PART I

You are urged to read this Annual Report on Form 10-K (Form 10-K) in its entirety. This Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ significantly from the projected results discussed in these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those discussed below and in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

“We,” “our,” “ours,” “us,” “Catalyst,” or the “Company,” when used herein, refers to Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals Ireland, Ltd., a corporation organized in the Republic of Ireland.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements”, as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These include statements regarding our expectations, beliefs, plans or objectives for future operations and anticipated results of operations. For this purpose, any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Without limiting the foregoing, “believes”, “anticipates”, “proposes”, “plans”, “expects”, “intends”, “may”, and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or other achievements to be materially different from any future results, performances or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors.”

Our current plans and objectives are based on assumptions relating to the continued sale of FIRDAPSE®, AGAMREE® and FYCOMPA® and on our plans to seek to acquire or in-license additional drug products. Although we believe that our assumptions are reasonable, any of our assumptions could prove inaccurate. Considering the significant uncertainties inherent in the forward-looking statements we have made herein, which reflect our views only as of the date of this report, you should not place undue reliance upon such statements. We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

FIRDAPSE®

On November 28, 2018, we received approval from the FDA for our new drug application (NDA) for FIRDAPSE® Tablets 10 mg for the treatment of adult patients (ages 17 and above) with Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS), and in January 2019, we launched FIRDAPSE® in the U.S. Further, on September 29, 2022, the FDA approved our supplemental NDA (sNDA) to expand the indicated age range for FIRDAPSE® Tablets 10 mg for the treatment of LEMS to include pediatric patients six years of age and older. Additionally, on May 30, 2024, the FDA approved our sNDA increasing the indicated maximum daily dosage of FIRDAPSE® tablets for the treatment of patients with LEMS from 80 mg to 100 mg. We believe that this most recent sNDA approval offers healthcare providers and patients greater flexibility in treatment regimens for the management of LEMS. We are also planning to evaluate FIRDAPSE® in the future for the treatment of other diseases.

We sell FIRDAPSE® in the U.S. through a field-based force experienced in neurologic, central nervous system or rare disease products consisting at this time of approximately 23 field personnel, including sales (Regional Account Managers and Area Business Directors), National Account Directors and thought leader liaisons. This includes two national account directors who exclusively focus on the oncology market for LEMS patients with cancer. We also use non-personal promotion to reach the 20,000 neurologists who are potential LEMS treaters and the 16,000 oncologists who might be treating a LEMS patient who also has cancer (principally small cell lung cancer). Finally, we make available for online ordering a no-cost LEMS voltage gated calcium channel (VGCC) antibody diagnostic testing program for use by physicians who suspect that one of their patients may have LEMS and wish to reach a definitive diagnosis.

Further, we are continuing to expand our digital and social media activities to introduce our products and services to potential patients and their healthcare providers. We also work with several rare disease advocacy organizations (including the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the LEMS Family Association) to help increase awareness and level of support for patients living with LEMS and to provide education for the physicians who treat this rare disease and the patients they treat.

On August 6, 2025, we reported that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) now include new additions involving LEMS, amifampridine, and the tests for PQ- and N-type VGCC antibodies. The updated NCCN Guidelines® for SCLC relating to LEMS now include symptom specificity—characterized by proximal muscle weakness and autonomic dysfunction. Under "Signs and Symptoms of Small Cell Lung Cancer” (SCL-A 2 of 2), the guidelines recommend diagnosis through a neurological evaluation, ideally in consultation with a neurologist, which may include testing for PQ- and N-type VGCC antibodies. Additionally, under “Principles of Supportive Care” (SCL-D), the guidelines recommend that amifampridine should be considered as a treatment in consultation with neurology. We are currently working to get these guidelines into the standard of care followed by oncology practices that treat patients with SCLC.

We are supporting the distribution in the U.S. of FIRDAPSE® through Catalyst Pathways®, our personalized treatment support program for patients who enroll in it. Catalyst Pathways® is a single source for personalized treatment support, education and guidance through the challenging dosing and titration regimen required to reach an effective therapeutic dose. The program also includes distributing the drug through a very small group of exclusive specialty pharmacies (primarily AnovoRx), which is consistent with the way that most drug products for ultra-orphan diseases are distributed and dispensed to patients. We believe that by using specialty pharmacies in this way, the task, which can be difficult, of navigating the health care system is far better for the patient needing treatment for their rare disease and the health care community in general.

In order to help patients with LEMS afford their medication, we, like other pharmaceutical companies which market drug products for orphan and ultra-orphan, rare diseases, have developed an array of financial assistance programs to reduce out-of-pocket costs that makes FIRDAPSE® accessible and affordable. A co-pay assistance program has been designed to reduce commercial patients’ out of pocket costs to as little as $0 whenever possible (currently an average of less than $2 per month). Our co-pay assistance programs, including the one for FIRDAPSE®, are not available to patients enrolled in state or federal healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Defense (DoD), or TRICARE. However, we have, at times, donated funds to one or more qualified, independent charitable foundations dedicated to providing assistance to any U.S. LEMS patients in financial need who meet those independent organizations' guidelines. In addition, we have a program in place to help patients who are uninsured and underinsured. Subject to compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, our goal is that no LEMS patient is ever denied access to their medication for financial reasons.

FIRDAPSE® is currently marketed for the treatment of LEMS in Canada through our exclusive sublicensee, KYE Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (KYE). We supply product to KYE at agreed upon prices and we are also eligible to earn sales milestones and sales royalties based on net revenues from sales of the product in Canada. Further, FIRDAPSE® is commercially available (since January 21, 2025) for the treatment of LEMS in Japan through our sublicensee for Japan, DyDo Pharma, Inc. (DyDo). We generate revenue from DyDo through the receipt of additional milestone payments, as such milestones are achieved, and a transfer price on the product supplied by us to DyDo (in lieu of royalties).

We control six U.S. patents for FIRDAPSE® that are listed in the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book), the earliest of which expires in 2032 and the latest of which expires in 2037. Generic drug manufacturers were permitted to submit applications for the product challenging our patents starting in 2023 and the FDA is now permitted to approve such ANDA products following the expiration of our orphan drug exclusivity (ODE) on November 26, 2025, subject to any pending 30-month stays of approval as required under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments).

With respect to ANDA filers, in January 2023, we received Paragraph IV Certification Notice Letters from three generic drug manufacturers (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively Teva), Hetero USA, Inc. (Hetero), and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin)) advising that they each had submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking authorization from the FDA to manufacture, use or sell a generic version of FIRDAPSE® in the U.S. The notice letters each alleged that the six patents protecting FIRDAPSE® that are listed in the Orange Book in connection with FIRDAPSE® are not valid, not enforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the proposed product described in these ANDA submissions. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, we had 45 days from receipt of the notice letters to determine if there were grounds to bring a lawsuit and, if so, to commence patent infringement lawsuits against these generic drug manufacturers in a federal district court, which would trigger a statutory stay precluding the FDA from final approval of the subject ANDA until May 26, 2026 or entry of judgment holding the patents invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed, whichever occurs first in all cases (but not earlier than the expiration of orphan drug exclusivity on November 28, 2025). In that regard, after conducting the necessary due diligence, we filed lawsuits on March 1, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against each of the three generic drug manufacturers who notified us of their ANDA submissions, thus triggering the stay.

