costly mortality and end-of-life care expenses), includes costs associated with hospital admissions, medication, frequent doctor visits and investment in assistive devices, as well as indirect costs related to productivity losses for the caregivers and costs due to pain, anxiety and social handicap. Of this amount, approximately 45% is represented by indirect costs. Only a small proportion of DMD patients are employed and many caregivers reduce their hours or stop working altogether to care for their children, who progressively require more help with everyday tasks, such as eating, dressing and using the bathroom. In some cases, patients also experience serious mental health issues that require additional support and treatment.

Gene transfer—A corrective therapy

Gene therapy is a therapeutic approach that aims to address diseases caused by gene mutations. A gene is a portion of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, that provides the instructions for the body to construct proteins that perform functions needed for life. Genes are prone to mutations, which can either be inherited or occur spontaneously. While many mutations are harmless, some lead to the absence of crucial proteins, resulting in serious genetic diseases like DMD.

Gene transfer, a type of gene therapy, is designed to address diseases caused by mutated genes through the delivery of functional versions of those genes, called transgenes. The transgenes are then utilized by the body to produce proteins that are absent or not functional prior to treatment, potentially offering long-lasting beneficial effects.

We have focused our efforts on gene transfer because we believe it has the greatest potential to address the root cause of DMD: the absence or near-absence of dystrophin protein. If successful, we believe gene transfer can slow or stop the progression of DMD in a majority of patients, irrespective of their genetic mutation, by producing long-term, muscle-specific expression of a functional dystrophin-like protein.

Our gene transfer candidate, or vector, includes three components:

4

---

SGT-001

SGT-001, our lead gene transfer candidate, is designed to preserve muscle function in DMD patients after a single administration and is based on some of the most recent understanding of dystrophin biology in the field. The SGT-001 vector is comprised of a functional transgene and a muscle-specific promoter, which are delivered via an AAV capsid.  We believe that the SGT-001 construct is differentiated from other gene transfer candidates and may provide unique clinical benefit.

The vector is modified to no longer self-replicate, yet retains its ability to effectively introduce new genetic material directly into patients’ cells. AAV vectors have been extensively studied in human clinical trials in multiple disease indications, including in clinical trials of high-dose, systemically delivered AAV gene therapies being conducted by third parties.

Capsid: The capsid of the SGT-001 vector is derived from a naturally occurring, non-pathogenic virus called AAV. There are several subtypes of AAV capsids that differ based on the proteins that make up their structure. These capsids have affinities for different sites in the body. We selected the AAV9 serotype capsid for clinical development based on our preclinical data, which demonstrated the capsid’s ability to efficiently enter skeletal, diaphragm and cardiac muscle tissues, as well as its favorable tolerability reported in other gene transfer clinical programs.

Transgene: Dystrophin, the largest gene in the body, exceeds the carrying capacity of AAV vectors. To overcome this challenge, we advanced development of the SGT-001 transgene, a synthetic, dystrophin-like gene that fits into AAV and has the ability to drive functional protein expression in skeletal, diaphragm and cardiac muscle tissue.

The concept of a modified therapeutic dystrophin gene originated from research on Becker muscular dystrophy, or BMD, where researchers discovered that certain BMD patients had mutations in the dystrophin gene that drove expression of a functional form of dystrophin protein, allowing patients to live relatively normal lives. This discovery led scientists to engineer a number of synthetic, dystrophin transgene constructs, called microdystrophins, that retained only the most critical components of the full-size dystrophin gene yet were small enough to fit within AAV packaging constraints. There are several types of microdystrophins that differ based on the configuration of their components. Microdystrophins were subsequently demonstrated to functionally protect muscle in mouse models of DMD.

Our SGT-001 microdystrophin construct is based on three decades of development and optimization work at the University of Missouri and the University of Washington as well as other academic institutions. In preclinical studies, the laboratories of Jeffrey Chamberlain, Ph.D., from the University of Washington, and Dongsheng Duan, Ph.D., from the University of Missouri, identified a proprietary configuration of genetic components that, when administered systemically, produces functional microdystrophin protein expression that not only stabilizes muscle membranes and protects muscle against injury, but also simultaneously restores the localization of DGC to the muscle membrane, notably increasing neuronal nitric oxide synthase, or nNOS, concentration. In subsequent published studies, Drs. Duan and Chamberlain demonstrated in animal models that, in comparison to earlier configurations, nNOS-restoring microdystrophins were more effective in improving muscle function and resistance to fatigue. We believe the unique functionality of our SGT-001 microdystrophin may result in functional benefits including diminished muscle fatigue and protection against ischemic muscle damage, which can lead to loss of functional muscle.

Promoter: The expression of the SGT-001 microdystrophin transgene is regulated by a modified, synthetic muscle-specific promoter cassette called CK8, which is derived from the naturally occurring muscle creatine kinase promoter. Regulatory cassettes, such as CK8, are used to prompt gene expression specifically in muscle tissues. In comparison to other regulatory cassettes, we chose CK8 due to its small size and its ability to drive microdystrophin transgene expression in skeletal, diaphragm and cardiac muscle tissues. In our preclinical studies in small and large animal models, CK8 restricted microdystrophin transgene expression to these muscles.

SGT-001 preclinical program

Our comprehensive preclinical program for SGT-001 was comprised of studies that inform efficacy, durability and safety, as well as dose response and the kinetics of transgene expression. Our program includes three different animal species: mice, dogs and non-human primates, or NHPs. Our preclinical studies were performed by third-party collaborators.

5

---

Well-established mouse and dog disease models for DMD offered us the opportunity to better evaluate the potential translatability of SGT-001 to humans. While studies in dystrophic mice, such as the mdx mouse, provide important efficacy rationale, we chose to perform additional functional studies in dystrophic dogs because they exhibit a more severe dystrophic phenotype and progress similarly to human patients at earlier stages of the disease. Dog models enabled us to assess various endpoints, including biodistribution, expression, durability and function in a large animal species.

Because DMD is a disease defined by a lack of dystrophin protein, it is important to reliably detect microdystrophin expression in muscle after SGT-001 treatment. As part of our core preclinical program, we developed well-characterized and well-recognized analytic approaches to confirm transgene expression and localization, using the following assays:

We also employed immunofluorescence to confirm if our microdystrophin construct restored the DGC, including key proteins such as sarcoglycan and nNOS.

Efficacy in dystrophic mice

Multiple studies in both dystrophic, or mdx, and healthy, or wild-type, mice have demonstrated that a single intravenous administration of SGT-001 induces measurable levels of microdystrophin protein expression. Muscle strength assessments in mild and severe mouse models of DMD demonstrated functional improvements in animals treated with SGT-001 in comparison to untreated dystrophic controls. In all studies, microdystrophin protein expression was measured using immunofluorescence, western blot and mass spectrometry.

In an mdx dose-response study, a clear dose-dependent pattern of transgene expression was observed at day 28 by all three assays. As an example, at a dose of 1E14 vg/kg, transgene expression as quantified by positive immunofluorescence staining in the quadriceps and heart muscle tissues was 50% and 80%, respectively, of the full-length dystrophin levels quantified in healthy wild-type control muscles. Similar levels of microdystrophin expression were found in all mdx studies completed to date. Efficacy studies performed in dystrophic mice treated with SGT-001 demonstrated significant, dose-responsive improvements in both muscle morphology and multiple physiological parameters. In a blinded efficacy study performed in mdx mice dosed at approximately six weeks of age, SGT-001 treatment showed statistically significant improvements in multiple muscle strength parameters as well as resistance to treadmill-induced fatigue.

Efficacy in dystrophic dogs

Two independent studies in dystrophic dogs assessed durability of microdystrophin expression and efficacy, respectively. These studies were performed in two distinct dystrophic dog models (mixed breed dystrophic dogs, or cDMD, and Golden Retriever Muscular Dystrophy, or GRMD), collectively encompassing a number of genetic mutations that lead to the absence of dystrophin protein. This enabled us to assess SGT-001 across multiple mutations, which is more reflective of the composition of the DMD patient population. Both studies used a canine-optimized version of the microdystrophin gene.

In a long-term dose-ranging study, five three-month-old, juvenile cDMD dogs received an intravenous dose of either 5E13 vg/kg (n=1), 1E14 vg/kg (n=2), 3E14 vg/kg (n=1) or 5E14 vg/kg (n=1). Robust transgene expression was detected by immunofluorescence at all biopsy time points and at all of the dose levels. In animals dosed with 1E14 vg/kg, approximately 70-90% of the muscle fibers were positive for microdystrophin and correlated to the restoration of DGC associated proteins, including nNOS.

A blinded dose-ranging study in the GRMD model assessed the general safety and efficacy of the canine construct of SGT-001. The three dose levels (1E13, 1E14 and 2E14 vg/kg) were administered at three months of age and animals were followed for three months following administration.

6

---

Dose-dependent transgene expression was detected in interim biopsies of skeletal muscles at day 28 and 45 and at the end of the study at day 91 in skeletal, diaphragm and cardiac muscles. A blinded histological evaluation of the muscle tissue revealed a reduction of dystrophic pathology at the higher dose levels. In the mid- and high-dose groups, all muscles biopsied at the end of the study exhibited improved pathology compared to low dose and untreated controls. Biodistribution studies demonstrated dose dependent transgene expression that was only detectable in the muscle tissues.

The observed dose response was detectable by both immunofluorescence and western blot. Quantification by western blot averaged less than 10% of wild-type in the low-dose (1E13 vg/kg) animals. In the mid-dose animals, the level of expression among the skeletal muscles ranged from an average of approximately 20% to approximately 50% of wild-type control muscles. At 2E14 vg/kg, the level of expression ranged from 30% to 70% of wild-type dystrophin. This data also correlates to quantification of microdystrophin via mass spectrometry.

Dose-dependent, sustained expression of microdystrophin not only correlated with histological improvements in muscle, but also provided statistically significant improvements in measures of muscle function. At day 90, muscle force generation was improved in both the 1E14 vg/kg and 2E14 vg/kg cohorts, indicating that the microdystrophin produced by SGT-001 is highly protective in a large animal dystrophic species.

The efficacy data collectively described above in both dystrophic mouse and dog models was incorporated into an overall nonclinical model to inform dose selection for our clinical program. All doses were well tolerated and there was no observed immune response to the transgene.

Manufacturing comparability

As part of our manufacturing process development, we have run comparability studies at each stage of our process scale-up. These comparability studies were carried out using in vivo mouse models to ensure that our drug product produced at different scales is comparable to each other.

Safety

As part of our preclinical program, we performed necessary good laboratory practices, or GLP, toxicology studies to establish the overall safety profile of SGT-001 in wild-type mice and NHPs. The data and our conclusions from these studies were included in our IND submission to the FDA. Systemic administration of SGT-001 was generally well tolerated in both species. We observed no evidence of test-article-related toxicity for up to 13 weeks after systemic administration of SGT-001 in either species that would prevent us from initiating clinical trials. In the NHP study, test-article-related effects were self-limited, mild chemistry and hematology changes with no microscopic correlates at the end of the study. There was a transient and asymptomatic increase in liver function enzymes observed in NHPs starting on day 9, which returned to normal levels by day 21. We believe there were no other relevant test-article-related adverse events associated with SGT-001 administration in either GLP study. In the NHP toxicology study, a single animal from the high dose cohort was euthanized after it did not recover from an anesthetic procedure. We believe this event was attributed to procedural errors. However, AAV vector cannot be completely ruled out as a contributing factor to the toxicity that gave rise to the event.

Clinical development of SGT-001

We are developing SGT-001 for the treatment of DMD through a single intravenous administration. In the fourth quarter of 2017, we announced the initiation of IGNITE DMD, a randomized, controlled, open-label, single-ascending dose Phase I/II clinical trial designed to evaluate SGT-001 in ambulatory and non-ambulatory males with DMD aged four to 17 years. The primary objectives of IGNITE DMD are to assess the safety and tolerability of SGT-001, as well as efficacy as defined by microdystrophin protein expression. The clinical trial is also designed to assess muscle function and mass, respiratory and cardiovascular function, serum and muscle biomarkers associated with microdystrophin production, SGT-001 microdystrophin associated biochemical properties (e.g., nNOS binding), functional outcome, patient and parent reported outcomes and quality of life measures, among other endpoints. Key inclusion criteria include: established clinical diagnosis of DMD and documented dystrophin gene mutation predictive of DMD phenotype; anti-AAV9 antibodies below pre-specified thresholds; stable cardiac and pulmonary function; and a stable daily dose of oral corticosteroids for 24 weeks. There is no enrollment restriction in the clinical trial protocol based on a patient’s underlying dystrophin gene mutation.

7

---

In the current IGNITE DMD protocol, participants are all assigned to open label treatment with SGT-001. The selection of the original starting dose in our first cohort, 5E13 vg/kg, was based on safety and efficacy data observed in our preclinical studies. Dose escalation and decisions regarding clinical trial progression occur after review by the DSMB. Efficacy is being assessed by comparing microdystrophin protein expression in muscle biopsy before and 12 months after treatment for each patient. An intermediate biopsy at either 45 days, three months, six months or nine months will inform the time course of microdystrophin expression. Long-term follow up will continue per regulatory guidelines.

In February 2019, we announced preliminary findings based on three-month biopsy data from the first three patients dosed with 5E13 vg/kg of SGT-001, the lowest dose outlined in the trial protocol. In one patient, SGT-001 microdystrophin was detected via western blot below the five percent level of quantification of the assay and in approximately 10 percent of fibers via immunofluorescence. Due to these findings, and in consultation with the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, in May 2019 we announced that we had initiated dosing of the next cohort of patients at 2E14 vg/kg.  To date we have dosed 3 patients with the 2E14 vg/kg dose. In August 2019, we amended our protocol to remove the matched patient control arm for the rest of the 2E14 vg/kg cohort in the IGNITE DMD trial and to provide measures to potentially improve safety, such as initially proceeding to dose patients weighing 25 kg or less.

In November 2019, IGNITE DMD was placed on clinical hold by the FDA as a result of an SAE experienced by the third patient dosed in the 2E14 vg/kg cohort. The SAE, deemed related to the study drug, was characterized by complement activation, thrombocytopenia, a decrease in red blood cell count, acute kidney injury, and cardio-pulmonary insufficiency. Neither cytokine- nor coagulopathy-related abnormalities were observed. In December 2019, we reported that the SAE was fully resolved and the patient had resumed his normal activities. We continue to make progress to address the clinical hold and determine the path forward for SGT-001.

In December 2019, we announced preliminary findings based on three-month biopsy data from the first two patients dosed with 2E14 vg/kg of SGT-001. Using two independent immunofluorescence assays, 10% to 20% of microdystrophin positive muscle fibers were determined to express SGT-001 microdystrophin in the fourth patient and 50% to 70% of microdystrophin positive muscle fibers in the fifth patient. Immunofluorescence also showed clear stabilization and co-localization of nNOS and beta-sarcoglycan with SGT-001 microdystrophin in both patients. Using western blot, the expression levels for the fourth patient were detectable and estimated to be near the assay’s level of quantification which is 5% of non-dystrophic control samples, with one assay replicate at 5.5%. Expression for the fifth patient was 17.5% of normal control samples. The levels of serum creatine kinase, a highly variable biochemical marker of muscle damage, declined from baseline in both patients.

In March 2020, we announced data from the third patient dosed in the 2E14 vg/kg dose cohort of IGNITE DMD, including three-month biopsy data. Using immunofluorescence assays, 50% to 70% of the muscle fibers were determined to express SGT-001 microdystrophin. Immunofluorescence also showed stabilization and co-localization of nNOS and beta-sarcoglycan with SGT-001 microdystrophin. Using western blot, microdystrophin expression was 8% of normal control samples. In addition, the level of serum creatine kinase decreased from baseline.

We believe the unique functionality of our SGT-001 microdystrophin may result in functional benefits including diminished muscle fatigue and protection against ischemic muscle damage, which can lead to loss of functional muscle. Collectively, we believe these data provide evidence supporting the biological activity of SGT-001 and provide support for continued development. Based on data from the clinical trial, we will determine next steps for SGT-001 clinical development, including additional clinical trials that may include other patient populations, as well as the need for larger confirmatory clinical trials.

Manufacturing SGT-001

The prevalence and incidence of DMD, combined with average patient weight and anticipated dosing requirements for SGT-001, result in a substantial supply need for clinical trials and, if approved, for commercial markets. To address this challenge, we developed a manufacturing process that we believe will be scalable to support clinical and commercial production needs for SGT-001.

Our suspension-based process is founded on seminal work by scientists at the University of Florida and has been optimized for manufacturability by our internal process development scientists with the support of our Contract Development Manufacturing Organization, or CDMO, partners. The process consists of three steps. First, we produce two replication-incompetent Herpes Simplex Virus, or HSV, stocks, one containing our microdystrophin construct and the other containing the critical elements of the AAV9. Second, we then use these two HSV stocks to coinfect suspension-adapted human

8

---

embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293). Third, these cells are then purified and concentrated in our downstream process to produce our gene transfer candidate. Our team has developed the analytical testing methods needed to support consistency and strict standards of quality and potency. We believe that this approach will increase our speed of development, ensure consistent quality and regulatory compliance, and reduce the risk of delay or unexpected production costs.

We believe that our decision to invest early in our manufacturing process was key to developing a scalable process designed to support clinical development and potential commercialization. We are supplying our clinical development program for SGT-001 with drug product produced at current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, - compliant facilities located at partner CDMOs. We have operated at 250-liter scale and have successfully produced multiple drug product batches at this scale. Our in-house scientists are continuing to work to increase the productivity, efficiency and purity of our manufacturing process.

Complementary disease-modifying therapy: Anti-LTBP4

While we believe gene transfer may be able to slow or halt DMD disease progression, many patients would still suffer from the manifestations of the disease, such as tissue damage to their muscles, impaired muscle strength, inflammation, cardiac dysfunction and fibrosis.

Anti-LTBP4 is our complementary disease modifying program with the goal of identifying and developing a monoclonal antibody intended to reduce fibrosis and inflammation by targeting and stabilizing the LTBP4 protein. LTBP4 is highly expressed in muscle and, when stable, prevents fibrosis and inflammation by inhibiting the activation of the TGF-beta pathway.

The rationale for targeting LTBP4 originated from observations in DMD natural history studies. Researchers found that subsets of patients with genetic variants in the LTBP4 gene maintained their ability to walk longer compared to patients in the study who did not. Researchers discovered that these genetic variants lead to reduced TGF-beta signaling. Elizabeth McNally, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Center for Genetic Medicine at Northwestern University, hypothesized that stabilization of the LTBP4 protein in DMD patients could mimic the effect.

In order to assess the efficacy of potential human antibody clinical candidates in preclinical models, mice expressing the human version of LTBP4 were crossed with mdx mice to generate a DMD model that expressed human LTBP4 (hLTBP4:mdx). Preliminary studies showed that the hLTBP4:mdx animals treated with an anti-LTBP4 antibody showed significantly lower levels of fibrosis and inflammation due to the stabilization of the LTBP4 protein.

In order to focus our efforts on addressing the underlying cause of DMD through our SGT-001 program, we have significantly curtailed investment in our other programs, including anti-LTBP4.

Tools to accelerate discovery and development

In conjunction with our development of SGT-001, we believe it is critical to continue to invest time and research into tools designed to help us more effectively measure disease progression and the therapeutic impact of our product candidates. We are developing biomarkers and sensors that will allow us to identify treatment targets faster, better measure the therapeutic impact of potential product candidates and reach therapeutic decision points earlier.

Non-invasive biochemical and imaging biomarkers

We are working to identify non-invasive biochemical and imaging biomarkers that could potentially reduce or eliminate the need for muscle biopsies in clinical trials, reducing stress on patients and allowing better evaluation of potential product candidates. We are developing a platform technology that may enable the non-invasive measurement of changes associated with increased dystrophin and dystrophin-like protein expression in DMD patients by using established imaging techniques. We are also currently using leading, robust platforms to perform extensive analysis on patient samples to establish molecular signatures based on various stages of DMD disease progression.

9

---

Assistive devices

Solid Suit

In partnership with Silicon Valley’s Seismic and Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD), we have advanced development of wearable assistive devices that may have both functional and therapeutic benefits, with the goal of helping patients perform day-to-day activities with greater ease and preserving their muscle function. We refer to these devices as the Solid Suit. This work was done with the insight and oversight of technology innovators and engineering and disease experts, and each step is informed by input from the patient community. The Solid Suit utilizes cutting-edge technologies to power soft, light-weight comfortable exoskeletons with the potential to offset muscle fatigue and augment muscle strength. The Solid Suit is comprised of three separate components, all of which are currently in prototype development.

In order to focus our efforts on addressing the underlying cause of DMD through our SGT-001 program, we have significantly curtailed investment in our other programs, including the Solid Suit.

Intellectual property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection for our product candidates, including SGT-001, and other know-how, to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of others, and to prevent others from infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating our intellectual property rights. We also rely on patents, trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position.

As of February 15, 2020, we have filed eight pending U.S. patent applications, two pending PCT international patent applications, and one pending patent application in Taiwan. For our gene transfer programs, we have exclusively licensed four issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and ten granted patents and ten pending patent applications in foreign jurisdictions. The issued U.S. patents are projected to expire between 2021 and 2036, excluding any patent term adjustments and any patent term extensions, and any U.S. patents that may issue from the pending U.S. non-provisional patent application and U.S. provisional patent applications (assuming U.S. non-provisional patent applications are timely filed with respect to such provisional patent applications and all other applicable requirements are satisfied) would be projected to expire in 2036, excluding any patent term adjustments and any patent term extensions.

With respect to our gene transfer programs, we exclusively licensed patent families that relate to microdystrophin genes. With respect to SGT-001, we exclusively licensed two issued U.S. patents and two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, which generally claim the structural elements of SGT-001 and the promoter sequence used in SGT-001. These issued U.S. patents are projected to expire in 2028 and 2036, excluding any patent term adjustments and any patent term extensions.

Relating to SGT-001, we also own seven pending U.S. provisional patent applications, one pending U.S. patent application, and one pending PCT international patent application. Any patents that may be issued from the pending PCT and our pending U.S. provisional patent application (assuming a U.S. non-provisional patent application is timely filed with respect to such provisional patent application and all other applicable requirements are satisfied) would be projected to expire between 2036 and 2041, excluding any patent term adjustments and any patent term extensions. Substantive prosecution of our patent applications has not yet commenced at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. We cannot predict whether such pending patent applications will result in the issuance of a patent that effectively protects SGT-001, or if such issued patent or any of our licensor’s issued patents will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products. In any event, patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the patent offices in various jurisdictions are often significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if they issue at all.

With respect to our Anti-LTBP4 program, we do not currently own or in-license any issued patents or patent applications relating to such product candidate. We have exercised an exclusive option to negotiate for licenses of certain patents and patent applications relating to Anti-LTBP4 from Ikaika Therapeutics, LLC. Ikaika Therapeutics, LLC is only required to negotiate the terms of a potential license agreement with us for certain specified periods of time and we may be unable to enter into such a definitive license agreement within the required timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to enter into such a definitive license agreement, we will not have any license to such patents and patent applications.

10

---

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a patent that covers a drug or biological product may also be eligible for patent term extension when FDA approval is granted, subject to certain limitations and provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met (for more information, please see “Business— Government regulation and product approval —U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity”). In the future, if and when our product candidates receive approval from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents we may obtain in the future covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each product and other factors. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, our owned and licensed pending patent applications, and any patent applications that we may in the future file or license from third parties may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents. Any issued patents that we may receive in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. 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 any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby limiting protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by executing confidentiality agreements with our collaborators and scientific advisors, and non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. We have also executed agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements we enter into are designed to protect our proprietary information and the agreements or clauses requiring assignment of inventions to us are designed to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through our relationship with the respective counterparty. We cannot guarantee, however, that these agreements will afford us adequate protection of our intellectual property and proprietary information rights.

We also seek trademark protection in the United States and internationally where available and when appropriate. We currently own U.S. federal registrations for the marks SOLID, SOLID GT and SOLID BIOSCIENCES and a European Union registration for the mark SOLID GT.

Strategic partnerships and collaborations/licenses

We have certain obligations under licensing agreements with third parties that include annual maintenance fees and payments that are contingent upon achieving various development, commercial and regulatory milestones. Pursuant to many of these license agreements, we are required to make milestone payments if certain development, regulatory and commercial sales milestones are achieved, and may have certain additional research funding obligations. Also, pursuant to the terms of many of these license agreements, when and if commercial sales of a licensed product commence, we must pay royalties to our licensors on net sales of the respective licensed products.

University of Washington License Agreement

In 2015, we entered into a license agreement with the University of Washington, acting through UW CoMotion, under which we obtained an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license under certain patent applications owned by the University of Washington relating to novel micro-dystrophins to develop, manufacture, and commercialize products for use in the treatment of DMD and related disease indications caused by a lack of functional dystrophin. We have the right to grant sublicenses to third parties contingent upon written approval by the University of Washington prior to executing such sublicense, which approval may not be unreasonably withheld.

11

---

In consideration for the rights granted by the agreement, we paid a one-time, non-refundable license fee, which was recorded as a research and development expense in 2015. We are required to reimburse the University of Washington for costs incurred in applying for, prosecuting and maintaining patents and pay up to an aggregate of approximately $1 million upon the achievement of certain milestones. There were no milestones achieved during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018. In October 2017, the first milestone was achieved under this agreement. The milestone payment was recorded as a research and development expense in the fourth quarter of 2017. We must also pay royalties of a low single digit percentage of future sales by us and our sublicensees of products developed under the licensed patent rights. In addition, we must pay an annual maintenance fee until certain milestones are achieved, at which time a minimum annual royalty requirement will replace such maintenance fee and will apply to us and our sublicensees.

We are obligated to use our commercially reasonable efforts, consistent with sound and reasonable business practices and judgment, to commercialize the inventions covered by the licensed patent rights and to make and sell products based on that patent as soon as practicable and maximize sales thereof.

The University of Washington controls the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents in consultation with us and at our expense. In countries in which we have not requested prosecution or maintenance of licensed patents, the University of Washington may prosecute and maintain such licensed patents at its own cost. We have the first right to enforce such licensed patents at our expense. However, we may not enter into any settlement in any manner relating to the licensed patents without the University of Washington’s prior written consent.

The license agreement remains in effect until the expiration of the last-to-expire patent licensed under the agreement. We may terminate the agreement at any time upon providing sixty days’ written notice to the University of Washington. The University of Washington may terminate the agreement upon our uncured, material breach of the agreement or if we enter into an insolvency-related event.

The University of Missouri License Agreement

In 2015, we entered into a license agreement with the Curators of the University of Missouri, or the University of Missouri, a public corporation of Missouri, under which we obtained an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license under certain patents and patent applications owned by the University of Missouri relating to a novel synthetic microdystrophin gene to make, sell and distribute products for use in the treatment of DMD and related disease indications resulting from a lack of functional dystrophin.

In consideration for the rights granted by the agreement, we paid a one-time, non-refundable license fee, which was recorded as a research and development expense in 2015. We are required to reimburse the University of Missouri for costs incurred in applying for, prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents and pay up to an aggregate of approximately $1 million upon the achievement of certain milestones for each product developed based on the licensed patents. There were no milestones achieved during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018. In October 2017, the first milestone was achieved under this agreement. The milestone payment was recorded as a research and development expense in the fourth quarter of 2017. We must pay a royalty of a low single digit percentage of future sales by us or our sublicensees of products developed using the licensed patents. In addition, we must pay an annual maintenance fee until certain milestones are achieved, after which time a minimum annual royalty will replace such maintenance fee.

Under the agreement, we granted the University of Missouri a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, paid-up license, with the right to grant sublicenses to non-profit, academic, educational or governmental institutions, to practice and use improvements made by us using the licensed patent rights, solely for non-commercial research purposes.

We are obligated to use our reasonable best efforts to introduce products based on the licensed patent rights into the commercial market as soon as possible, consistent with sound and reasonable business practices and judgment, and thereafter to keep such products reasonably available to the public.

The University of Missouri controls the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents in consultation with us and at our expense. In countries in which we have not requested prosecution or maintenance of licensed patents, the University of Missouri may prosecute and maintain such licensed patents at its own cost. We have the first right to enforce such licensed patents at our expense. However, any settlement, consent judgment or other voluntary disposition of litigation that materially limits the scope, validity or enforceability of the licensed patent or admits fault or wrongdoing on the part of the University of Missouri must be pre-approved in writing by the University of Missouri.

12

---

The license agreement remains in effect until the expiration of the last-to-expire patent or the abandonment of the last to be abandoned patent application licensed under the agreement. The University of Missouri may terminate the agreement, or render the license granted thereunder non-exclusive, in individual countries if we and our sublicensees fail to achieve certain milestones. We may terminate the license agreement at any time upon providing six months’ written notice to the University of Missouri and paying a termination fee. Each of the University of Missouri and we may also terminate the agreement for an uncured default or breach of the agreement by the other party. Our ability to cure such breach only applies to the first two notices of such breach provided by the University of Missouri, and thereafter, the University of Missouri may terminate the agreement for our default or breach of the agreement upon thirty days’ written notice without an opportunity to cure such default or breach.

The University of Michigan License Agreement

In 2016, we entered into a license agreement with the Regents of the University of Michigan, or the University of Michigan, a constitutional corporation of Michigan, under which we obtained an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license to make, sell and distribute products under certain patents owned by the University of Michigan related to microdystrophin and utrophin spectrin-like nucleic acid sequences for any use that, but for this agreement, would comprise an infringement of a valid claim included in the licensed patent rights.

In consideration for the rights granted by the agreement, we paid a one-time license fee and a separate fee to cover past patent prosecution costs. We recorded the upfront license fee as a research and development expense in 2016. We are required to reimburse the University of Michigan for costs incurred in applying for, prosecuting and maintaining patents, and pay up to an aggregate of approximately $1 million upon the achievement of certain milestones. There were no milestones achieved during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017. We must also pay royalties of a low single-digit percentage of future sales by us or our sublicensees of products developed using the licensed rights, with a minimum annual royalty after certain milestones are achieved. In addition, we must pay an annual maintenance fee in any year in which the minimum annual royalty is not reached.