Additionally, in October 2023, we received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice Letter from a fourth generic drug manufacturer (Inventia Healthcare Limited (Inventia)), and after conducting the necessary diligence we filed a similar lawsuit against that manufacturer in November 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 30, 2024, we settled this patent litigation with Inventia. In this settlement, Inventia acknowledged both the validity of our FIRDAPSE® patents and also the infringement by the ANDA filer's product of our patents. As part of the settlement, Inventia also agreed not to commercialize its product until the earlier of all FIRDAPSE® patents expiration or the entry into the market of another ANDA product meeting certain conditions.

In June 2024, Lupin converted five of its Paragraph IV Certifications in its ANDA to Paragraph III certifications acknowledging the validity and their ANDA’s infringement of five of those patents, the latest ending in 2034. We subsequently dismissed all of our claims against Lupin related to those five patents but maintained our claim against Lupin for the remaining Paragraph IV certification for U.S. Patent No. 10,626,088, which is the patent expiring in 2037.

On January 8, 2025, we reached a settlement with Teva in which Teva agreed not to market a generic version of FIRDAPSE® in the U.S. any earlier than February 25, 2035, if approved by the FDA, unless certain limited circumstances customarily included in these types of agreements occur. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the parties terminated all ongoing patent litigation between us and Teva regarding FIRDAPSE® patents pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Later, on August 26, 2025, we reached a settlement with Lupin on substantially the same terms for market entry.

The pending FIRDAPSE® patent litigation against the remaining defendant, Hetero (relating to the FIRDAPSE® Orange Book-listed patents expiring in 2032, 2034 and 2037) remains ongoing. At this time, this trial is scheduled to start on March 23, 2026, which is prior to the expiration of the 30-month stay on FDA approval of Hetero’s ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments ending on May 26, 2026.

Since cases of this type are complex and the results of patent litigation with Paragraph IV challengers is always uncertain, there can be no assurance as to whether we will prevail in this litigation. As a result, there can be no assurance as to whether our currently ongoing litigation with Hetero will allow a generic version of FIRDAPSE® to be marketed in the U.S. prior to Teva's and Lupin's licensed entry into the market on February 25, 2035.

AGAMREE®

On June 19, 2023, we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement (AGAMREE® License Agreement) and an Investment Agreement (Investment Agreement) with Santhera Pharmaceuticals Holding AG (collectively, Santhera). Under the AGAMREE® License Agreement, we contracted to obtain an exclusive North America license, manufacturing and supply agreement for Santhera’s investigational product candidate, AGAMREE®, a novel corticosteroid for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, or DMD. Under the Investment Agreement, we agreed to make a strategic investment into Santhera.

Both transactions closed on July 18, 2023. Under the AGAMREE® License Agreement, upon closing we made a $75 million payment to Santhera in return for the exclusive North American license for AGAMREE®. Additionally, we hold the North American rights to any future approved indications for AGAMREE®. Finally, under our AGAMREE® License Agreement

with Santhera, we agreed to purchase commercial supply of AGAMREE® from Santhera at agreed upon prices until we completed our process to transition to our own direct supplier. We are also in the process of transitioning final goods manufacturing to a U.S. location (estimated to be completed in 2026).

Concurrent with the closing of the AGAMREE® License Agreement, we made a strategic investment into Santhera in which we acquired 1,414,688 of Santhera’s ordinary shares (representing approximately 11.26% of Santhera’s outstanding ordinary shares immediately following the transaction) at an investment price of CHF 9.477 per share, with the approximately $15.7 million USD in equity investment proceeds to be used by Santhera for Phase IV studies of AGAMREE® in DMD and future development of additional indications for AGAMREE®. On February 23, 2026, the closing price of Santhera’s common shares on the SIX Swiss Exchange was CHF 16.46 per share (approximately $21.33 USD based on then-current exchange rates).

On October 26, 2023, the U.S. FDA approved Santhera’s NDA for AGAMREE® for use in treating DMD in patients aged two years and older. Shortly thereafter, as part of the previously described transaction, Santhera transferred the approved NDA to us. Additionally, following approval of the NDA for the drug, we became obligated to make a milestone payment of $36 million to Santhera, which we paid during the fourth quarter of 2023. We may also be obligated to pay future regulatory and commercial milestone payments to Santhera tied to calendar year sales of AGAMREE® (the first such sales-based royalty was achieved in the fourth quarter of 2025 when our AGAMREE® net product revenues for 2025 exceeded $100 million), as well as commercial royalties.

When we launched AGAMREE® in March 2024, we utilized the FIRDAPSE® commercial and medical field-based forces to market AGAMREE®. In early 2025, we separated these field-based forces into two units, one for each function expressly focused on supporting FIRDAPSE® and one for each function expressly focused on supporting AGAMREE®. This strategic change was made in an effort to allow us to better focus the support for each product. This division of our field-based forces into two units became effective on April 1, 2025.

Since April 1, 2025, we have sold AGAMREE® in the U.S. through a dedicated field-based force of approximately 16, including sales (12 Regional Account Managers and two Area Business Directors) and two Area Marketing Directors. We are further supporting the distribution of AGAMREE® through our Catalyst Pathways® patient services program to ensure that patients have access to a dedicated, personalized support team that assists families through the AGAMREE® patient journey, from answering questions to coordinating financial assistance programs for eligible patients. Additionally, we have also donated to qualified, independent charitable foundations dedicated to providing assistance to DMD patients in financial need who meet the independent organization's guidelines. Subject to applicable regulatory requirements, our goal is to ensure that no DMD patient is ever denied access to their medication for financial reasons.

DMD, the most common form of muscular dystrophy, is a rare and life-threatening neuromuscular disorder characterized by progressive muscle dysfunction, ultimately leading to loss of ambulation, respiratory failure, and fatality. Current standard treatment for DMD involves corticosteroids, which often come with significant side effects. It is estimated that between 11,000 and 13,000 people in the U.S. are affected by DMD, with approximately 70% of patients currently receiving a corticosteroid treatment. We believe that steroids are and will continue to remain the foundational therapy for DMD patients and dosed concomitantly with other therapies.

AGAMREE®’s unique mode of action is based on differential effects on glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid receptors and modifying further downstream activity. As such, it is considered a novel corticosteroid that we hope has the potential to demonstrate comparable efficacy to corticosteroids, with the potential for a better-tolerated side effect profile. This mechanism of action may allow vamorolone to emerge as an effective alternative to the current standard of care corticosteroids in children, adolescents, and adult patients with DMD. In that regard, we are currently enrolling up to 250 patients in our SUMMIT registry study to evaluate data about long-term patient safety and quality of life data from the use of our product, with the hope of offering a deeper understanding of the product's potential long-term benefits for patients, such as in the areas of stature, bone health, behavior, and cardiovascular health.

On October 13, 2023, Santhera announced that the European Union’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopted a positive position in favor of AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD patients aged four and older. In its recommendation for approval, CHMP acknowledged that there was a positive benefit-risk profile of AGAMREE® in such patient population, including certain safety benefits of AGAMREE® compared to standard of care corticosteroids in the treatment of DMD. Further, on December 18, 2023, the European Commission (EC) granted to Santhera marketing authorization for AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD in patients ages four years and older and on January 12, 2024 Santhera announced that AGAMREE® had received approval by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom. Further, on January 15, 2024, Santhera announced that AGAMREE® was commercially launched in Germany. Additionally, on January 16, 2025, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) issued positive Final Guidance that recommends AGAMREE® for use in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the treatment of DMD in patients four years of age and older and on February 13, 2025, Santhera announced an agreement with the German National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds (GKV-SV) on the

reimbursement for AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD. This agreement makes AGAMREE® the first product to receive an agreed federal price in Germany for the treatment of DMD in patients four years of age and older, independent of the underlying genetic mutation. Finally, on January 15, 2026, Santhera announced that the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) approved AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD in patients four years of age and older.

We are currently taking the first steps seeking to expand the number of diseases that can be treated with AGAMREE®. In furtherance of that objective, we are currently conducting a Phase 1 study in healthy adults comparing a single dose of vamorolone, prednisone, and deflazacort, and studying the immunosuppressive effect of multiple ascending doses of AGAMREE®, which study will attempt to define the immunosuppressive dose of vamorolone for future indications and for the use of our product in conjunction with gene and cell therapies that are approved to treat DMD and require a concurrent immunosuppressive regimen of a corticosteroid when administered. We expect to have the results of both parts of this study by the end of the second quarter of 2026. Further, we are hopeful that the recent addition of DMD to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will help support earlier detection of the disease and more timely access to treatment options.

Further, we have established a joint steering committee with Santhera that is overseeing the lifecycle management and development of AGAMREE®. There can be no assurance that we can develop our product for the treatment of diseases other than DMD. Finally, we are currently in the process of validating a U.S. manufacturing site for the product, which we expect will be completed by the end of 2026.

In the U.S., AGAMREE® has New Chemical Entity exclusivity that expires in October 2028. AGAMREE® also has Orphan Drug Exclusivity expiring in October 2030. AGAMREE® is further protected by seven Orange Book listed patents expiring as early as May 28, 2029 and as late as July 16, 2040. The Company has also requested Patent Term Extension (PTE) and will update the relevant expiration date in the Orange Book upon a final determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On June 25, 2025, the FDA published a notice (Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; AGAMREE®) in the Federal Register regarding the requested extension of patent numbers 8,334,279, 10,857,161, and 11,833,159, all of which currently expire on May 28, 2029, as listed in the FDA's Orange Book. With the publication of this notice, there is a 180-day period for third parties to submit comments and/or due diligence petitions to the FDA. If no comments or petitions are submitted within this period, the FDA will notify the USPTO so that the USPTO can then determine the length of the PTE for each patent for which an extension was requested. Upon completion of the PTE determination, USPTO will mail a Notice of Final Determination of PTE. We will then have one month from the mailing of the Notice of Final Determination to elect one of the three patents for an extension patent term.

The earliest a generic manufacturer could submit an ANDA for vamorolone is October 26, 2027. If we were to pursue a patent infringement action of any such ANDA challenges of any of AGAMREE®’s Orange Book patents, then the automatic statutory 30-month stay would prevent FDA approval of such ANDA until April 26, 2031.

On July 23, 2024 we entered into a license, supply and commercialization agreement with KYE, which is already our sublicensee for FIRDAPSE® in Canada, granting KYE the exclusive Canadian commercial rights to market AGAMREE® in Canada for DMD and other indications. Under the agreement, KYE was responsible for obtaining regulatory approval of the product from Health Canada and on April 8, 2025, we announced that Health Canada had accepted for review KYE's New Drug Submission (NDS) for AGAMREE®. Further, on October 2, 2025, KYE announced that Health Canada has approved AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD in boys four years of age and older. Under our sublicense agreement with KYE for this product, we will supply product to KYE and also receive sales milestones and sales royalties based on net revenues from sales of the product in Canada.

FYCOMPA®

On December 17, 2022, we entered into an agreement with Eisai Co., Ltd. (Eisai) for the acquisition of the U.S. rights to FYCOMPA® CIII. FYCOMPA® is a selective non-competitive antagonist of AMPA receptors, the major subtype of ionotropic glutamate receptors. It was the first, and still is the only, drug of its class to be approved for epilepsy. Studies suggest that AMPA receptor antagonism can lead to reduced overstimulation and anticonvulsant effects, as well as inhibiting seizure generation and spread. FYCOMPA® is a controlled substance and is approved with a boxed warning in its labeling. FYCOMPA® is used to treat certain types of focal onset seizures (seizures that involve only one part of the brain) in adults and children four years of age and older. It is also used in combination with other medications to treat certain types of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (also known as a “grand mal” seizure, a seizure that involves the entire body) in adults and children 12 years of age or older. Perampanel is in a class of medications called anticonvulsants. It works by decreasing abnormal electrical activity in the brain.

On January 24, 2023, we closed our acquisition of the U.S. rights to FYCOMPA®. In connection with the acquisition, we purchased Eisai’s regulatory approvals and documentation, product records, intellectual property, inventory, and other matters relating to the U.S. rights for FYCOMPA®, in exchange for an upfront payment of $160 million in cash. We also agreed to

pay Eisai royalty payments on net sales only after all FYCOMPA® patents are expired with such royalty payments reduced after generic equivalents enter the market.

In conjunction with the closing of the asset purchase, we entered into two additional agreements, a Transition Services Agreement (TSA) and a Supply Agreement. Under the Supply Agreement, Eisai agreed to manufacture FYCOMPA® for us for at least seven years at prices listed in the Supply Agreement (to be updated on a yearly basis), and under the TSA, a U.S. subsidiary of Eisai provided us with certain transitional services (which transition services ended on December 31, 2023).

Patent protection for FYCOMPA® tablets and oral solution was primarily derived from two patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The first, U.S. patent no. 6,949,571 (the ‘571 patent), expired on May 23, 2025, including patent term extension. The second FYCOMPA® patent in the Orange Book is U.S. Patent No. 8,772,497 (the ‘497 patent), which will expire on July 1, 2026. The ‘497 patent, which covers certain polymorphic forms of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) used in both FYCOMPA® tablets and oral suspension. One of the Orange Book listed patents had been the subject of previous Paragraph IV certifications from three ANDA filers for the tablet formulation, which were not contested by Eisai prior to our acquisition of the drug. As a result, to our knowledge based on publicly available information, three ANDA filers for the tablet formulation have, to date, obtained approval for and are marketing a generic version of FYCOMPA® tablets and one ANDA filer has, to date, obtained approval for and is marketing a generic version of FYCOMPA® oral suspension. We will continue to sell FYCOMPA® tablets and oral suspension despite the loss of exclusivity, although we have ceased active marketing efforts for the product effective December 31, 2025.