Under the agreement, the University of Michigan reserves for itself and its affiliates the right to use the licensed rights for non-commercial research, public service, internal and educational purposes and the right to grant the same limited non-commercial rights to other non-profit research institutions.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to bring one or more products based on the licensed patents to market through a diligence program for utilizing the licensed patents, to continue diligent marketing efforts throughout the term of the agreement, and to make reasonable amounts of such products commercially available, in each case consistent with prudent business practices and judgment.

The University of Michigan controls the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents in consultation with us and at our expense. In countries in which we have not requested prosecution or maintenance of licensed patents, the University of Michigan may prosecute and maintain such licensed patents at its own cost. We have the first right to enforce such licensed patents at our expense. However, we may only enter into a settlement with the advice and consent of the University of Michigan.

The license agreement remains in effect until the expiration of the last-to-expire patent licensed under the agreement. The University of Michigan may terminate the agreement upon our uncured material breach of the agreement, including failure to make required payments under the agreement or to achieve certain milestones, or if we become insolvent or bankrupt. We may terminate the license agreement at any time upon providing sixty days’ written notice to the University of Michigan.

Harvard College License Agreements

In 2016 and 2017, we entered into license agreements with the President and Fellows of Harvard College, or Harvard College, under which we obtained non-exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide licenses to use certain intellectual property owned by Harvard College to develop, manufacture, and commercialize products for use in the treatment of DMD.

13

---

In consideration for the rights granted by each agreement, we paid one-time, non-refundable license fees, which were recorded as a research and development expense in 2016 and 2017. We are required to pay an annual license maintenance fee until certain milestones are achieved, after which time the annual maintenance fee will increase annually. Such annual maintenance fees will further increase if we grant certain rights to a sublicensee or strategic partner with whom we collaborate on the development and commercialization of licensed products. The annual maintenance fees are creditable against royalty payments. We also must pay milestone payments within thirty days after achieving certain milestones. There were no milestones achieved during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 under either agreement. We must pay a royalty on future sales by us or our sublicensees of products developed using the licensed technology.

The license agreements each remain in effect for an initial term of fifteen years, with automatic three-year renewal periods thereafter unless one of the parties provides notice of non-renewal. We may terminate the license agreements at any time upon providing sixty days’ written notice to Harvard College. Harvard College may terminate the agreements in the event we become bankrupt or insolvent. Both Harvard College and we may also terminate the agreements for an uncured material breach of the agreements by the other party.

Other License Agreements

In 2016, we entered into a license agreement with Life Technologies Corporation, or Life Technologies. In consideration for obtaining a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use certain technologies and associated know-how to develop our product candidates, we paid a one-time, non-refundable license fee. This fee was recorded as a research and development expense in 2016. The license agreement will remain effective in perpetuity unless earlier terminated. Life Technologies has the right to terminate the agreement upon our material, uncured breach of the agreement or in the event that it determines that continued performance of the agreement may violate any laws. We are obligated to diligently pursue regulatory approval necessary for the development, manufacture and sale of the licensed products. We have the right to terminate the agreement at any time upon providing thirty days’ written notice to Life Technologies.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly changing technologies, significant competition and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. This is also true in treatments of DMD, as well as in gene therapy. While we believe that our focus, strength of team, expertise in gene therapy, scientific knowledge and intellectual property provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from several different sources, including large and small biopharmaceutical companies, academic research institutions, government agencies and public and private research institutions. Not only must we compete with other companies that are focused on gene transfer technology, but any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, clinical trials, regulatory approvals and product marketing than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

We are aware of several companies and research institutions focused on developing systemic gene transfers for DMD, including Pfizer Inc., with a product candidate currently in Phase 1 clinical development, and Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., with a product candidate currently in Phase I/II clinical trial development. In addition, there are three therapies, which are intended to be disease modifying, that are currently approved for DMD by certain regulators. These products are eteplirsen (EXONDYS 51) and ataluren (Translarna), each of which is indicated for approximately 13% of DMD patients, and golodirsen (VYONDYS 53), which is indicated for approximately 8% of DMD patients. Any advances in gene transfer technology made by a competitor may be used to develop therapies that could compete with our lead product candidate or other product candidates we may develop.

14

---

Government regulation and product approval

U.S. government regulation and product approval

In the United States, biologic products including gene therapy products, such as our lead product candidate, are licensed for marketing by the FDA under the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, as well as by other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act and their corresponding rules and regulations govern, among other things, the testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, advertising and other promotional practices involving biologic products. FDA approval must be obtained before conducting human clinical testing of biologic products. Additionally, each clinical trial protocol for a gene therapy product candidate is reviewed by the FDA and, in limited instances, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or the NIH, through its Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or RAC. FDA must license a biologic product before it may be marketed within the United States.

Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or the CBER, regulates gene therapy products. Within CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, or the OTAT, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews. CBER, which works closely with the NIH and the RAC, makes recommendations to the NIH on gene therapy issues and engages in a public discussion of scientific, safety, ethical and societal issues related to proposed and ongoing gene therapy protocols. The FDA has licensed human gene therapies products for sale in the United States, and the agency has provided guidance for the development of other gene therapy products. This guidance includes a growing body of guidance documents on chemistry, manufacturing and control, or CMC, clinical investigations and other areas of gene therapy development, all of which are intended to facilitate the industry’s development of gene therapy products.

U.S. biologic products development process

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

15

---

Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, including a gene therapy product candidate, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as in vivo studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of certain nonclinical studies must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLPs.

If a gene therapy trial is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, prior to the submission of an IND to the FDA, a protocol and related documents must be submitted to, and the study registered with, the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, or OBA, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA. However, many companies and other institutions, not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines, voluntarily follow them. NIH is responsible for convening the RAC that discusses protocols that raise novel or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations at one of its quarterly public meetings. The OBA will notify the FDA of the RAC’s decision regarding the necessity for full public review of a gene therapy protocol. RAC proceedings and reports are posted to the OBA website and may be accessed by the public.

The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is an exemption from the FD&C Act that allows an unapproved product to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer an investigational product to humans. Some preclinical tests may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical trial on a full clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. With gene therapy protocols, if the FDA allows the IND to proceed, but the RAC decides that full public review of the protocol is warranted, the FDA will request at the completion of its IND review that the sponsor delay initiation of the protocol until after completion of the RAC review process. The FDA also may impose clinical holds on a biologic product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA.

In addition, the FDA may impose a partial clinical hold at any time before or during clinical trials. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND (e.g., a specific protocol or part of a protocol is not allowed to proceed; however, other protocols or parts of the protocol are allowed to proceed under the IND). If the FDA requires that progress to the next study is contingent on (i) FDA review of additional data and (ii) subsequent specific permission for the study to proceed, this represents a partial clinical hold.

Human clinical trials under an IND

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biologic product candidate to healthy volunteers or subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by, or under the control of, the trial sponsor. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, reviews and approves the study protocol and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee, or DSMB. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Clinical trials involving recombinant DNA also must be reviewed by an IBC a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research and utilizes recombinant DNA at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment.

16

---

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

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, may be conducted after initial approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA.

Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA, the NIH and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other trials, in vivo laboratory tests or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

The FDA or the sponsor or its DSMB 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. 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 biologic product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website. Similar requirements for posting clinical trial information are present in the European Union (EudraCT) website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ and other countries, as well.

Special Regulations and Guidance Governing Gene Therapy Products

The FDA has defined a gene therapy product as one that mediates its effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and which is administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms. The products may be used to modify cells in vivo or transferred to cells ex vivo prior to administration to the recipient. Within the FDA, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, regulates gene therapy products. Within CBER, the review of gene therapy and related products is consolidated in the OTAT, and the FDA has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its reviews. CBER works closely with the Local Biosafety Board, a federal advisory committee, in reviewing proposed and ongoing gene therapy protocols and engaging in a public discussion of scientific, safety, ethical, and societal issues related to those protocols. The NIH and the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or RAC, a federal advisory committee, also advise the FDA on gene therapy issues and other issues related to emerging technologies. The FDA and the NIH have published guidance documents with respect to the development and submission of gene therapy protocols.

The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies, including recent final guidance documents released in January 2020 relating to chemistry, manufacturing and controls information for gene therapy INDs, gene therapies for rare diseases and gene therapies for retinal disorders. Although the FDA has indicated that these and other guidance documents it previously issued are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain approval for any gene therapy product candidate we may develop. The guidance documents provide additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. Further, the FDA usually recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by 10 years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire.

If a gene therapy trial is conducted at, or sponsored by, institutions receiving the NIH funding for recombinant DNA research, a protocol and related documentation must be submitted to, and the study registered with, the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, or OBA, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules prior to the submission of an IND to the FDA. In addition, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. The NIH will convene the RAC to discuss protocols that raise novel or particularly important scientific, safety or ethical considerations at one of its quarterly public meetings. The OBA will notify the FDA of

18

---

the RAC’s decision regarding the necessity for full public review of a gene therapy protocol. RAC proceedings and reports are posted to the OBA website and may be accessed by the public.

Further, to facilitate adverse event reporting and dissemination of additional information about gene therapy trials, the FDA and the NIH established the Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System, or GeMCRIS. Investigators and sponsors of human gene transfer trials can utilize this web-based system to report serious adverse events and to provide annual reports. GeMCRIS also allows members of the public to access basic reports about human gene transfer trials registered with the NIH and to search for information such as trial location, the names of investigators conducting trials, and the names of gene transfer products being studied.

Finally, for a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with good tissue practices, or GTP. These standards are found in FDA regulations and guidances that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing.

Compliance with cGMP requirements

Manufacturers of biologics must comply with applicable cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation. Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of such products also must register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Establishments may be subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Discovery of problems may result in a government entity placing restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, and may extend to requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. The FDA will not approve a BLA unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specification.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional preclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biologic product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product candidate in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents or of causing other adverse events with the use of biologic products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other requirements, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biologic product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biologic product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. review and approval processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biologic product, FDA licensure of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biologic product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human studies, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biologic product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2020 is $2,942,965 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2020 is $325,424. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for product candidates designated as orphan drugs, unless the product candidate also includes a non-orphan indication.

19

---

The FDA reviews a BLA within 60 days of submission to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA.

The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biologic product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biologic product. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events and whether the product is a new molecular entity. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product candidate is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product candidate unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements. cGMP, GLP and GCP compliance requires significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, recordkeeping, production and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than how we would interpret the same data. On the basis of the BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the biologic product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes; or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV clinical trials, designed to further assess a biologic product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review of BLAs under the PDUFA. One such goal is to review standard BLAs in ten months after the FDA accepts the BLA for filing, and priority BLAs in six months, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or the BLA sponsor otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

20

---

Biosimilars and exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the companion Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the Health Care Reform Law, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA. That Act established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

As of January 1, 2020, the FDA has approved 26 biosimilar products for use in the United States. No interchangeable biosimilars, as described below, have been approved. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Additional guidances are expected to be finalized by the FDA.

Pediatric exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or patent protection, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an application sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. Thus, pediatric exclusivity adds six months to existing exclusivity periods applicable to biological products under the BPCIA—namely, the four-year period during which the FDA will not consider an application for a biosimilar product, and the 12-year period during which the FDA will not approve a biosimilar application.

Orphan drug designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a biologic product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a biologic product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, meaning that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or if the party holding the exclusivity fails to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority.

21

---

Orphan exclusivity does not block the approval of a different product for the same rare disease or condition, nor does it block the approval of the same product for different indications.  In particular, the concept of what constitutes the "same drug" for purposes of orphan drug exclusivity remains in flux in the context of gene therapies, and the FDA has issued recent draft guidance suggesting that it would not consider two gene therapy products to be different drugs solely based on minor differences in the transgenes or vectors. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity. Orphan medicinal product status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Expedited development and review programs

The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of BLAs in several ways. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a biologic product candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Biologic products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track BLA before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval.

None of these expedited programs change the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

22

---

Post-approval requirements

After regulatory approval of a product is obtained, there may be a number of post-approval requirements. For example, as a condition of approval of a BLA, the FDA may require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy. In addition, holders of an approved BLA are required to keep extensive records, to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, to provide updated safety and efficacy information and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for their products. Also, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMP regulations and practices, as well as the manufacturing conditions of approval set forth in the BLA. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP requirements, which impose certain procedural, substantive and recordkeeping requirements. 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 strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications 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, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

U.S. patent term restoration and marketing exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of product candidates, some of a sponsor’s U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent terms lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period generally is one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of a BLA plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved biologic product is eligible for the extension, the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Moreover, a given patent may only be extended once based on a single product. The USPTO in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Government regulation outside of the U.S.

In addition to regulations in the United States, a manufacturer is subject to a variety of regulations in foreign jurisdictions to the extent it chooses to sell any products in those foreign countries. Even if a manufacturer obtains FDA approval of a product, it must still obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Because biologically sourced materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may also be restricted in some countries.

Clinical trial approval in the European Union

Pursuant to the currently applicable Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Directive 2005/28/EC on Good Clinical Practice, an applicant must obtain approval from the competent national authority of the European Union Member State, or the EU Member State, in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. In April 2014, the European Union adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable to and binding in all EU Member States without the need for any national implementing legislation. Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 was published on June 16, 2014 but was not expected to apply until later in 2019.

23

---

Specifically, the new Regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial  to be conducted in more than one EU Member State will only be required to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial to a reporting EU Member State. The Clinical Trials Regulation also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting for clinical trials. As of January 1, 2020, the website of the European Commission reported that the implementation of the Clinical Trials Regulation was dependent on the development of a fully functional clinical trials portal and database, which would be confirmed by an independent audit, and that the new legislation would come into effect six months after the European Commission publishes a notice of this confirmation. The website indicated that the audit was expected to commence in December 2020.

PRIME designation

In March 2016, the EMA, launched the PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, initiative to foster research and development of medicines that may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments, or benefit patients without treatment options. PRIME aims to strengthen clinical trial designs to facilitate the generation of high-quality data for the evaluation of an application for marketing authorization. To be accepted for PRIME, a medicine has to show its potential to benefit patients with unmet medical needs based on preclinical and/or early clinical data. These medicines are considered priority medicines within the European Union.

After an investigational candidate has been selected for PRIME, developers are assigned a rapporteur from the CHMP, to provide continuous support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, or MAA. A multidisciplinary group of experts will provide broader guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy of the product. Companies are also eligible for accelerated assessment at the time of their regulatory application.

Marketing authorization

In the European Union, marketing authorizations for medicinal products may be obtained through several different procedures founded on the same basic regulatory process.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid across the European Economic Area (i.e. the EU as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. It is optional for those products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases. These are defined as circumstances in which a medicinal product is expected to be of a “major public health interest.” Three cumulative criteria must be fulfilled in such circumstances: the seriousness of the disease, such as severely disabling or life-threatening diseases, to be treated; the absence or insufficiency of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach; and anticipation of high therapeutic benefit. In these circumstances, the EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days.

Specifically, the grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to EMA which provides an opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.

The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more other concerned EU Member States of an assessment of an application for marketing authorization conducted by one EU Member State, known as the reference EU Member State. In accordance with this procedure, an applicant submits an application for marketing authorization to the reference EU Member State and the concerned EU Member States. 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 which, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials.

24

---

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 European Commission, whose decision is binding on all EU Member States. In accordance with the mutual recognition procedure, the sponsor applies for national marketing authorization in one EU Member State. Upon receipt of this authorization the sponsor can then seek the recognition of this authorization by other EU Member States. Authorization in accordance with either of these procedures will result in authorization of the medicinal product only in the reference EU Member State and in the other concerned EU Member States.