Business Development

We continue to advance our strategic initiatives and portfolio expansion efforts, focusing on broadening and diversifying our rare (orphan) neurology product portfolio with innovative therapies that address critical unmet medical needs. In that regard, we are currently exploring immediate or near-term accretive, clinically differentiated and adequately de-risked opportunities, with a keen focus on rare (orphan) disease products across therapeutic areas and treatment modalities. These prospects include evaluating companies with existing commercial drug products or drugs in development, including clinical stage opportunities with established proof of concept, for potential licensing or acquisitions. We maintain a well-established U.S. presence, which remains the cornerstone of our commercial strategy, while continuously evaluating strategic opportunities to expand our global footprint.

We employ a disciplined, comprehensive, and exhaustive approach to identifying and evaluating opportunities that we believe will add significant value to our company over the near, mid, and long-term. However, no definitive agreements have been entered into to date to acquire the rights to any additional products, and there can be no assurance that any of the Company's business development initiatives will be successful.

Capital Resources

At December 31, 2025, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $709.2 million. Based on our current financial condition, including our profitability, cash flows generated from operations and forecasts of available cash, absent the use of cash to acquire potential business development opportunities, we believe that we have sufficient funds to support our operations for at least the next 12 months. There can be no assurance that we will continue to be successful in commercializing FIRDAPSE® and AGAMREE®, that our forecasts of revenues from sales of FYCOMPA® will be accurate now that generic competition has entered the market, or that we will continue to be profitable and cash flow positive. See “Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” below for further information on our liquidity and cash flow.

Share Repurchase Program

On October 1, 2025, we announced that our Board of Directors has authorized a new share repurchase program to repurchase up to $200 million of shares of our common stock between October 1, 2025 and December 31, 2026. Repurchases under the new share repurchase program may be made through a variety of methods, including open market or privately negotiated purchases. The timing and amount of shares repurchased will depend on the stock price, business and market conditions, corporate and regulatory requirements, alternative investment opportunities, acquisition opportunities and other factors. We are not obligated to repurchase any specific amount of shares of common stock, and the new share repurchase program may be suspended or terminated at any time.

We are using existing cash on hand to fund our share repurchase program. We also believe that we can execute this share repurchase program without impairing the advancement of our business development strategy. In that regard, as of February 23, 2026, we have repurchased 1,740,713 shares of our outstanding common stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $39.9 million ($22.91 average price per share).

Our Strategy

Our goal is to acquire and integrate high-value, orphan designated, synergistic assets. We are dedicated to making a meaningful impact on the lives of those suffering from rare diseases, and we believe in putting patients first in everything we do. Specifically, we intend to:

FIRDAPSE® Product Overview

FIRDAPSE® is Catalyst’s registered trade name in the U.S. for amifampridine phosphate tablets. Amifampridine is the WHO (World Health Organization) registered INN (International Nonproprietary Name) and U.S. Adopted Name (USAN) for the chemical entity, 3,4-diaminopyridine, often abbreviated as 3,4-DAP or DAP. FIRDAPSE® contains the phosphate salt of amifampridine, hence the name “amifampridine phosphate.” We will refer to our drug by its trade name in the U.S. (FIRDAPSE®), by the INN and USAN (amifampridine), or by the specific salt in our product (amifampridine phosphate), throughout this report.

Amifampridine has been recommended as the first-line symptomatic treatment for LEMS by the European Federation of Neurological Societies (now known as the European Academy of Neurology). In December 2009, amifampridine phosphate received marketing approval from the European Commission (with the trade name FIRDAPSE®) for the symptomatic treatment of patients with LEMS. Safety data from clinical data published over the last 30 years in patients with LEMS or other neurological disorders treated with amifampridine show that amifampridine is well tolerated at doses up to 80 mg per day. In May 2024, the FDA approved our sNDA increasing the maximum daily dose to 100mg per day. Among the 1,279 patients or healthy subjects assessed in the literature, the most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were perioral and peripheral paresthesias (unusual sensations like pins and needles), and gastrointestinal disorders (abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, and epigastralgia (pain around the upper part of the stomach)). These events were typically mild or moderate in severity, and transient, seldom requiring dose reduction or withdrawal from treatment.

Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS)

LEMS is a rare autoimmune neuromuscular disorder characterized primarily by muscle weakness of the limbs. The disease is caused by an autoimmune reaction where antibodies are formed against voltage-gated calcium channels on nerve endings, which damages the channels. These calcium channels are responsible for the transport of charged calcium atoms that activate the biochemical machinery responsible for releasing acetylcholine. Acetylcholine is the neurotransmitter responsible for causing muscles to contract and the failure to release enough of this neurotransmitter results in muscle weakness in LEMS patients. Additionally, LEMS is often associated with an underlying malignancy, most commonly small-cell lung cancer

(SCLC), and in some individuals, LEMS is the first symptom of such malignancy. Diagnosing LEMS can also lead to the early detection of SCLC, according to the Lung Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

LEMS generally affects individuals' extremities, especially the legs. As LEMS most affects the parts of limbs closest to the trunk, difficulties with climbing stairs or rising from a sitting position are commonly reported. Physical exercise and high temperatures tend to worsen the symptoms. Other symptoms often seen include weakness of the muscles of the mouth, throat, and eyes. Individuals affected with LEMS also may have a disruption of the autonomic nervous system, including dry mouth, constipation, blurred vision, impaired sweating, and/or hypotension.

LEMS is managed by treating the symptoms or treating the underlying autoimmune attack on voltage gated calcium channels. Unapproved treatments include steroids, azathioprine and intravenous immunoglobulin, which work by suppressing the immune system; and pyridostigmine and amifampridine, which enhance neuromuscular transmission. Plasma exchange has also been used to attempt to remove antibodies from the body. FIRDAPSE® is a symptomatic treatment and does not alter the underlying autoimmune condition. As a voltage gated potassium blocker, FIRDAPSE® prevents charged potassium atoms from leaving the nerve cells, which prolongs the period of depolarization. This allows more charged calcium atoms to enter the nerves, which enables the nerves to release acetylcholine and causes muscles to contract and to restore lost muscle strength in LEMS patients.

Based on currently available information, we estimate that there are approximately 3,600 LEMS patients in the U.S., approximately half of which we believe are presently diagnosed and identified and the remainder of which we believe are undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. We also have evidence that supports the possibility that there could be as many as 5,400 LEMS patients in the U.S., although the data we have is not conclusive. Further, we believe that half of the patients with LEMS have idiopathic LEMS and half of the patients with LEMS also have or will be diagnosed in the future with cancer (primarily small cell lung cancer). However, until awareness of the disease is increased, it is unlikely that the total number of LEMS patients in the U.S. can be determined with absolute certainty (as is typical of rare diseases), and the actual number of patients in the U.S. with LEMS may be higher or lower than our estimates.

Some of the factors that affect the addressable size of the population with a rare disease such as LEMS include the number of patients actually diagnosed with the disease, the number of patients who are misdiagnosed with other diseases, and the number of patients who are simply undiagnosed. Additionally, while there is an antibody test that positively identifies patients with LEMS which we offer at no cost to health-care providers to be used to definitively determine whether a patient has LEMS, the test is not particularly well known or utilized at this time by many neurologists. Further, many LEMS patients who have small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are not currently being treated for LEMS because many oncology medical professionals who treat SCLC patients are generally unfamiliar with how to diagnose and treat LEMS. All of these factors affect the ultimate number of patients who will benefit from treatment with FIRDAPSE®.

NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer

On August 6, 2025, we announced that the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for SCLC had been updated to include critical guidance on LEMS. These revised guidelines advise oncologists to look for symptoms of LEMS as part of the standard of care for SCLC. The guidelines further recommend considering early consultation with neurology for testing. Approximately 50% of LEMS cases are associated with underlying malignancies, and as many as 90% of patients with LEMS who had a SCLC malignancy went undiagnosed.

According to findings from a study published in StatPearls, as diagnosis of LEMS can precede a SCLC diagnosis by 5 to 6 years. Predominant clinical features of SCLC-related LEMS can include proximal muscle weakness, autonomic dysfunction, and impaired deep tendon reflexes, with a more rapid onset and progression in patients with SCLC-related LEMS. In such patients, management of symptoms with FIRDAPSE® and treatment of the primary malignancy can produce symptomatic improvement.

License Agreements for FIRDAPSE®

License Agreement with BioMarin

On October 26, 2012, we licensed the exclusive North American rights to FIRDAPSE® pursuant to a License Agreement (the License Agreement) between us and BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BioMarin). Under the License Agreement, we pay royalties to the third-party licensor of the rights sublicensed to us from the approval of FIRDAPSE® equal to 7% of net sales (as defined in the License Agreement between BioMarin and the third-party licensor) in any calendar year for the lesser of 7 years or the duration of any pending or issued patents licensed from the third-party licensor within a territory and 3.5% of net sales in any calendar year in territories without pending or issued patents or regulatory exclusivity. We are also obligated to pay royalties to our licensor equal to 7% of net sales (as defined in the License Agreement) in North America for any calendar year for sales

up to $100 million, and 10% of net sales in North America in any calendar year in excess of $100 million for a term of seven years on a country-by-country basis. As of January 2026, our U.S. net sales are no longer subject to this royalty.

On May 29, 2019, we entered into an amendment to the License Agreement. Under the amendment, we expanded our commercial territory for FIRDAPSE®, which originally was comprised of North America, to include Japan. Additionally, in December 2023 our territory automatically expanded to include most of Asia, as well as Central and South America, upon the acceptance by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan of an application to market our product in Japan. Under the amendment, we will pay royalties on net sales in Japan of a similar percentage to the royalties that we are currently paying under our original License Agreement for North America.

In January 2020, we were advised that BioMarin had sold certain rights under the License Agreement to SERB SA. We believe that we remain in compliance with our obligations under the License Agreement.

License Agreement with Jacobus Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (Jacobus)

In May 2019, the FDA approved an NDA for RUZURGI®, Jacobus’ version of amifampridine (3,4-DAP), for the treatment of pediatric LEMS patients (ages 6 to under 17). In June 2019 we filed suit against the FDA and several related parties challenging this approval and related drug labeling. Jacobus later intervened in the case. We ultimately prevailed in our litigation in September 2021, when U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit determined that the FDA’s approval of RUZURGI® violated our rights to Orphan Drug Exclusivity.

On July 11, 2022, we settled our disputes with Jacobus. In connection with the settlement, we licensed the rights to develop and commercialize RUZURGI® in the U.S. and Mexico. Simultaneously, we purchased, among other intellectual property rights, Jacobus’ U.S. patents related to RUZURGI®, its NDAs in the U.S. for RUZURGI®, and certain RUZURGI® inventory previously manufactured by Jacobus. At the same time, we received a license from Jacobus for use of its know-how related to the manufacture of RUZURGI®. Further, we settled our pending patent lawsuit against Jacobus, which has been dismissed without prejudice. Finally, Jacobus agreed that until the later of (i) the expiration of the royalty term or (ii) December 31, 2034, Jacobus and its affiliates, will not, directly or indirectly, research, develop, manufacture, commercialize, distribute, use or otherwise exploit any product competitive to FIRDAPSE® or RUZURGI® in the U.S. and Mexico, and Laura Jacobus, the sole shareholder of Jacobus, and two of Jacobus’ other officers, also signed individual non-competition agreements containing the same terms.

In connection with the settlement with Jacobus, we paid Jacobus $30 million of cash, of which $10 million was paid at the closing of the settlement on July 11, 2022, $10 million was paid on the first anniversary of the closing of the settlement, and the remainder was paid on the second anniversary of closing. We also pay Jacobus an annual royalty on our net sales (as defined in the License and Asset Purchase Agreement between us and Jacobus) of amifampridine products in the U.S. equal to: (a) for calendar years 2022 through 2025, 1.5% (with a minimum annual royalty of $3.0 million per year), and (b) for calendar years 2026 through the expiration of the last to expire of Catalyst’s FIRDAPSE® patents in the U.S., 2.5% (with a minimum annual royalty of $5 million per year); provided, however, that the royalty rate may be reduced and the minimum annual royalty may be eliminated under certain circumstances. Royalties will be trued up at the end of the year to the extent that royalties on net sales are below the minimum royalty.

Clinical Trials Supporting our NDA for FIRDAPSE® for LEMS and Approval of our NDA

We conducted two successful Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS. The results of the first trial published in 2016 in Muscle & Nerve (Muscle Nerve, 2016, 53(5):717-725). The results of the second trial were published in March 2019 in the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease (J. Clin Neuromusc Dis 2019; 20:111-119). In March 2018, we submitted an NDA seeking approval of FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS. Our NDA was accepted for filing in May 2018 and, on November 28, 2018, the FDA granted approval of FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS in adult patients.

On September 29, 2022, the FDA approved our sNDA to expand the indicated age range for FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS to include pediatric patients, six years of age and older. Further, on May 30, 2024, the FDA approved our sNDA increasing the indicated maximum daily dose of FIRDAPSE® for adults and pediatric patients weighing more than 45 kg from 80 mg to 100 mg for the treatment of LEMS.

Required Post-Approval Studies

As part of the approval of our NDA for FIRDAPSE® for LEMS, the FDA required us to conduct two studies. The first was a clinical trial to evaluate the effect of hepatic impairment on the exposure of amifampridine after oral administration of FIRDAPSE® relative to that in subjects with normal hepatic function. The second was to perform a second carcinogenicity study of amifampridine phosphate in mice. Both have been completed and submitted to the FDA which considers these commitments complete. For a third commitment, we have also established a pregnancy surveillance program to collect and analyze information for a minimum of 10 years on pregnancy complications and birth outcomes related to FIRDAPSE®.

Finally, in connection with the approval of our sNDA for FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of children ages six through seventeen with LEMS, we recently concluded a pediatric safety study of juvenile toxicity in a rodent and are awaiting comments regarding the results of that study from the FDA.

Compassionate Use Programs

We continue to make FIRDAPSE® available to a limited number of patients diagnosed with congenital myasthenic syndromes or Downbeat Nystagmus through investigator-sponsored compassionate use programs. Further, when we acquired the U.S. rights to RUZURGI® in July 2022, we agreed to continue to supply RUZURGI® to these patients with neuromuscular conditions other than LEMS who are without access to an approved drug and were being treated with RUZURGI® under investigator-sponsored INDs at the time of our settlement with Jacobus. However, this program has been discontinued because the API for RUZURGI® is no longer available and we are therefore unable to manufacture additional product.

Sales, Marketing and Distribution

Marketing of FIRDAPSE®

In January 2019, we launched FIRDAPSE® in the U.S. We sell FIRDAPSE® in the U.S. through a field-based force experienced in neurologic, central nervous system or rare disease products consisting at this time of approximately 23 field personnel, including sales (Regional Account Managers and Area Business Directors), National Account Directors and thought leader liaisons. This includes two national account directors who exclusively focus on the oncology market for LEMS patients with cancer. We also use non-personal promotion to reach the 20,000 neurologists who are potential LEMS treaters and the 16,000 oncologists who might be treating a LEMS patient who also has cancer (principally small cell lung cancer). Finally, we make available for online ordering a no-cost LEMS voltage gated calcium channel (VGCC) antibody diagnostic testing program for use by physicians who suspect that one of their patients may have LEMS and wish to reach a definitive diagnosis.

When we launched AGAMREE®, in March 2024, we utilized the FIRDAPSE® commercial field-based force for AGAMREE® as well. In early 2025, we made a strategic decision to separate our commercial field-based force into two units, one expressly focused on the marketing of FIRDAPSE® and one expressly focused on the marketing of AGAMREE®. This change occurred on April 1, 2025.

We are supporting the distribution of FIRDAPSE® through Catalyst Pathways®, our personalized treatment support program. Catalyst Pathways® is a single source for personalized treatment support, education and guidance through the challenging dosing and titration regimen to an effective therapeutic dose. It also includes distributing the drug through a very small group of exclusive specialty pharmacies (primarily AnovoRx), which is consistent with the way that most pharmaceutical products for ultra-orphan diseases are distributed and dispensed to patients. By using specialty pharmacies in this way, the difficult task of navigating the health care system is far better for the patient needing treatment for their rare disease and the health care community in general.

In addition, Catalyst Pathways® is the gateway for our free bridge medication for patients transitioning from investigational product while they are waiting for a coverage determination or, later on, for patients whose access is threatened by the bureaucratic complications arising from a change of insurer. The Catalyst Pathways® program is also the access point for our Patient Assistance Program, which provides longer-term free medication for those who are uninsured or functionally uninsured with respect to FIRDAPSE® because they may be unable to obtain coverage from their payer despite having health insurance.

We are continuing efforts on the challenging process to identify patients and their physicians who have diagnosed LEMS, but have not had access, awareness or understanding of this treatment for their rare disease. These patients often do not see their physician frequently, have many questions about changing treatment(s), and may not perceive the need to change to a new therapy. Further, we have begun to focus our commercial efforts to locate misdiagnosed and undiagnosed LEMS patients and provide educational and sales activities to help improve the diagnosis, understanding of the treatment, and information on the prescribing process. We plan to continue to support LEMS and rare disease patient organizational groups’ efforts to generate awareness and educate patients and physicians on the diagnosis of LEMS, the impact of the disease, and the support services and treatments available.

Access to FIRDAPSE®

In order to help patients afford their medication, we, like other pharmaceutical companies who are marketing drugs for ultra-orphan conditions, have developed an array of financial assistance programs that are available to reduce patient co-pays and deductibles to a nominal affordable amount. For eligible patients with commercial coverage, a co-pay assistance program designed to keep out-of-pocket costs to $10 or less per month (currently out-of-pocket costs can be as low as $0.00 per month) is available for all LEMS patients prescribed FIRDAPSE®. We have also donated to qualified, independent charitable foundations dedicated to providing assistance to LEMS patients in financial need. Our goal is to ensure that no LEMS patient is ever denied access to their medication for financial reasons.

To date, FIRDAPSE® has been widely covered and reimbursed by private and public payors for the indicated small population of adult and pediatric LEMS patients.

Canadian Market

We market FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS in Canada through a sublicensee, KYE. Our product was approved for commercialization in Canada in 2020.

Japanese Market

In May 2019, we entered into an amendment to our license agreement for FIRDAPSE® with BioMarin. Under the amendment, we expanded our commercial territory for FIRDAPSE®, which originally was comprised of North America, to include Japan. Further, we were granted orphan drug designation in Japan for FIRDAPSE® for the symptomatic treatment of LEMS.

On June 28, 2021, we entered into a sub-license agreement with DyDo, pursuant to which we sub-licensed to DyDo the Japanese rights for FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS. In December 2021, we announced that DyDo had initiated a Phase 3 registrational study in Japan to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS. In December 2023, DyDo submitted a Japan NDA for FIRDAPSE® to the PMDA. On September 24, 2024, DyDo informed us that the MHLW of Japan has approved their New Drug Application for FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS and DyDo began commercialization of FIRDAPSE® in Japan on January 21, 2025.

Future Markets for FIRDAPSE®

Under the amendment to our license agreement that added Japan to our territory, our territory in which we have the right to seek to commercialize FIRDAPSE® has automatically expanded to include several countries in Asia-Pacific and South and Central America, and we are working to expand our FIRDAPSE® activities into some of these territories.

Intellectual property and regulatory exclusivity protections for FIRDAPSE®

The majority of our patent rights related to FIRDAPSE® are derived from our license agreement with BioMarin, which was transferred to SERB in 2020. In August 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allowed Patent No. 10,793,893 (the ’893 patent) to our licensor and thereby to us, and the patent issued on October 6, 2020. The patent is directed to the use of suitable doses of amifampridine to treat patients, regardless of the therapeutic indication, that are slow metabolizers of amifampridine. Any drug product containing amifampridine with a label that states the patented dosing regimens and doses in the Dosing and Administration section prior to May 26, 2034, the expiration date of the patent, could possibly infringe this patent. Generic drug product labels would necessarily have to do this, and we intend to take all appropriate actions to protect our intellectual property.

In April 2021, the USPTO also allowed a further application in the family of licensed intellectual property, and this second patent, Patent No. 11,060,128 (the ’128 patent), issued on July 13, 2021. The patent is directed to the use of suitable doses of amifampridine to treat patients suffering with LEMS that are slow metabolizers of amifampridine. Any drug product containing amifampridine with a label for the treatment of LEMS, that states the patented dosing regimens and doses in the Dosing and Administration section of a product label, including generic drug product labels, could possibly infringe this patent prior to this patent’s expiration date.

Additional patents claiming priority from the patents noted above issued in March 2022 as Patent Nos. 11,268,128, 11,274,332, and 11,274,331, and extended our patent coverage to include fast metabolizers of amifampridine. These patents are now listed in the Orange Book for FIRDAPSE®.

As part of our transaction with Jacobus, we also acquired two patents. One of these patents, 10,626,088 issued by the USPTO on April 21, 2020, was suitable for listing in the Orange Book and has now been listed in further support of FIRDAPSE®.

On December 19, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the USPTO issued Patent Nos. 11,845,977 and 11,873,525, respectively. These new patents cover methods of treating LEMS with FIRDAPSE® under fasting and fed conditions of dosing. We are also pursuing additional patent applications for FIRDAPSE® in an effort to further protect our drug product.