A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Union. Regulation No. 1901/2006 provides that, prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in a Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.

In specific circumstances, E.U. legislation on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or conditional marketing authorization, enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, the product fulfills unmet medical needs and the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data.

Conditional marketing authorization

Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

The requirements and processes governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCPs and the applicable regulatory requirements of the country or countries in which the clinical trial is performed, as well as the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki (whichever provides the greater protection to the clinical trial participants).

Specialized Procedures for Gene Therapies

The grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for gene therapy products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC includes specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit.  Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020.  Under the withdrawal agreement, there is a transitional period until December 31, 2020 (extendable up to two years).  Discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Union have so far mainly focused on finalizing withdrawal issues and transition agreements but have been extremely difficult to date. To date, only an outline of a trade agreement has been reached.  Much remains open but the Prime Minister has indicated that the United Kingdom will not seek to extend the transitional period beyond the end of 2020.  If no trade agreement has been reached before the end of the transitional period, there may be   significant market and economic disruption.  The Prime Minister has also indicated that the UK will not accept high regulatory alignment with the EU.

Healthcare law and regulation

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians and teaching physicians and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

26

---

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Pharmaceutical insurance coverage and health care reform

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. 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 approved products for a particular indication.

The Trump Administration has also taken executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the Health Care Reform Law. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Health Care Reform Law or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Health Care Reform Law. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Health Care Reform Law to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Health Care Reform Law that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the Health Care Reform Law. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the Health Care Reform Law for plans sold through such marketplaces. Further, on June 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in Health Care Reform Law risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued were owed to them. This decision is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court during its current term. The full effect of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the Health Care Reform Law marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

More recently, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by the President on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, will become effective in 2019. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the individual mandate will cause 13 million fewer Americans to be insured in 2027 and premiums in insurance markets may rise. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Health Care Reform Law-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax.  Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Health Care Reform Law, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” The Congress may consider other legislation to replace elements of the Health Care Reform Law during the next Congressional session.

In addition, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the Health Care Reform Law is an essential and inseverable feature of the Health Care Reform Law, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the remaining provisions of the Health Care Reform Law are invalid as well. The Trump administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 30, 2018 the same judge issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal. The Trump Administration recently represented to the Court of Appeals considering this judgment that it does not oppose the lower court’s ruling.  On July 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in this case.  On December 18, 2019, that court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the individual mandate portion of the Health Care Reform Law is unconstitutional and it remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the severability question and additional analysis of the provisions of the Health Care Reform Law. On January 21, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this decision on an expedited basis.  Litigation and legislation over the Health Care Reform Law are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

27

---

Further, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the Administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, on May 11, 2018, the Administration issued a plan to lower drug prices. Under this blueprint for action, the Administration indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services will: take steps to end the gaming of regulatory and patent processes by drug makers to unfairly protect monopolies; advance biosimilars and generics to boost price competition; evaluate the inclusion of prices in drug makers’ ads to enhance price competition; speed access to and lower the cost of new drugs by clarifying policies for sharing information between insurers and drug makers; avoid excessive pricing by relying more on value-based pricing by expanding outcome-based payments in Medicare and Medicaid; work to give Part D plan sponsors more negotiation power with drug makers; examine which Medicare Part B drugs could be negotiated for a lower price by Part D plans, and improving the design of the Part B Competitive Acquisition Program; update Medicare’s drug-pricing dashboard to increase transparency; prohibit Part D contracts that include “gag rules” that prevent pharmacists from informing patients when they could pay less out-of-pocket by not using insurance; and require that Part D plan members be provided with an annual statement of plan payments, out-of-pocket spending, and drug price increases. In addition, on December 23, 2019, the Trump Administration published a proposed rulemaking that, if finalized, would allow states or certain other non-federal government entities to submit importation program proposals to FDA for review and approval. Applicants would be required to demonstrate their importation plans pose no additional risk to public health and safety and will result in significant cost savings for consumers.  At the same time, FDA issued draft guidance that would allow manufacturers to import their own FDA-approved drugs that are authorized for sale in other countries (multi-market approved products).

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will 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 product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Environmental regulations

We are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by, our operations. Our research and development involves the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals and viruses.

Employees

As of December 31, 2019, we employed 121 full-time employees, including 97 in research and development and 24 in general and administrative positions. 34 of our employees hold Ph.D. or M.D. degrees.  

In January 2020, we announced a reduction in workforce by approximately one third as part of a strategic plan designed to create a leaner company focused on advancing SGT-001.

 

28

---

Corporate Information

We were originally formed as SOLID Ventures Management, LLC in March 2013 as a Delaware limited liability company. In October 2013, we changed our name to Solid Ventures, LLC and in June 2015 we changed our name to Solid Biosciences, LLC. Immediately prior to the effectiveness of our registration statement on Form S-1 on January 25, 2018, we converted into a Delaware corporation pursuant to a statutory conversion and changed our name to Solid Biosciences Inc. In addition, immediately following the statutory conversion, entities formed solely for the purpose of holding membership interests in our limited liability company were merged with and into us. We refer to the corporate conversion and the mergers collectively as the Corporate Conversion. Our principal executive offices are located at 141 Portland Street, Fifth Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 and our telephone number is (617) 337-4680. Our website address is www.solidbio.com. The information contained in, or accessible through, our website does not constitute a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We make available free of charge on our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in addition to the other information contained in this annual report on Form 10-K, including the section of this report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and related notes. If any of the events described in the following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K occurs, our business, operating results and financial condition could be seriously harmed and the trading price of our common stock could decline. This annual report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Risks related to our financial position and need for capital requirements

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

Since inception, we have incurred significant net losses. Our net losses were $117.2 million, $74.8 million and $53.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $316.3 million. To date, we have devoted substantially all of our efforts to research and development, including clinical development of our gene transfer product candidate, SGT-001, as well as to building out our management team and infrastructure. We expect that it could be several years, if ever, before we have a commercialized product. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

29

---

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize one or more product candidates with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, and our expenses will increase substantially as we seek to resolve the clinical hold, resume IGNITE DMD and complete clinical trials of SGT-001, obtain marketing approval for SGT-001, develop and validate commercial-scale manufacturing processes, manufacture, market and sell any future product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval and satisfy any post-marketing requirements. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We will need additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, conduct clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, SGT-001 and our other product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for SGT-001 and our other product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We also incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. While we believe that our cash, cash equivalents and available-for-sale securities as of December 31, 2019 will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2021, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently anticipate.  In addition, we anticipate that we will need additional funding to complete the development of SGT-001 and our other product candidates.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

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

30

---

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies, SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, ownership of our common stock will be diluted and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our current stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, SGT-001 or our other product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

We have never generated revenue from product sales and do not expect to do so for the next several years, if ever.

Our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with collaborative partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, SGT-001 and any other product candidates that we may pursue in the future. We do not anticipate generating revenue from product sales for the next several years, if ever. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales depends heavily on our success in:

31

---

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for our stockholders to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are a development-stage company founded in 2013. Our operations to date, with respect to the development of SGT-001 and other potential product candidates, have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring rights to our technology, identifying SGT-001 as a potential gene transfer product candidate and undertaking preclinical studies and a clinical trial of that product candidate and establishing research and development and manufacturing collaborations. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to complete clinical trials of SGT-001 or any other product candidate, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, any predictions our stockholders make about our prospects may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

Our independent registered public accounting firm has included an explanatory paragraph relating to our ability to continue as a going concern in its report on our audited financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The report from our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ended December 31, 2019 includes an explanatory paragraph stating that our losses from operations and required additional funding to finance our operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our audited financial statements, and it is likely that investors will lose all or a part of their investment. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Risks related to the development of our product candidates

SGT-001 is a gene transfer candidate based on a novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of development and of subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. To our knowledge, a limited number of gene transfer products have been approved for commercialization in the United States and the European Union.

We have concentrated our research and development efforts on SGT-001 for the treatment of DMD and our future success depends on our successful development of that product candidate. Our risk of failure is high. We have experienced, and may in the future experience, problems or delays in developing SGT-001. Any such problems or delays would cause unanticipated costs, and any development problems may not be solved. For example, we or another party may uncover a previously unknown risk associated with SGT-001, the adeno-associated virus, or AAV, vector, toxicity or other issues that may be more problematic than we currently believe and this may prolong the period of observation required for obtaining, or result in the failure to obtain, regulatory approval or may necessitate additional clinical testing.

In addition, the product specifications and the clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of such product candidate. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours is unclear and can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied product candidates. To our knowledge, a limited number of gene transfer products have been approved for commercialization in the United States and the European Union. As a result, it is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for SGT-001 in either the United States or the European Union. Approvals by the European Commission may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval and vice versa.

The FDA has placed IGNITE DMD on clinical hold after we reported a serious adverse event in the clinical trial. We may not conduct any clinical trials of SGT-001 until such clinical hold is lifted by the FDA. Our business may be adversely affected if the clinical hold is not timely and favorably resolved or if such regulatory concerns lead to more burdensome preclinical studies or clinical trials that cause significant delays in or end development of SGT-001.

In November 2019, the FDA placed a clinical hold on SGT-001 following a serious adverse event in our Phase I/II clinical trial, called IGNITE DMD. The third patient in the 2E14 vg/kg cohort of IGNITE DMD, dosed in late October 2019, experienced a serious adverse event deemed related to the study drug that was characterized by complement activation, thrombocytopenia, decrease in red blood cell count, acute kidney injury, and cardio-pulmonary insufficiency.  We reported the event to the FDA and the study Data Safety Monitoring Board. Following notification, the FDA placed IGNITE DMD on

32

---

clinical hold.  We continue to make progress to address the clinical hold and determine the path forward for SGT-001. We cannot assure our stockholders that the FDA will lift the clinical hold or that we will be able to resume development of SGT-001 as planned, or at all. Further, even if the FDA lifts the clinical hold, or if the FDA or other regulatory agencies continue to express safety concerns even after the hold is lifted, additional preclinical studies or clinical trials involving SGT-001, further amendments to the SGT-001 enrollment criteria and/or clinical trial protocol or changes to our manufacturing process may be needed and difficult to implement and/or complete. In such instance, our progress in the development of SGT-001 may be significantly slowed or stopped and the associated costs may be significantly increased, adversely affecting our business, and our stock price would likely decline.

In addition, we may not be able to obtain institutional review board committee, or IRB, or data safety monitoring board committee approvals for IGNITE DMD as a result of the clinical hold or any related risks, which could further delay our ability to open new trial sites and enroll patients into the clinical trial. Any delay in enrolling patients or inability to continue or complete our clinical trial of SGT-001, as a result of the clinical hold or otherwise, will delay or terminate our clinical development plans for SGT-001, may require us to incur additional clinical development costs and could impair our ability to ultimately obtain FDA approval for SGT-001. Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of SGT-001, our lead product candidate, or any other product candidate will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. 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 SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

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

During the conduct of clinical trials, patients may experience changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, discomforts or a fatal outcome. Often, it is not possible to determine whether the product candidate being studied caused these conditions. For instance, recently we reported a serious adverse event in IGNITE DMD, which resulted in a clinical hold, and previously IGNITE DMD has been on clinical hold after reporting another serious adverse event. In addition, it is possible that as we test SGT-001 or our other product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in earlier clinical trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous clinical trials, will be reported by subjects. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in large-scale, Phase III clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. If additional clinical experience indicates that SGT-001 or any other product candidate has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of the product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked.

There have been several significant adverse side effects in gene therapy treatments in the past, including reported cases of leukemia and death seen in other clinical trials using other vectors. While new recombinant vectors have been developed with the intent to reduce these side effects, gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. Patients will create antibodies to the AAV vector and a second administration of gene transfer might not be successful. There also is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material. Possible adverse side effects that may occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration that could substantially limit the effectiveness of the treatment or represent safety risks for patients. Additionally, in previous clinical trials involving AAV vectors for gene therapy, some subjects experienced the development of a positive ELISPOT test associated with T-cell responses, which is of unclear clinical translatability. If T-cells are activated, the cellular immune response system may trigger the removal of transduced cells. If our gene transfer candidate demonstrates a similar effect, we may decide or be required to halt or delay further clinical development of SGT-001.

As part of our preclinical program, we performed necessary good laboratory practices, or GLP, toxicology studies to establish the overall safety profile of SGT-001 in wild-type mice and non-human primates, or NHPs. The data and our conclusions from these studies were included in our IND submission to the FDA. Systemic administration of SGT-001 was generally well tolerated in both species. We observed no evidence of test-article-related toxicity for up to 13 weeks after systemic administration of SGT-001 in either species that would prevent us from initiating clinical trials. In the NHP study, test-article-related effects were self-limited, mild chemistry and hematology changes with no microscopic correlates at the end of the study. There was a transient and asymptomatic increase in liver function enzymes observed in NHPs starting on

33

---

day 9, which returned to normal levels by day 21. We believe there were no other relevant test-article-related adverse events associated with SGT-001 administration in either GLP study. In the NHP toxicology study, a single animal from the high dose cohort was euthanized after it did not recover from an anesthetic procedure. We believe this event was attributed to procedural errors. However, AAV vector cannot be completely ruled out as a contributing factor to the toxicity that gave rise to the event.

In addition to side effects caused by SGT-001 and our other product candidates, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. For example, integration of AAV DNA into the host cell’s genome has been reported to occur. Further, our AAV delivery system has not been validated in human clinical trials previously, and if such delivery system does not meet the safety criteria or cannot provide the desired efficacy results, then we may be forced to suspend or terminate our development of SGT-001. In addition, the relatively high dosing requirements for SGT-001 may amplify the risk of adverse side effects relating to the AAV vector.When James M. Wilson, M.D., Ph.D., resigned from our Scientific Advisory Board he cited emerging concerns about the possible risks of high systemic dosing of AAV. If any such adverse side effects were to occur in the future and we are unable to demonstrate that they were not caused by the administration process or related procedures, the FDA, the European Commission, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, SGT-001 or any other product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if we are able to demonstrate that any serious adverse events are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial.

Additionally, if SGT-001 or our other product candidates receive marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by SGT-001 or our other product candidates, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

We have never completed a clinical trial, and may be unable to do so for any product candidates we may develop, including SGT-001.

We will need to successfully complete clinical trials in order to obtain FDA approval to market SGT-001 or our other product candidates. We have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings, and have not previously submitted a biologics license application, or BLA, for any product candidate. In November 2019, the FDA placed SGT-001 on a clinical hold. If the clinical hold is not lifted on our IGNITE DMD clinical trial, we will not be able to evaluate or fully evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of SGT-001.We cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin or to begin as proposed, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. Carrying out later-stage clinical trials and the submission of a successful BLA is a complicated process. This may be particularly true for design of a pivotal trial for the treatment of DMD as the FDA has not given clear guidance as to the necessary endpoints for approval of a treatment for DMD. In addition, we have had limited interactions with the FDA and cannot be certain how many clinical trials of SGT-001 or our other product candidates will be required or how such trials should be designed. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to BLA submission and approval of SGT-001 or our other product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing SGT-001 and our other product candidates.

In the past, we have made changes to the IGNITE DMD protocol, and these changes, and any other such changes that may be made in the future, may impact our development timeline and result in increased costs and expenses.