There can be no assurance that we do not or will not infringe on patents held by third parties or that third parties in the future will not claim that we have infringed on their patents. In the event that our products or technologies infringe or violate the patent or other proprietary rights of third parties, we may be prevented from pursuing product development, manufacturing or commercialization of our products that utilize such technologies. For example, there may be patents or patent applications held by others that contain claims that our products or operations might be determined to infringe or that may be broader than we believe them to be. Given the complexities and uncertainties of patent laws, there can be no assurance as to the impact that future patent claims against us may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.

Until FIRDAPSE® was approved in November 2018, no drug product containing amifampridine for any indication had been approved by the FDA such that we received five-year “new chemical entity” exclusivity from the FDA. New chemical entity

exclusivity provides a five-year period of marketing exclusivity for all indications and in the absence of an Orange Book listed patent, precludes a generic from submitting an ANDA until that five-year period has expired. Further, when FIRDAPSE® was approved for the treatment of LEMS patients, we received seven-year orphan drug exclusivity (ODE) for our product for the treatment of LEMS, precluding a generic filer from receiving final FDA approval until the ODE exclusivity period has expired. Because we had Orange Book listed patents for FIRDAPSE®, potential generic filers were permitted to submit ANDA filings to the FDA starting on the “NCE-1” date (November 28, 2022).

For a description of currently ongoing Paragraph IV litigation related to FIRDAPSE®, see “Item 1. Business – Overview – FIRDAPSE®.” The outcome of patent litigation with Paragraph IV challengers is always uncertain and there can be no assurance to whether we will prevail in this litigation. At present, our pending case against Hetero is currently scheduled to be tried beginning on March 23, 2026.

We have also in-licensed the FIRDAPSE® trademark, which was registered in the U.S. in March 2015.

Protection of our intellectual property and regulatory exclusivities is a strategic priority for our business. Our ability to protect and use our intellectual property rights and regulatory exclusivity in the future development and commercialization of our products, operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others, and prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights, is crucial to our future success. See Item 1A. “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

AGAMREE® Product Overview

AGAMREE® is a structurally unique steroidal anti-inflammatory drug to treat children and adults living with DMD. In clinical studies, AGAMREE® showed evidence of inhibition of pro-inflammatory NF-kB (nuclear factor kappa light chain enhancer of activated B cells) pathways, which are, a family of highly conserved transcription factors that regulate many important cellular behaviors, in particular, inflammatory responses and cellular growth. This inhibition is achieved through high-affinity binding to the glucocorticoid receptor, high-affinity antagonism for the mineralocorticoid receptor, and membrane stabilization properties. It is hoped that AGAMREE® will demonstrate similar efficacy to traditional corticosteroids with reduced negative downstream impacts and side effects.

The FDA approved AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD in patients aged 2 and older on October 26, 2023.

Clinical Trials Supporting AGAMREE®

A randomized, double-blind, placebo and prednisone-controlled trial of vamorolone was carried out in patients with DMD. The trial met the primary (time to stand velocity after 24 weeks for vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day vs placebo) and first 4 sequential secondary motor function endpoints. Study participants receiving vamorolone, 2 mg/kg per day, and vamorolone, 6 mg/kg per day, showed improvements in multiple functional endpoints over the 24-week treatment period as compared to placebo. The statistical thresholds for the primary outcome and first 4 secondary outcomes for vamorolone treatment were met, and vamorolone demonstrated efficacy across both dose ranges. The differences in time to stand from supine velocity (TTSTAND) were clinically meaningful. The differences in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) were also clinically meaningful.

The trial validated previous open-label findings where a more normal growth trajectory was observed over 18-month and 30-month periods in vamorolone treated boys with DMD. Furthermore, bone turnover markers supported the improved profile of vamorolone on bone health.

Access to AGAMREE®

We are supporting AGAMREE® through our Catalyst Pathways® Program, which includes a dedicated, personalized support team that assists families through the AGAMREE® treatment journey, from answering questions to coordinating financial assistance programs for eligible patients.

Acquisition of AGAMREE®

On June 19, 2023, we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement (License Agreement) and an Investment Agreement (Investment Agreement) with Santhera. Under the License Agreement, we contracted to obtain an exclusive North America license, manufacturing and supply agreement for Santhera’s investigational product candidate, AGAMREE® (vamorolone), a novel corticosteroid for the treatment of DMD. We also obtained the North American rights to any future approved indications for AGAMREE®. Further, under the Investment Agreement, we agreed to make a strategic investment into Santhera.

Both transactions closed on July 18, 2023. Under the License Agreement, upon closing, we made a $75 million payment to Santhera in return for the exclusive North American license for AGAMREE®. Additionally, following approval of the NDA for the drug, on October 26, 2023, we became obligated to make milestone payments of $36 million to Santhera, $26 million of which will be used by Santhera to make milestone payments to third parties. This payment were made in the fourth quarter of 2023. We are also obligated to pay future regulatory and commercial milestone payments to Santhera tied to calendar year sales of AGAMREE®, as well as commercial royalties.

Concurrently with the closing of the License Agreement, we made a strategic investment into Santhera in which we acquired 1,414,688 of Santhera’s post-reverse split ordinary shares (representing approximately 11.26% of Santhera’s outstanding ordinary shares following the transaction) at an investment price of CHF 9.477 per share (corresponding to a mutually agreed volume weighted average price prior to signing), with the approximately $15.7 million investment to be used by Santhera for Phase IV studies of AGAMREE® in DMD and future development of additional indications for AGAMREE®.

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a genetic disorder characterized by progressive muscle degeneration and weakness due to the alterations of a protein called dystrophin that helps keep muscle cells intact. DMD is the most common of four conditions known as dystrophinopathies, with the others being Becker Muscular Dystrophy, or BMD, a mild form of DMD; an intermediate clinical presentation between BMD and DMD, and DMD-associated dilated cardiomyopathy (heart disease), with little or no clinical skeletal, or voluntary, muscle disease.

DMD symptom onset is in early childhood, usually between the ages of 2 and 3. The disease primarily affects boys, but in rare cases can affect girls. For girls who are carriers, about 2.5 to 20 percent may have mild symptoms. In the U.S., the incidence of DMD is estimated to be about 1 in 3,600 live male births.

DMD causes muscle weakness that worsens over time, and common symptoms include:

Other common symptoms of DMD include:

DMD is caused by a mutation in the gene that gives instructions for a protein called dystrophin. Dystrophin is a critical part of the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex (DGC), which plays an important role as a structural unit of muscle. In DMD, both dystrophin and DGC proteins are missing, which ultimately leads to the death of muscle cells. People with DMD have less than 5% of the normal quantity of dystrophin needed for healthy muscles. As people with DMD age, their muscles can't replace dead cells with new ones, and connective and adipose (fat) tissue gradually replace muscle fibers.

DMD has X-linked recessive inheritance, but about 30% of cases happen spontaneously with no family history of the condition. X-linked diseases are located on the X chromosome. Recessive inheritance means that when there are two copies of the responsible gene, both copies must have a pathogenic variant or mutation in order for a person to have the condition. Since males only have one X chromosome, any mutation on that chromosome will cause DMD.