 

34

---

Success in preclinical studies or early clinical trials, including our IGNITE DMD clinical trial, may not be indicative of results obtained in later trials.

Results from preclinical studies or early clinical trials, including our IGNITE DMD clinical trial, are not necessarily predictive of future clinical trial results and are not necessarily indicative of final results. There is a high failure rate for gene therapy and biologic products proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. We also may experience regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including due to changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Our preclinical studies for SGT-001 in animals have been limited and we have only recently begun dosing human patients with SGT-001. SGT-001 or our other product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies. This failure would cause us to abandon SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of SGT-001 or our other product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for its intended indications. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

35

---

Additionally, if the results of any clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with SGT-001 or our other product candidates, we may:

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals. In addition, if we make manufacturing or other changes to SGT-001 or our other product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. We may also determine to change the design or protocol of one or more of our clinical trials, which could result in delays. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

If our third-party clinical trial vendors fail to comply with strict regulations, the clinical trials for SGT-001 or our other product candidates may be delayed or unsuccessful.

We do not have the personnel capacity to conduct or manage the clinical trials that will be necessary for the development of SGT-001 or our other product candidates. For IGNITE DMD we are relying, and for any future clinical trials we expect we will rely, on third parties to assist us in managing, monitoring and conducting our clinical trials. If these third parties fail to comply with applicable regulations or do not adequately fulfill their obligations under the terms of our agreements with them, we may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements without undue delay or additional expenditures and, therefore, the clinical trials for SGT-001 or our other product candidates may be delayed or unsuccessful.

Furthermore, the FDA can be expected to inspect some or all of the clinical sites participating in our clinical trials to determine if our clinical trials are being conducted according to GCPs. If the FDA determines that these clinical sites are not in compliance with applicable regulations, we may be required to delay, repeat or terminate the clinical trials.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials of SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in any clinical trials of SGT-001 and our other product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of any clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients to participate as well as complete required follow-up periods. If patients are unwilling or unable to participate in our gene therapy clinical trials, including because of negative publicity from adverse events related to our product candidates, other approved gene therapies or the biotechnology or gene therapy fields, or due to competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, clinical trials in products employing our vector or our platform or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approval of SGT-001 may be delayed. We may also experience delays if patients withdraw from the clinical trial or do not complete the required monitoring period. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing SGT-001 or our other product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of SGT-001 and our other product candidates or termination of clinical trials altogether.

36

---

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete any clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by many factors, including:

In November 2019, the FDA placed our IGNITE DMD clinical trial of SGT-001 on clinical hold following our report of a serious adverse event in the clinical trial. If we are unable to satisfy any requests of the FDA in a timely manner, or at all, or if the FDA does not lift the clinical hold in a timely manner, or at all, we would be further delayed or prevented from enrolling patients in our IGNITE DMD clinical trial of SGT-001.

Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates and the approval may be for a more narrow indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals. Even if our product candidates meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA advisory committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the regulatory review process.

37

---

Even if we receive regulatory approval, regulatory authorities may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a REMS. Regulatory authorities may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates. 

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our product candidates will remain subject to regulatory oversight.

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for SGT-001 or our other product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to a REMS, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or conditions of approval, or requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the product. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of SGT-001 or our other product candidates, a regulatory authority may, among other things, suspend or withdraw regulatory approval, narrow the product label, restrict the marketing or manufacturing of the product, suspend any ongoing clinical trials or seize or detain the product or otherwise require the withdrawal of the product from the market.

Even if we obtain and maintain approval for SGT-001 or our other product candidates from the FDA, we may never obtain approval for our product candidates outside of the United States, which would limit our market opportunities and adversely affect our business.

Even if we receive FDA approval of SGT-001 or our other product candidates in the United States, approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. Future sales of our product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials, manufacturing and marketing approval. 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. We intend to submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA, to the EMA for approval of SGT-001 in the European Union, but obtaining such approval from the European Commission following the opinion of the EMA is a lengthy and expensive process. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and the European Union also have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. 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 SGT-001 or our other product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Also, regulatory approval for SGT-001 or our other product candidates may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements, our target market will be reduced, and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products are periodically updated and may continue to change in the future.

The FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, or the OTAT, within the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or the CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER in its review. Gene therapy clinical trials conducted at institutions that receive funding for recombinant DNA research from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, or the NIH, also are potentially subject to review by the Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or the RAC; however, the NIH announced that the RAC will soon only publicly review clinical trials if the trials cannot be evaluated by standard oversight bodies and pose unusual risks. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene

38

---

therapy protocols may proceed, the RAC public review process, if undertaken, can delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial design and details and approved its initiation. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND on a clinical hold even if the RAC has provided a favorable review or an exemption from in-depth, public review. If we were to engage an NIH-funded institution to conduct a clinical trial, that institution’s institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, as well as its IRB would need to review the proposed clinical trial to assess the safety of the trial. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of gene therapy products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of our product candidates.

The FDA has issued various guidance documents regarding gene therapies, including recent final guidance documents released in January 2020 relating to chemistry, manufacturing and controls information for gene therapy INDs, gene therapies for rare diseases and gene therapies for retinal disorders. Although the FDA has indicated that these and other guidance documents it previously issued are not legally binding, we believe that our compliance with them is likely necessary to gain approval for any gene therapy product candidate we may develop. The guidance documents provide additional factors that the FDA will consider at each of the above stages of development and relate to, among other things, the proper preclinical assessment of gene therapies; the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be included in an IND application; the proper design of tests to measure product potency in support of an IND or BLA application; and measures to observe delayed adverse effects in subjects who have been exposed to investigational gene therapies when the risk of such effects is high. Further, the FDA usually recommends that sponsors observe subjects for potential gene therapy-related delayed adverse events for a 15-year period, including a minimum of five years of annual examinations followed by 10 years of annual queries, either in person or by questionnaire.

Further, for a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with good tissue practices, or GTP. These standards are found in FDA regulations and guidances that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the GTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through screening and testing.

Similarly, the EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.  The grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for gene therapy products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC includes specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

Finally, ethical, social and legal concerns about gene therapy, genetic testing and genetic research could result in additional regulations or prohibiting the processes we may use. Federal and state agencies, congressional committees and foreign governments have expressed their intentions to further regulate biotechnology. More restrictive regulations or claims that our product candidates are unsafe or pose a hazard could prevent us from commercializing any products. New government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, regulations, policies or guidance changed, or interpretations by agencies or courts changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

As we advance our product candidates through clinical development, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups, and comply with applicable guidelines. These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of SGT-001 or our other product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue.

39

---

We may not be able to benefit from orphan drug designation for SGT-001 or any of our product candidates.

The FDA and EMA granted SGT-001 orphan drug designation for the treatment of DMD in August 2016 and September 2016, respectively. The designation of SGT-001 as an orphan drug does not guarantee that any regulatory agency will accelerate regulatory review of, or ultimately approve, that product candidate, nor does it limit the ability of any regulatory agency to grant orphan drug designation to product candidates of other companies that treat the same indications as our product candidate prior to our product candidate receiving exclusive marketing approval.

We may lose orphan drug exclusivity if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we cannot assure sufficient quantity of the applicable drug to meet the needs of patients with DMD.

Even if we maintain orphan drug exclusivity for SGT-001 or obtain orphan drug exclusivity for any other product candidate, the exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because regulatory authorities still may authorize different drugs for the same condition or the same drug for the same condition if it is determined by the FDA to be clinically superior to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Moreover, the concept of what constitutes the “same drug” for purposes of orphan drug exclusivity remains in flux in the context of gene therapies, and the FDA issued draft guidance in January 2020 suggesting that it would not consider two gene therapy products to be different drugs solely based on minor differences in the transgenes or vectors.

We may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for SGT-001 or our other product candidates, but we might not receive such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

We may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for SGT-001 or our other product candidates; however, we cannot assure our stockholders that SGT-001 or our other product candidates will meet the criteria for that designation. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies and biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time the new drug application is submitted to the FDA.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Even if we receive breakthrough therapy designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Accelerated approval by the FDA, even if granted for SGT-001 or our other product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek approval of SGT-001 or our other product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. The FDA or other applicable regulatory agency makes the determination regarding whether a surrogate endpoint is reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit. Given that expression of microdystrophin has not yet been established to predict long-term clinical benefit, it is not currently accepted, and it is possible the FDA and/or other applicable regulatory agencies could decide never to accept it, as a surrogate endpoint for the accelerated approval pathway.

40

---

As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if we do receive accelerated approval, we may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and receiving accelerated approval does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval.

A potential regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation by the FDA for our product candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation, or RMAT, for some of our product candidates. A regenerative medicine advanced therapy is defined as cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. Gene therapies, including genetically modified cells, that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues may meet the definition of a regenerative medicine therapy. The regenerative medicine advanced therapy program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A new drug application or a BLA for a regenerative medicine advanced therapy may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with the FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

Designation as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a regenerative medicine advanced therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as regenerative medicine advanced therapies, the FDA may later decide that the biological products no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

The FDA has granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation, or RPDD, to SGT-001; however, a BLA for SGT-001 may not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher upon approval.

The FDA has granted RPDD to SGT-001. RPDD does not guarantee that a BLA for such drug will meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher at the time the application is approved. We will need to request a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher in our BLA for SGT-001. The use of a priority review voucher allows for a drug or biologic to be reviewed by the FDA within six months. However, the FDA may determine that a BLA for SGT-001 does not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher upon approval. Moreover, even if SGT-001 does satisfy those criteria, the product will need to be licensed before September 30, 2022 in order to be granted a rare disease priority review voucher.

The FDA has granted fast track designation for SGT-001. However, such designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process. We might not receive such designation for our other product candidates.

If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, a drug sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. The FDA has granted fast track designation to SGT-001; however, fast track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with fast track designation compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

41

---

We may seek priority review designation for SGT-001 or our other product candidates, but we might not receive such designation, and even if we do, such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for our product candidates, however, we cannot assume that SGT-001 or our other product candidates will meet the criteria for that designation. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily mean a faster development or regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or at all. 

We face significant competition and our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully market or commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

We operate in a highly competitive segment of the biopharmaceutical market. We face competition from many different sources, including larger and better-funded pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Our product candidates, if successfully developed and approved, will compete with established therapies as well as with new treatments that may be introduced by our competitors. There are a variety of product candidates, including gene therapies, in development for DMD. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, product candidate development, manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have extensive experience in clinical testing and obtaining regulatory approval for their products, and mergers and acquisitions within these industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of larger competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.  

For example, we are aware of several companies and research institutions focused on developing systemic gene transfers for DMD, including Pfizer Inc., with a product candidate currently in Phase 1 clinical development, and Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., with a product candidate currently in Phase I/II clinical trial development.  

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, have broader market acceptance, are more convenient or are less expensive than any product candidate that we may develop.

We are aware of several companies focused on developing gene therapies in various indications, as well as several companies addressing other methods for modifying genes and regulating gene expression. Any advances in gene therapy technology made by a competitor may be used to develop therapies that could compete against SGT-001 or any future gene therapy product candidates we develop.

We may fail to capitalize on other potential product candidates that may represent a greater commercial opportunity or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

The success of our business depends upon our ability to develop and commercialize SGT-001 and our other product candidates. Because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential than SGT-001 or our other product candidates. For example, in January 2020, in connection with implementing our strategic plan to create a leaner company focused on advancing SGT-001, we curtailed certain activities supporting our other research and development programs.

42

---

Our spending on current and future research and development programs may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaborations, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Alternatively, we may allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a partnering arrangement. If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts with respect to a particular product candidate or fail to develop a potentially successful product candidate.

 

Risks related to the manufacturing and commercialization of SGT-001 and our other product candidates

We may not be successful in finding strategic collaborators for continuing development of SGT-001 or our other product candidates or successfully commercializing or competing in the market for certain indications.

We may seek to establish strategic partnerships for developing SGT-001 or our other product candidates due to capital costs required to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish such strategic partnerships or other alternative arrangements because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, SGT-001 may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort or third parties may not view SGT-001 as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction, we will achieve an economic or business benefit that justifies such transaction.If we seek to but are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail, reduce or delay the development of a product candidate, delay its potential commercialization, reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities or increase our expenditures and undertake development, manufacturing or commercialization activities independently. If we elect to fund our own independent development or commercialization activities, we will need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development, manufacturing and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop SGT-001 or our other product candidates. 

We have limited gene transfer manufacturing experience and could experience production problems and delays in obtaining regulatory approval of our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in the development or commercialization of SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

The manufacturing process we use to produce SGT-001 is complex and has not been validated for commercial use. We have no experience manufacturing SGT-001 and our other product candidates. Building our own manufacturing facility, if we decide to do so in the future, would require substantial additional investment, would be time-consuming and may be subject to delays, including those resulting from compliance with regulatory requirements. In addition, building a manufacturing facility may cost more than we currently anticipate. Although we may establish our own manufacturing facility to support a commercial launch, if we are unable to do so or otherwise decide not to do so, we may be unable to produce commercial materials or meet demand, if any should develop, for SGT-001 and our other product candidates. Any such failure could delay or prevent our commercialization of SGT-001 or our other product candidates. The production of SGT-001 requires processing steps that are more complex than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a gene transfer product candidate such as ours generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the product will perform in the intended manner. Accordingly, we employ multiple steps to control our manufacturing process to assure that the process works and that SGT-001 is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. As a result of the limited number of FDA approvals for gene transfer products to date, the timeframe required for us to obtain approval for a cGMP gene therapy manufacturing facility in the United States is uncertain. We must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA or MAA on a timely basis and must adhere to the FDA’s and the European Union’s cGMP requirements before we can obtain marketing approval for SGT-001 and our other product candidates. In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP requirements, and perform extensive audits of contract laboratories, manufacturers and suppliers.

We currently rely on third-party manufacturers for our SGT-001 supply. In order to produce sufficient quantities of SGT-001 for clinical trials and initial U.S. commercial demand, we will need to increase the scale of our manufacturing process at our third-party manufacturers, and potentially through our own commercial-scale manufacturing facility. We may need to change our current manufacturing process. We may not be able to produce sufficient quantities of SGT-001 due to several factors, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, a public health issue (for example, an outbreak of a contagious disease such as the novel coronavirus), disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers. For example, through our contract manufacturer

43

---

we have performed and released within specifications manufacturing runs of SGT-001 for clinical supply and have experienced variability with respect to the success and yield of these runs. We continue to engage in process development activities to improve the reproducibility, reliability and consistency of yields of our manufacturing process. While we are able to produce for more than one patient from a single batch, additional manufacturing runs will be required to produce necessary or adequate supply for IGNITE DMD and there is no guarantee that all of those runs will be within specifications or produce adequate supply. If we are not able to produce sufficient supply on the timeline expected, our overall development schedule for SGT-001 could be delayed, and we could incur additional expense.

If supply from a manufacturing facility is interrupted, including as a result of equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, a public health issue, disruption in utility services or human error, there could be a significant disruption in supply of SGT-001 or our other product candidates. In such instance, we may need to locate appropriate replacement third-party manufacturers, and we may not be able to enter into arrangements with such additional third-party manufacturers on favorable terms or at all. Use of new third-party manufacturers could increase the risk of delays in production or insufficient supplies of our product candidates as we transfer our manufacturing technology to these manufacturers and as they gain experience manufacturing our product candidates.

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

In addition, the FDA, the EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay or abandon clinical trials or product launches.

We also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced specialist scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing process, which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. 

Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our manufacturing process or facilities also could restrict our ability to meet market demand for SGT-001, our other product candidates or future product candidates.

Although we may establish our own SGT-001 manufacturing facility, we expect to utilize third parties to conduct our product manufacturing for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we are subject to the risk that these third parties may not perform satisfactorily or meet regulatory requirements.

Until such time, if ever, as we establish a manufacturing facility that has been properly validated to comply with FDA cGMP requirements, we will not be able to independently manufacture material for our current and future clinical programs. For clinical trials of SGT-001, we intend to utilize materials manufactured by cGMP-compliant third-party suppliers. Even following our potential establishment of a validated cGMP manufacturing facility, we intend to utilize third-party manufacturing capabilities in order to provide multiple sources of supply. In the event that the establishment of our own manufacturing facility is delayed or not otherwise pursued and if these third-party manufacturers do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or manufacture SGT-001 in accordance with regulatory requirements or if there are disagreements between us and these third-party manufacturers, we may not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the clinical trials required for approval of SGT-001. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay or increased expense prior to the approval of our product candidates.

Additionally, we rely on our third-party manufacturers for their compliance with the cGMP and their maintenance of adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. Furthermore, all of our third-party suppliers and manufacturers are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes them to regulatory risks for the production of such materials and products. FDA inspections may identify compliance issues at third-party manufacturer facilities or at the facilities of third-party suppliers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct and prevent recurrence of any deficiencies, and could result in fines or penalties by regulatory authorities. In addition, discovery of problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action, including fines,

44

---

injunctions, civil penalties, license revocations, seizure, total or partial suspension of production or criminal penalties, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates.

In addition, we do not currently have long-term supply or manufacturing arrangements in place for the production of SGT-001 at commercial scale. Although we intend to establish additional sources for long-term supply, potentially including our own commercial-scale cGMP-compliant manufacturing facility and one or more third-party manufacturers, if the gene therapy industry were to grow, we may encounter increasing competition for the materials necessary for the production of SGT-001. We may experience difficulties in scaling up production beyond clinical batches. Furthermore, demand for third-party cGMP manufacturing facilities may grow at a faster rate than existing manufacturing capacity, which could disrupt our ability to find and retain third-party manufacturers capable of producing sufficient quantities of SGT-001 for future clinical trials or to meet initial commercial demand in the United States. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on additional third parties to manufacture materials for our product candidates and to perform quality testing. Even following the potential establishment of our own cGMP-compliant manufacturing capabilities, we intend to maintain third-party manufacturers for these materials, as well as to serve as additional sources of SGT-001, which will expose us to risks including:

Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of product manufacture. 

If we are unable to establish sales, distribution and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell SGT-001 and our other product candidates, we will be unable to generate any product revenue.

We currently have no sales, distribution or marketing organization. To successfully commercialize any product candidate that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop these capabilities, either on our own or with others. The establishment and development of our own commercial team or the establishment of a contract sales force to market any product candidate we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability. We may enter into collaborations regarding SGT-001 and our other product candidates with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If any future collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our product candidates, or we are unable to develop the necessary capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well-funded sales, distribution and marketing operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We also face competition in our search for third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of SGT-001 and our other product candidates. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

If we are unable to establish medical affairs capabilities, we will be unable to establish an educated market of physicians to administer SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

We currently have no medical affairs team. If we are unable to successfully build a medical affairs team to address scientific and medical questions and provide expert guidance and education in the application, administration and utilization of SGT-001 and our other product candidates to physicians, we may not be able to establish an educated market for our products. The establishment and development of our own medical affairs team will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability.

45

---

If the market opportunities for SGT-001 are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue prospects may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We currently focus our research and product development on treatments for DMD. Our understanding of the patient population with this disease is based on estimates in published literature and by DMD foundations. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of this disease. The number of patients in the United States, the European Union and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our product candidate or patients may become increasingly difficult to identify and access.

Further, there are several factors that could contribute to making the actual number of patients who receive SGT-001 less than the potentially addressable market. These include the lack of widespread availability of, and limited reimbursement for, new therapies in many underdeveloped markets. Further, the severity of the progression of a degenerative disease such as DMD up to the time of treatment will likely diminish the therapeutic benefit conferred by a gene therapy due to irreversible cell damage.

Certain patients’ immune systems might prohibit the successful delivery of certain gene therapy products, thereby potentially limiting the population of patients amenable to gene transfer.

As with many AAV-mediated gene therapy approaches, certain patients’ immune systems might prohibit the successful delivery of certain gene therapy products, thereby potentially limiting the population of patients amenable to gene transfer. While we are working to better understand the prevalence of antibodies to AAV, or seroprevalence, as it relates to gene therapies for DMD, the exact DMD-wide seroprevalence is currently unknown and it varies by AAV serotype and age. We may not be able to address this potentially limiting factor for gene therapy as a treatment for certain patients. 

The commercial success of any of our product candidates, including SGT-001, if approved, will depend upon market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community.

Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA in the United States, the European Commission in the European Union and other regulatory authorities internationally, the commercial success of SGT-001 will depend, in part, on the acceptance of physicians, patients and health care payors of gene therapy products in general, and SGT-001 in particular, as medically necessary, cost-effective and safe. Any product that we commercialize may not gain acceptance by physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community due to ethical, social, medical and legal concerns. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of gene therapy products and, in particular, SGT-001, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on multiple factors, including:

46

---

Even if a potential product candidate displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched.

Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of SGT-001 and our other product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful. Such efforts may require more resources than are typically required due to the complexity and uniqueness of our potential product candidates. If SGT-001 or our other product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients or third-party payors, we will not be able to generate significant revenue from any such product.

Our gene transfer approach utilizes a vector derived from a virus, which may be perceived as unsafe or may result in unforeseen adverse events. Negative public opinion and increased regulatory scrutiny of gene therapy may damage public perception of the safety of our SGT-001 gene transfer product candidate and adversely affect our ability to conduct our business or obtain regulatory approvals for SGT-001.

Gene transfer remains a novel technology and public perception may be influenced by claims that gene transfer is unsafe, and gene transfer may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. In particular, our success will depend upon physicians who specialize in the treatment of DMD prescribing treatments that involve the use of SGT-001 in lieu of, or in addition to, other treatments with which they are more familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available. More restrictive government regulations or negative public opinion may delay or impair the development and commercialization of SGT-001 or demand for any product candidate we may develop. A public backlash developed against gene therapy following the death of a patient in 1999 during a gene therapy clinical trial of research subjects with ornithine transcarbamylase, or OTC, deficiency, a rare disorder in which the liver lacks a functional copy of the OTC gene. The death of the clinical trial subject was due to complications of adenovirus vector administration. Dr. James M. Wilson, former chair of our Scientific Advisory Board, was a co-investigator of the 1999 trial while he was Director of the Institute for Human Gene Therapy of the University of Pennsylvania. Serious adverse events in our clinical trials, including the events that led to the current clinical hold on IGNITE DMD and the previously-lifted clinical hold on IGNITE DMD or other clinical trials involving gene transfer products or our competitors’ products, even if not ultimately attributable to the relevant product candidates, and the resulting publicity, could result in increased government regulation, unfavorable public perception, potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of SGT-001, stricter labeling requirements for SGT-001 if approved and a decrease in demand for SGT-001.

Failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements could cause us to suspend production or put in place costly or time-consuming remedial measures.

The regulatory authorities may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities for such product. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations, or if a violation of product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly or time-consuming to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a manufacturing facility.

Any contamination in our manufacturing process, shortages of materials or failure of any of our key suppliers to deliver necessary components could result in interruption in the supply of our product candidates and delays in our clinical development or commercialization schedules.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination in our manufacturing processes. Any contamination could materially adversely affect our ability to produce SGT-001 on schedule and could cause reputational damage.

Some of the materials required in our manufacturing process are derived from biologic sources. Such materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of SGT-001 could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could materially and adversely affect our development timelines.

47

---

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate product revenue.

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. We expect the cost of a single administration of gene transfer products, such as those we are developing, to be substantial, when and if they achieve regulatory approval. We expect that coverage and reimbursement by government and private payors will be essential for most patients to be able to afford these treatments. Accordingly, sales of SGT-001, if approved, will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of SGT-001 will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar health care management organizations, or will be reimbursed by government authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon several factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement for a product from third-party payors is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize SGT-001 and our other product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be adequate to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

To our knowledge, a limited number of gene transfer products have been approved for coverage and reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or the CMS, the agency responsible for administering the Medicaid program. It is difficult to predict what the CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these types of products either in the United States or the European Union. For example, several cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European Union member states and vice versa. It is difficult to predict what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for SGT-001 and our other product candidates.

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenue, if any.

Outside the United States, international operations generally are subject to extensive government price controls and other market regulations, and increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in the European Union, Canada and other countries may put pricing pressure on us. In general, the prices of therapeutics outside the United States are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for therapeutics, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulations could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our product candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable product revenue.

Additionally, in countries where the pricing of gene therapy products is subject to governmental control, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. Reimbursement of our products may be unavailable or limited in scope or amount, which would adversely affect our revenue, if any.

48

---

If we obtain approval to commercialize SGT-001 and our other product candidates outside of the United States, in particular in the European Union, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing SGT-001 and our other product candidates outside the United States, including:

The failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements may result in, among other things, fines, suspension, variation or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Additionally, on June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. Under the withdrawal agreement, there is a transitional period until December 31, 2020, which period is extendable up to two years. Discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Union have so far mainly focused on finalizing withdrawal issues and transition agreements but have been extremely difficult to date. To date, only an outline of a trade agreement has been reached.  Much remains open but the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister has indicated that the United Kingdom will not seek to extend the transitional period beyond the end of 2020.  If no trade agreement has been reached before the end of the transitional period, there may be significant market and economic disruption.  The Prime Minister has also indicated that the UK will not accept high regulatory alignment with the EU.

Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime that applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or European Union for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

If we engage in future acquisitions or strategic collaborations, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities and subject us to other risks.

We may evaluate various acquisitions and strategic collaborations, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses. Any potential acquisition or strategic collaboration may entail numerous risks, including:

49

---

In addition, if we undertake acquisitions, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition or collaboration opportunities and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

Risks related to our business operations

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key employees, consultants and advisors and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on members of our executive team, the loss of whose services may adversely impact the achievement of our objectives. While we have entered into employment agreements with certain of our executive officers, any of them could leave our employment at any time. We currently do not have “key person” insurance on any of our employees. The loss of the services of one or more of our current key employees might impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, also will be critical to our success. There currently is a shortage of skilled individuals with substantial gene therapy experience, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel, including in gene therapy research and vector manufacturing, is intense and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and academic institutions for individuals with similar skill sets. In addition, the failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical trials or applications for marketing approval may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit, or loss of services of certain executives, key employees, consultants or advisors, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Our strategic plan and the associated workforce reduction announced in January 2020 may not result in anticipated savings, could result in total costs and expenses that are greater than expected and could disrupt our business.

In January 2020, we announced a reduction in workforce by approximately one third as part of a strategic plan designed to create a leaner company focused on advancing SGT-001. We may not realize, in full or in part, the anticipated benefits, savings and improvements in our cost structure from our restructuring efforts due to unforeseen difficulties, delays or unexpected costs. If we are unable to realize the expected operational efficiencies and cost savings from the restructuring, our operating results and financial condition would be adversely affected. We also cannot guarantee that we will not have to undertake additional workforce reductions or restructuring activities in the future. Furthermore, our strategic restructuring plan may be disruptive to our operations. For example, our workforce reductions could yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond planned staff reductions, or increase difficulties in our day-to-day operations. Our workforce reductions could also harm our ability to attract and retain qualified management, scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel who are critical to our business. Any failure to attract or retain qualified personnel could prevent us from successfully developing and commercializing our product candidates in the future.

50

---

If we are unable to manage growth in the scale and complexity of our operations, our performance may suffer.

If we are successful in executing our business strategy, we will need to expand our managerial, operational, financial and other systems and resources to manage our operations, continue our research and development activities and, in the longer term, build a commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of SGT-001 and any other product candidate that is approved for sale. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management. It is likely that our management, finance, development personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and any future product candidates requires that we continue to develop more robust business processes and improve our systems and procedures in each of these areas and to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees. We may be unable to successfully implement these tasks on a larger scale and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and growth goals.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could 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. This could include violations of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, other U.S. federal and state law, and requirements of non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the European Union Data Protection Directive. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws, standards, regulations, guidance or codes of conduct. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

Our business and financial prospects could be affected by changes in health care spending and policy in the United States and abroad. We operate in a highly regulated industry and new laws or judicial decisions, or new interpretations of existing laws or decisions, related to health care availability, the method of delivery or payment for health care products and services could negatively impact our business, operations and financial condition.

For example, in the United States there is significant interest in promoting health care reform, as evidenced by the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the companion Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the Health Care Reform Law. The Health Care Reform Law increased federal oversight of private health insurance plans and included a number of provisions designed to reduce Medicare expenditures and the cost of health care generally, to reduce fraud and abuse, and to provide access to increased health coverage.

The Health Care Reform Law also imposed substantial changes to the U.S. system for paying for health care, including programs to extend medical benefits to millions of individuals who have lacked insurance coverage. Generally, implementation of the Health Care Reform Law has thus far included significant cost-saving, revenue and payment reduction measures with respect to, for example, several government health care programs that might cover our products in the United States, should they be commercialized, including Medicaid and Medicare. Additional downward pricing pressure associated with the Health Care Reform Law includes that the Health Care Reform Law established and provided significant funding for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to coordinate and fund Comparative Effectiveness Research, as those terms are defined in the Health Care Reform Law. While the stated intent of Comparative Effectiveness Research is to develop information to guide providers to the most efficacious therapies, outcomes of Comparative Effectiveness Research could influence the reimbursement or coverage for therapies that are determined to be less cost-effective than others. Should any of our products be approved for sale, but then determined to be less cost-effective than alternative therapies, the levels of reimbursement for these products, or the willingness to reimburse at all, could be adversely impacted.

51

---

Another provision of the Health Care Reform Law, generally referred to as the Physician Payment Sunshine Act or Open Payments Program, has imposed new reporting and disclosure requirements for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and distributors with certain FDA-approved products, such as approved vaccines, with regard to payments or other transfers of value made to certain U.S. health care practitioners, such as physicians and academic medical centers, and with regard to certain ownership interests held by physicians in reporting entities. The CMS publishes information from these reports on a publicly available website, including amounts transferred and the physician and teaching hospital identities.

Under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, we are required to collect and report detailed information regarding certain financial relationships we have with physicians and teaching hospitals if we obtain FDA approval for any of our products and receive reimbursement from the federal government. Our compliance with these rules may also impose additional costs.

With enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was signed by the President on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Health Care Reform Law-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax.  Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Health Care Reform Law, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” The Congress may consider other legislation to replace elements of the Health Care Reform Law during the next Congressional session.

We will continue to evaluate the effect that the Health Care Reform Law and its possible repeal and replacement could have on our business. It is possible that repeal and replacement initiatives, if enacted into law, could ultimately result in fewer individuals having health insurance coverage or in individuals having insurance coverage with less generous benefits. While the timing and scope of any potential future legislation to repeal and replace Health Care Reform Law provisions is uncertain in many respects, it is also possible that some of the Health Care Reform Law provisions that generally are not favorable for the research-based pharmaceutical industry could also be repealed along with Health Care Reform Law coverage expansion provisions. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop commercialize product candidates.

The Trump administration has also taken executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the Health Care Reform Law. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Health Care Reform Law or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the Health Care Reform Law. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Health Care Reform Law to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Health Care Reform Law that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the Health Care Reform Law. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. In addition, CMS has recently proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the Health Care Reform Law for plans sold through such marketplaces. Further, on June 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in Health Care Reform Law risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued such payments were owed to them. This decision is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court during its current term.  The full effect of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the Health Care Reform Law marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

 

In addition, the CMS has proposed regulations that would give states greater flexibility in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the Health Care Reform Law for plans sold through such marketplaces. On November 30, 2018, CMS announced a proposed rule that would amend the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit regulations to reduce out-of-pocket costs for plan enrollees and allow Medicare plans to negotiate lower rates for certain drugs. Among other things, the proposed rule changes would allow Medicare Advantage plans to use pre authorization, or PA, and step therapy, or ST, for six protected classes of drugs, with certain exceptions; permit plans to implement PA and ST in Medicare Part B drugs; and change the definition of “negotiated prices” as well as add a definition of “price concession” in the regulations. It is unclear whether these proposed changes will be accepted, and if so, what effect such changes will have on our business.

 

52

---

Further, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the Health Care Reform Law is an essential and inseverable feature of the Health Care Reform Law, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the Health Care Reform Law are invalid as well. The Trump administration and the CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, and on December 30, 2018, the same judge issued an order staying the judgment pending appeal. The Trump administration thereafter represented to the Court of Appeals considering this judgment that it does not oppose the district court’s ruling. On July 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in this case. In those arguments, the Trump administration argued in support of upholding the lower court decision. On December 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the individual mandate portion of the Health Care Reform Law is unconstitutional and it remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the severability question and additional analysis of the provisions of the Health Care Reform Law. On January 21, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this decision on an expedited basis. It is unclear how this decision and any subsequent appeals and other efforts to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform Law will impact the Health Care Reform Law and our business. Litigation and legislation over the Health Care Reform Law are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States has also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States, and members of Congress and the Administration have stated that they will address such costs through new legislative and administrative measures. The pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is also subject to governmental control outside the United States. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our ability to generate revenues and become profitable could be impaired.

Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed federal and proposed and enacted state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, on May 11, 2018, the Administration issued a plan to lower drug prices. Under this blueprint for action, the Administration indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services will: take steps to end the gaming of regulatory and patent processes by drug makers to unfairly protect monopolies; advance biosimilars and generics to boost price competition; evaluate the inclusion of prices in drug makers’ ads to enhance price competition; speed access to and lower the cost of new drugs by clarifying policies for sharing information between insurers and drug makers; avoid excessive pricing by relying more on value-based pricing by expanding outcome-based payments in Medicare and Medicaid; work to give Part D plan sponsors more negotiation power with drug makers; examine which Medicare Part B drugs could be negotiated for a lower price by Part D plans, and improving the design of the Part B Competitive Acquisition Program; update Medicare’s drug-pricing dashboard to increase transparency; prohibit Part D contracts that include “gag rules” that prevent pharmacists from informing patients when they could pay less out-of-pocket by not using insurance; and require that Part D plan members be provided with an annual statement of plan payments, out-of-pocket spending, and drug price increases. In addition, on December 23, 2019, the Trump administration published a proposed rulemaking that, if finalized, would allow states or certain other non-federal government entities to submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and approval. Applicants would be required to demonstrate their importation plans pose no additional risk to public health and safety and will result in significant cost savings for consumers.  At the same time, the FDA issued draft guidance that would allow manufacturers to import their own FDA-approved drugs that are authorized for sale in other countries (multi-market approved products).

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional health care authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other health care programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will 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 product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

53

---

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the current regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on our business, if any, may be.

There have been a number of federal and state legislative changes made over the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biologic products. Concerns about drug pricing have been expressed by members of Congress and the President.

It is likely that federal and state legislatures within the United States and foreign governments will continue to consider changes to existing health care legislation. We cannot predict the reform initiatives that may be adopted in the future or whether initiatives that have been adopted will be repealed or modified. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other health care payors of to contain or reduce costs of health care may adversely affect:

Our relationships with customers, physicians and third-party payors will be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, health information privacy and security laws, and other health care laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

If we obtain FDA approval for SGT-001 or our other product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations will be directly or indirectly through our prescribers, customers and purchasers, subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal laws and the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and regulations. These laws will impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and educational programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that will affect our operations include, but are not limited to:

54

---

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other government regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance and/or reporting requirements increases the possibility that we may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.

 

Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

 

55

---

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with the GDPR’s requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information from our clinical trials, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

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

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of SGT-001, our other product candidates and any future product candidate in preclinical studies and clinical trials and may face an even greater risk if we commercialize any product candidate that we may develop. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, such insurance may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We anticipate that we will need to increase our insurance coverage each time we commence a clinical trial and if we successfully commercialize any product candidate. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

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

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, manufacture, transportation and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes, as well as laws and regulations relating to occupational health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and viruses and other biologic materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance for certain costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended.

56

---

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, which have tended to become more stringent over time. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or liabilities.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our collaborators, contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future collaborators and other contractors or consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such systems are also vulnerable to service interruptions or to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third-party vendors and/or business partners, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties. Cyber-attacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and have become increasingly difficult to detect. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. Cyber-attacks also could include phishing attempts or e-mail fraud to cause payments or information to be transmitted to an unintended recipient.

While we are not aware of any such material system failure, accident, cyber-attack or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our or our collaborators’, contractors’ or consultants’ operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from preclinical studies or 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 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, our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of SGT-001 and our other product candidates could be delayed.

Risks related to our intellectual property

We heavily rely on certain in-licensed patents and other intellectual property rights in connection with our development of SGT-001 and may be required to acquire or license additional patents or other intellectual property rights to continue to develop and commercialize SGT-001.

Our ability to develop and commercialize SGT-001 and other product candidates is heavily dependent on licenses to patent rights and other intellectual property granted to us by third parties. In particular, we have licensed certain patents and patent applications from the University of Michigan, the University of Missouri and the University of Washington that are important or necessary to the development of SGT-001 and other elements of our gene transfer program. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, development and commercialization obligations, milestone payments, royalties and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, we may be subject to damages, which may be significant, and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we may not be able to develop or market product candidates or technologies covered by the license, including SGT-001. In addition, certain of these license agreements are not assignable by us without the consent of the respective licensor, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to engage in certain transactions.

Under our existing license agreements, we do not have, and under future license agreements we may not have, the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or the maintenance, enforcement and defense of the patents and patent applications that we license from third parties. For example, under our inbound license agreements with the University of Michigan, the University of Missouri and the University of Washington, each of the applicable licensors controls the prosecution of patent applications and the maintenance of patents and patent applications. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these patents and applications will be prosecuted, maintained, enforced and defended in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If our licensors fail to maintain, enforce or defend such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights, including SGT-001, could be adversely affected. For more information, see Part I, Item 1, “Business—Strategic partnerships and collaborations/licenses” of this annual report on Form 10-K.

57

---

Moreover, licenses to additional third-party intellectual property, technology and materials are required for our development programs but may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. For example, we are aware of certain third-party patents related to certain microdystrophin constructs, which, if in force at the time of SGT-001’s commercialization, may be claimed by third parties to cover SGT-001. In addition, third parties may claim that the AAV vector we are developing for use in SGT-001 is covered by patents held by them. We believe that we would have valid defenses to any such claims; however, if any such claims were ultimately successful, we might require a license to continue to use and sell SGT-001 and such AAV vector. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. Moreover, even if we are able to obtain such licenses, they may only be non-exclusive, which could permit competitors and other third parties to use the same intellectual property in competition with us.

We may collaborate with non-profit and academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. These institutions may provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the required timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to any third-party intellectual property rights that are required for the development and commercialization of SGT-001 or any of our other product candidates, and such third-party intellectual property rights are successfully asserted against us, we may be liable for damages, which may be significant, and we may be required to cease the development and commercialization of SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our success depends, in large part, on our and our licensors’ ability to seek, obtain, maintain, enforce and defend patent rights in the United States and other countries with respect to SGT-001, our other product candidates and our future innovation related to our manufacturing technology. Our licensors and we have sought, and we intend to continue to seek, to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and, in at least some cases, one or more countries outside the United States related to SGT-001 and certain other product candidates that are important to our business. However, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide us with a competitive advantage.

Moreover, although we have pending patent applications in the United States and abroad, we cannot predict whether or in which jurisdictions the pending applications will result in issuance of patents that effectively protect any of our product candidates or will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products. Further, each of the provisional patent applications is not eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing date of each provisional patent application. If we do not timely file a non-provisional patent application in respect of a provisional patent application, we may lose our priority date with respect to such provisional patent application and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such provisional patent application. While we intend to timely file non-provisional patent applications relating to our provisional patent applications, we cannot predict whether such future patent applications will result in the issuance of patents that effectively protect any of our product candidates or will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products.

We may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, defend or license all patents that are necessary to our business.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we and our licensors may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce, defend or license all necessary or desirable patents and patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

58

---

It is also currently unknown what claims may, if ever, issue from pending applications included in our patent rights. Additionally, certain of our in-licensed U.S. patent rights lack corresponding foreign patents or patent applications, and therefore we will be unable to obtain patent protection for our product candidates in certain jurisdictions. We or our licensors may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights, and more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property rights or narrow the scope of our licensed patents or future owned patents. 

It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

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 our patent rights are highly uncertain. Patent applications included in our current and future patent rights may not result in patents being issued that protect our product candidates, effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive products or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In fact, patent applications may not issue as patents at all. Even assuming patents issue from patent applications in which we have rights, 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 patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Other parties have developed products that may be related or competitive to our own and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have received or may receive patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our patent applications or issued patents. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to SGT-001 or our other current or future product candidates. In addition, we cannot provide any assurances that any of the inventions disclosed in our patent applications will be found to be patentable, including over third-party or our own prior art patents, publications or other disclosures, or will issue as patents. Even if our patent applications issue as patents, we cannot provide any assurances that such patents will not be challenged or ultimately held to be invalid or unenforceable. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or, in some cases, at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether the inventors of our licensed patents and applications were the first to make the inventions claimed in those patents or pending patent applications, or that they were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Similarly, should we own any issued patents or patent applications in the future, we may not be certain that we were the first to file for patent protection for the inventions claimed in such patents or patent applications. Furthermore, given the differences in patent laws in the United States, Europe and other foreign jurisdictions, for example, the availability of grace periods for filing patent applications and what can be considered as prior art, we cannot make any assurances that any claims in our pending and future patent applications in the United States or other jurisdictions will issue, or if they do issue, whether they will issue in a form that provides us with any meaningful competitive advantage. Similarly, we cannot make any assurances that if the patentability, validity, enforceability or scope of our pending or future patents and patent applications in the United States or foreign jurisdictions are challenged by any third party, that the claims of such pending or future patents and patent applications will survive any such challenge in a form that provides us with any meaningful competitive advantage. For example, we are aware of certain third-party patents and publications related to certain microdystrophin constructs. While we believe that our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications claim novel and non-obvious features of microdystrophin constructs that are not described in such third-party patents or publications, such third-party patents and publications may have earlier priority or publication dates and may be asserted as prior art against our owned or in-licensed patents and applications. Any such challenge, if successful, could limit or eliminate patent protection for our products and product candidates or otherwise materially harm our business. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights cannot be predicted with any certainty.

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or may own in the future do issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents that we license or may own in the future may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether any of our product candidates will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative products in a non-infringing manner.

59

---

The degree of patent protection we require to successfully compete in the marketplace may be unavailable. We cannot provide any assurances that any of the patents or patent applications included in our patent rights include or will include claims with a scope sufficient to protect SGT-001 and our other product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally twenty years after it is filed. Certain extensions may be available, however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent rights may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to our product candidates, including biosimilar versions of such products.

Our licensed patents, and any patents we may own in the future, may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable.

Even if we acquire patent protection that we expect should enable us to maintain some competitive advantage, third parties, including competitors, may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. In litigation, a competitor could claim that our in-licensed patents or any patents we may own in the future are not valid or enforceable for a number of reasons. If a court agrees, we would lose our rights to those challenged patents. Third parties also may raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such proceedings could result in the revocation or cancellation of or amendment to our licensed patents and any patents we may own in the future in such a way that they no longer cover SGT-001 or our other product candidates.

Even if issued, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our current and future patent rights may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, challenging the validity of one or more claims of patents included in our patent rights. Such submissions may also be made prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding the granting of a patent based on one of the pending patent applications included in our patent rights. We may become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings challenging one or more patents included in our patent rights. For example, competitors may claim that they invented the inventions claimed in patents or patent applications included in our patent rights, such as the microdystrophin we use in SGT-001, prior to the inventors of such patents or patent applications, or may have filed one or more patent applications before the filing of the patents or patent applications included in our patent rights. A competitor who can establish an earlier filing or invention date may also assert that we are infringing their patents and that we therefore cannot practice our technology related to our product candidates as claimed in the patents or patent applications included in our patent rights. Competitors may also contest patents or patent applications included in our patent rights by showing that the claimed subject matter was not patent-eligible, was not novel or was obvious or that the patent claims failed any other requirement for patentability or enforceability. In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims by our or our licensors’ current or former employees or consultants asserting an ownership right in the patents or patent applications included in our patent rights as an inventor or co-inventor, as a result of the work they performed.

An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar therapeutics, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our product candidates. Such challenges may also result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights, and we may be required to obtain a license from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or we may need to cease the development, manufacture and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications included in our patent rights is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

Even if they are unchallenged, the patents and pending patent applications included in our patent rights may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our patent rights by developing similar or alternative therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive therapeutic that provides benefits similar to one or more of our product candidates but that uses a vector or an expression construct that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we license or pursue with respect to our product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates could be negatively affected.

60

---

Our intellectual property licenses with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

We currently depend, and will continue to depend, on our license, collaboration and other similar agreements. Further development and commercialization of SGT-001 and our other current and future product candidates may require us to enter into additional license, collaboration or other similar agreements. The agreements under which we currently license intellectual property or technology from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

If any of our licenses or material relationships are terminated or breached, we may:

These risks apply to any agreements that we may enter into in the future for SGT-001 and our other current and future product candidates.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We have certain obligations under licensing agreements with third parties that include annual maintenance fees and payments that are contingent upon achieving various development, commercial and regulatory milestones. Pursuant to many of these license agreements, we are required to make milestone payments if certain development, regulatory and commercial sales milestones are achieved, and may have certain additional research funding obligations. Also, pursuant to the terms of many of these license agreements, when and if commercial sales of a licensed product commence, we must pay royalties to our licensors on net sales of the respective licensed products.

We have entered into license agreements with third parties and may need to obtain additional licenses from one or more of these same third parties or from others to advance our research or allow our commercialization of SGT-001 or other product candidates. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain additional licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign SGT-001, our other product candidates or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement products, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents or other intellectual property rights do not exist that might be enforced against our manufacturing methods, product candidates or any technologies we may develop, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our manufacture or sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

In each of our existing license agreements, and we expect in our future agreements, patent prosecution of our licensed technology is controlled solely by the licensor, and we may be required to reimburse the licensor for their costs of patent prosecution. If our licensors fail to obtain and maintain patent or other protection for the proprietary intellectual property we license from them, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, and our competitors could market competing products using the intellectual property. Further, in each of our license agreements our licensors have the first right to bring any actions against any third party for infringing on the patents we have licensed. Our license agreements also require us to meet development thresholds to maintain the license, including establishing a set timeline for developing and commercializing product candidates. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to our licensing agreements, including:

61

---

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates. In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby resulting in disputes or litigation, which could cause us to incur substantial costs and distract management’s time, and if we are unsuccessful, we could lose our ability to develop and commercialize products covered by these license agreements. If these licenses are ultimately terminated by the licensor, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our future collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell SGT-001 and our other current and future product candidates without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and complex litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We or our licensors may in the future become party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to SGT-001 or our other product candidates, including interference proceedings, post grant review and inter partes review before the USPTO. Our competitors or other third parties may assert infringement claims against us, alleging that, among other things, our therapeutics, manufacturing methods, formulations or administration methods are covered by their patents.

Given the vast number of patents in our field of technology, we cannot be certain or guarantee that a court would hold that SGT-001 or any of our other product candidates does not infringe an existing patent or a patent that may be granted in the future. Many companies and institutions have filed, and continue to file, patent applications related to gene therapy and related manufacturing methods. Some of these patent applications have already been allowed or issued and others may issue in the future. Since this area is competitive and of strong interest to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, there will likely be additional patent applications filed and additional patents granted in the future, as well as additional research and development programs expected in the future. Furthermore, because patent applications can take many years to issue, may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing and can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending that may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or importation of our product candidates and we may or may not be aware of such patents. If a patent holder believes the manufacture, use, sale or importation of one of our product candidates infringes its patent, the patent holder may sue us even if we have licensed other patent protection for our product candidates. Moreover, we may face patent infringement claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our licensed patent portfolio may therefore have no deterrent effect.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications for which we may need a license to develop and commercialize SGT-001 and our other product candidates. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Moreover, it is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our product candidates because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our product candidates. In addition, we may be unaware of one or more issued patents that would be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of a current or future product candidate, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by our activities. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates.

62

---

Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent or other intellectual property rights against us. For example, as discussed above, third parties may claim that the microdystrophin or the AAV vector we are developing for use in SGT-001 is covered by patents held by them. Even if we believe such claim, or other intellectual property claims alleged by third parties, are without merit, there is no assurance that we would be successful in defending such claims. A court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to commercialize SGT-001 or our other product candidates covered by the asserted third-party patents. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. Similarly, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would find that SGT-001 or our other product candidates did not infringe a third-party patent. 

Patent and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and their outcome is uncertain. If we are found, or believe there is a risk that we may be found, to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, and we are unsuccessful in demonstrating that such intellectual property rights are invalid or unenforceable, we could be required or may choose to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing product candidate, including SGT-001. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement, misappropriation or other violation of intellectual property rights, or claims that we have done so, could prevent us from manufacturing and commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some or all of our business operations.

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

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time-consuming. Competitors may infringe patents that we may own in the future or the patents of our licensing partners or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing or misappropriating or successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our licensed patents and applications and any patents and patent applications we may own in the future. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable intellectual property law firms and other professionals to help us comply and we are also dependent on our licensors to take the necessary action to comply with these

63

---

requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

Some intellectual property that we have in-licensed may have been discovered through government-funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for U.S. manufacturing. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we have licensed, including such rights licensed from the University of Michigan, the University of Missouri and the University of Washington, are stated to have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention, (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

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

Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, enforcing and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. Although our license agreements grant us worldwide rights, certain of our in-licensed U.S. patents lack corresponding foreign patents or patent applications. For example, the issued U.S. patents we license from the University of Michigan do not have any corresponding foreign patents or patent applications. Thus, we will not have the opportunity to obtain patent protection for the subject matter of such patents outside the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection. Consequently, we and our licensors may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we and our licensors pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our inventions in jurisdictions where we and our licensors have not pursued and obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as it is in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates 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, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, if pursued and obtained, or the marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could (i) result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, (ii) put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and (iii) provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

64

---

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 rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of the discovery and development processes of SGT-001 and our other product candidates that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. Our manufacturing process is protected by trade secrets. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect and some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

We seek to protect our proprietary know-how, trade secrets and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, CROs, manufacturers and contractors. These agreements typically limit the rights of third parties to use or disclose our confidential information. However, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements, despite the existence generally of confidentiality agreements and other contractual restrictions. 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 processes. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary know-how and trade secrets will be effective. If any of our employees, collaborators, CROs, manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. As a result, we could lose our trade secrets. 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. While we have confidence in these security measures, they may still 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. Competitors could purchase our product candidates, if approved, and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our intellectual property rights, design around our protected know-how and trade secrets, or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate such trade secrets, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’ products and technologies, our competitive position could be adversely affected.

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

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, as well as our academic partners. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. An inability to incorporate such technologies or features would have a material adverse effect on our business and may prevent us from successfully commercializing our product candidates. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat of such litigation may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent contractors. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Moreover, even when we obtain agreements assigning intellectual property to us, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Moreover, individuals executing agreements with us may have preexisting or competing obligations to a third party, such as an academic institution, and thus an agreement with us may be ineffective in perfecting ownership of inventions developed by that individual.

65

---

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes several significant changes to U.S. patent law. Prior to March 2013 in the United States, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first to make the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the invention. The Leahy-Smith Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent through various post-grant proceedings administered by the USPTO. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business as, among other reasons, the USPTO must still implement various regulations. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

The patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Two cases involving diagnostic method claims and “gene patents” have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, or the Supreme Court. On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., or Prometheus, a case involving patent claims directed to a process of measuring a metabolic product in a patient to optimize a drug dosage for the patient. According to the Supreme Court, the addition of well understood, routine or conventional activity such as “administering” or “determining” steps was not enough to transform an otherwise patent-ineligible natural phenomenon into patent-eligible subject matter. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO issued a guidance memo to patent examiners indicating that process claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or a naturally occurring relation or correlation that do not include additional elements or steps that integrate the natural principle into the claimed invention such that the natural principle is practically applied and the patent claim amounts to significantly more than the natural principle itself should be rejected as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that an isolated segment of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent-eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA may be patent-eligible.

In 2014, the USPTO issued a guidance to its patent examiners for evaluating claims for patent subject matter eligibility under the relevant statute (35 U.S.C. § 101). This guidance was in response to a series of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court on patent claims reciting judicial exceptions, including Abstract Ideas, Laws of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena and/or Natural Products. Based on judicial decisions and public feedback, several supplements to this guidance and additional memoranda and materials have since been issued and are continually being issued, while the current eligibility guidance has been incorporated into the latest (9th) edition of the MPEP (Manual for Patent Examination Procedure), last revised in January 2018. The current subject matter eligibility guideline instructs USPTO examiners to follow a two-part test, set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Alice/Mayo, as the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination, including claims directed to natural products and principles including all naturally occurring nucleic acids. Certain claims of our licensed patents and patent applications contain, and any future patents we may obtain may contain, claims that relate to specific recombinant DNA sequences that are naturally occurring at least in part and, therefore, could be the subject of future challenges made by third parties. In addition, the current USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance and the constantly evolving case law, together with contemplated congressional action, could all impact our ability to pursue similar patent claims in patent applications we may prosecute in the future.

We cannot assure our stockholders that our efforts to seek patent protection for our product candidates will not be negatively impacted by the decisions described above, rulings in other cases or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO. We cannot fully predict what impact the Supreme Court’s decisions in Prometheus and Myriad may have on the ability of life science companies to obtain or enforce patents relating to their products in the future. These decisions, the guidance issued by the USPTO and rulings in other cases or changes in USPTO guidance or procedures could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent rights and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

66

---

Moreover, although the Supreme Court has held in Myriad that isolated segments of naturally occurring DNA are not patent-eligible subject matter, certain third parties could allege that activities that we may undertake infringe other gene-related patent claims, and we may deem it necessary to defend ourselves against these claims by asserting non-infringement and/or invalidity positions, or paying to obtain a license to these claims. In any of the foregoing or in other situations involving third-party intellectual property rights, if we are unsuccessful in defending against claims of patent infringement, we could be forced to pay damages or be subjected to an injunction that would prevent us from utilizing the patented subject matter.

If we do not obtain patent term extension for patents relating to SGT-001 or our other product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of SGT-001 and our other product candidates, one or more U.S. patents that we license or may own in the future may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent extension term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process based on the first regulatory approval for a particular drug or biologic. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, only one patent may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. 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. In addition, to the extent we wish to pursue patent term extension based on a patent that we in-license from a third party, we would need the cooperation of that third party. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may be able to enter the market sooner.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition and our business may be adversely affected.

We have registered trademarks with the USPTO for the marks “SOLID BIOSCIENCES”, “SOLID GT” and “SOLID”. Once registered, our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, diluted, tarnished, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors 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, dilution or tarnishment 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.

Intellectual property rights and regulatory exclusivity rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

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

67

---

 

Risks related to ownership of our common stock

Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders maintain the ability to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval.

Our executive officers and directors and principal stockholders, in the aggregate, own shares representing approximately 55.9% of our capital stock as of February 15, 2020. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

This concentration of voting power may:

A significant number of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the market in the near future, which could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Our outstanding shares of common stock may be freely sold in the public market at any time to the extent permitted by Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, or to the extent such shares have already been registered under the Securities Act and are held by non-affiliates of ours. Moreover, as of February 15, 2020, holders of an aggregate of approximately 28.2 million shares of our common stock and approximately 2.3 million shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of pre-funded warrants have rights, subject to certain conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders.

In July 2019, we completed a private placement of 10,607,525 shares of our common stock and 2,295,699 pre-funded warrants to purchase shares of our common stock to several accredited investors.  We have filed a registration statement covering the resale of these shares by the purchasers in the private placement and have agreed to keep such registration statement effective until the date the shares covered by the registration statement have been sold or can be resold without restriction under Rule 144 of the Securities Act.

68

---

In addition, on January 29, 2018, we filed a Registration Statement on Form S-8 to register approximately 5.0 million shares reserved for future issuance under our 2018 Omnibus Incentive Plan will become eligible for sale in the public market in the future, subject to certain legal and contractual limitations. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to black-out periods and volume limitations applicable to affiliates.

The price of our common stock has been, and in the future is likely to be, volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for holders of our common stock.

Our stock price has been, and in the future is likely to be, volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical or pharmaceutical companies in particular, has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their shares of common stock at or above the price they paid for their shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation often has been instituted against that company. We and certain of our executive officers and board members have been named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits. Any such litigation instituted against us could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources.

69

---

An active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained.

Prior to our initial public offering, which occurred on January 26, 2018, there was no public market for our common stock. Although our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, given the limited trading history of our common stock, there is a risk that an active trading market for our shares may not continue to develop or be sustained. If an active market for our common stock does not continue to develop or is not sustained, it may be difficult for our stockholders to sell shares without depressing the market price for the shares, or at all.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” or EGC, as defined in the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. We will remain an EGC until the earliest of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenues of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) December 31, 2023; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; and (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. For so long as we remain an EGC, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:

We may choose to take advantage of some, but not all, of the available exemptions. We have taken advantage of reduced reporting burdens in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, we have not included all of the executive compensation information that would be required if we were not an EGC. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on certain or all of these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

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

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an EGC, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq have imposed various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance. 

Pursuant to Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an EGC, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

70

---

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions also could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or the DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, is the only sole source of gain for an investment in our common stock.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be the sole source of gain for an investor for the foreseeable future.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for such disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim for breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. We do not intend to have this choice of forum provision apply to, and this choice of forum provision will not apply to, actions arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. The choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions.

71

---

 

None.

We lease our corporate headquarters, which consists of approximately 16,000 square feet in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lease for our corporate headquarters has an initial term of approximately 4 years that expires in February 2022. In addition, we lease our primary laboratory space, which consists of 9,500 square feet in Cambridge, Massachusetts, under a lease with an initial term of five years that expires in April 2023 and includes an option to extend for one additional two-year term. In addition, we lease smaller laboratory and office space.

None.

Not applicable.

 

72

---

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock has been publicly traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “SLDB” since January 26, 2018 in connection with our initial public offering. Prior to that date, there was no established public trading market for our common stock.

The following graph compares the performance of our common stock to The Nasdaq Composite Index and to The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index from January 26, 2018 (the first date that shares of our common stock were publicly traded) through December 31, 2019. The comparison assumes $100 was invested after the market closed on January 26, 2018 in our common stock and in each of the foregoing indices, and it assumes reinvestment of dividends, if any. The stock price performance included in this graph is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
Among The Nasdaq Composite Index, The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index and Solid Biosciences Inc.

 

 

 

Holders

As of February 15, 2020, we had approximately 71 holders of record of our common stock. This number does not include beneficial owners whose shares were held in street name. The actual number of holders of our common stock is greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers or held by other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Information about our Equity Compensation Plans

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to the section entitled “Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans” in Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Purchase of Equity Securities

We did not purchase any of our registered equity securities during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

73

---

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

We did not sell any securities, during the year ended December 31, 2019 that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and that have not otherwise been described in a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or in a Current Report on Form 8-K.

Use of Proceeds from Initial Public Offering

On January 30, 2018, we closed our initial public offering, in which we issued and sold 8,984,375 shares of common stock, including 1,171,875 shares of our common stock issued upon the exercise in full of the underwriters’ over-allotment option, at a public offering price of $16.00 per share. The aggregate gross proceeds to us from our initial public offering were approximately $143.8 million. All of the shares of common stock issued and sold in our initial public offering were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-222357), which was declared effective by the SEC on January 25, 2018 and a registration statement on Form S-1 MEF (Registration No. 333-222705) filed pursuant to Rule 462(b) of the Securities Act. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Leerink Partners LLC were joint book-running managers for the initial public offering. The offering commenced on January 25, 2018 and did not terminate until the sale of all of the shares offered. The aggregate net proceeds to us were approximately $129.1 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us of approximately $14.7 million.

Except as set forth below, no offering expenses were paid directly or indirectly to any of our directors or officers (or their associates) or persons owning ten percent or more of any class of our equity securities or to any other affiliates, JPMC Strategic Investments II Corporation, or JPMC, owned in excess of 10% of our issued and outstanding common stock immediately prior to our initial public offering, and JPMC is an affiliate of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, which was a book running manager in our initial public offering. In addition, Mr. Robert Huffines, one of our directors, is an employee of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.

There has been no material change in our planned use of the net proceeds from the offering as described in our final prospectus filed with the SEC on January 29, 2018 pursuant to Rule 424(b) under the Securities Act.  We have been using and plan to continue to use the net offering proceeds to fund research, development and clinical trial expenses, and the remainder for general and administrative expenses and other general corporate purposes.

The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

74

---

Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of results that should be expected in any future period. The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with the section of this report entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.