FYCOMPA® Product Overview

Epilepsy is a serious neurological condition that affects more than 50 million individuals globally, 80% of whom live in developing countries. An estimated 1.7% of U.S. adults have been diagnosed with the condition. From prominent historical figures to friends or family members, most people probably know someone affected by epilepsy.

The FDA approved FYCOMPA® in October 2012 as an adjunctive agent for the treatment of focal onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients with epilepsy at least 4 years of age. In June 2015, the agency approved a second indication for primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in patients with epilepsy who are at least 12 years of age.

FYCOMPA® is a novel non-competitive selective antagonist at the postsynaptic ionotropic alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) glutamate receptor. In the nervous system, glutamate is known to be a major excitatory neurotransmitter, but the exact antiepileptic mechanism of perampanel in humans is unknown. Studies suggest that AMPA receptor antagonism can lead to reduced overstimulation and anticonvulsant effects, as well as inhibiting seizure generation and spread. In addition, AMPA receptor antagonists may prevent neuronal death.

At the time of its approval, the FDA included specific significant warnings for FYCOMPA®, in the prescribing information, that it required to be included prominently in all communications about the product. Such warnings are known as boxed warnings because they are traditionally surrounded by a black box to emphasize their significance. For FYCOMPA®, the warning addresses rare but serious behavioral changes that occur in some patients using FYCOMPA® including aggression (up to and including homicidal behavior), hostility, anger, distrust and other extreme behavioral changes; visual and auditory hallucinations; and difficulty with memory. In addition, FYCOMPA® was classified as a Class III controlled substance prior to its approval due to evidence of prolonged use creating a physical dependence in some patients and the possibility of abuse.

Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a long-term (chronic) disease that causes repeated seizures due to abnormal electrical signals produced by damaged brain cells. A burst of uncontrolled electrical activity within brain cells causes a seizure. Epilepsy is generally diagnosed after an individual suffers two seizures within a 24-hour period. Generally, cells in the brain send messages to and receive messages from all areas of the body. These messages are transmitted via a continuous electrical impulse that travels from cell to cell. Epilepsy disrupts this rhythmic electrical impulse pattern. Instead, there are bursts of electrical energy — like an unpredictable lightning storm — between cells in one or more areas of your brain. This electrical disruption causes changes in awareness (including loss of consciousness), sensations, emotions and muscle movements. In the U.S., about 3.4 million people have epilepsy. Of this number, approximately 3 million are adults and 470,000 are children. There are approximately 150,000 new cases of epilepsy in the U.S. each year. Worldwide, about 65 million people have epilepsy.

Epileptic seizures (defined by two or more unprovoked seizures separated by more than 24 hours, or one unprovoked seizure with high probability of an additional seizure in the next 10 years, or as better defined by an epileptic syndrome) are separated into two broad categories: partial-onset seizures (POS) and generalized seizures, which affect one or both hemispheres of the brain, respectively. While many risk factors (e.g., infection, genetics, prenatal injury, or structural or metabolic abnormalities) have been elucidated, more than half of all cases of epilepsy are due to unknown causes. Regardless of the causative factor, epileptic seizures result from a persistent and uncontrolled increase in hypersynchronous neuronal excitability implicating various receptors (e.g., sodium, calcium, potassium, gamma-aminobutyric acid, or glutamate) involved in normal neurotransmission. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) target the various receptors to reduce neuronal excitability and control seizures, thus reducing the risk of seizure-related injuries and death. Although monotherapy is ideal for treating epileptic seizures, only about 49% of patients achieve seizure freedom while using their first appropriately selected AED. Subsequently, 62% to 66% of patients might only be able to achieve seizure freedom with a second or third appropriately selected AED, respectively, leaving up to one-third of patients with inadequate control of their seizures. In addition, patients may have a higher risk of

toxicity if AEDs with similar mechanisms of action are used concomitantly. In the last two decades, the number of agents commercially available in the armamentarium against epilepsy has risen fourfold, few with a novel mechanism of action like FYCOMPA®.

Access to FYCOMPA®

Despite the loss of patent exclusivity for FYCOMPA®, we continue to sell both FYCOMPA® tablets and the FYCOMPA® oral suspension version of the product, although we ceased marketing efforts for this product effective December 31, 2025.

Acquisition of U.S. rights to FYCOMPA®

On December 17, 2022, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Eisai, pursuant to which we acquired the U.S. rights to FYCOMPA®. Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement entered into with Eisai for FYCOMPA®, we purchased Eisai’s regulatory approvals and documentation, product records, intellectual property, inventory, and other matters relating to the U.S. rights for FYCOMPA®, in exchange for an up-front cash payment of $160 million; and royalty payments on net sales post-expiration of the patents for FYCOMPA®, which royalty payments will be reduced upon generic equivalents to FYCOMPA® entering the market. Finally, we have agreed to pay Eisai an additional cash payment of $25 million if a patent extension for FYCOMPA® was approved by the USPTO (which did not occur).

In conjunction with the Asset Purchase Agreement, at the closing of our purchase on January 24, 2023 we entered into two additional agreements with Eisai:

These additional agreements became effective upon the closing of the transaction with Eisai on January 24, 2023. The transition services under the Transition Services Agreement ended on December 31, 2023.

Clinical Trials Supporting FYCOMPA®

Partial Onset Seizures

The efficacy of FYCOMPA® in partial-onset seizures, with or without secondary generalization, was studied in patients who were not adequately controlled with 1 to 3 concomitant AEDs in 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials (Studies 1, 2, and 3) in adult and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older). All trials had an initial 6-week Baseline Period, during which patients were required to have more than five seizures in order to be randomized. The Baseline Period was followed by a 19-week Treatment Period consisting of a 6-week Titration Phase and a 13-week Maintenance Phase. Patients in these 3 trials had a mean duration of epilepsy of approximately 21 years and a median baseline seizure frequency ranging from 9 to 14 seizures per 28 days. During the trials, more than 85% of patients were taking 2 to 3 concomitant AEDs with or without concurrent vagal nerve stimulation, and approximately 50% were on at least one AED known to induce CYP3A4, an enzyme critical to the metabolism of FYCOMPA® (i.e., carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or phenytoin), resulting in a significant reduction in FYCOMPA®’s serum concentration.

Each study evaluated placebo and multiple FYCOMPA® dosages. During the Titration period in all 3 trials, patients on FYCOMPA® received an initial 2 mg once daily dose, which was subsequently increased in weekly increments of 2 mg per day to the final dose. Patients experiencing intolerable adverse reactions were permitted to have their dose reduced to the previously tolerated dose.

The primary endpoint in Studies 1, 2, and 3 was the percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days during the Treatment Period as compared to the Baseline Period. The criterion for statistical significance was p<0.05. A statistically significant decrease in seizure rate was observed at doses of 4 to 12 mg per day. Dose response was apparent at 4 to 8 mg with little additional reduction in frequency at 12 mg per day.

Primary Generalized Tonic-Clonic Seizures

The efficacy of FYCOMPA® as adjunctive therapy in patients 12 years of age and older with idiopathic generalized epilepsy experiencing primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures was established in one multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (Study 4), conducted at 78 sites in 16 countries. Eligible patients on a stable dose of 1 to 3 AEDs experiencing at least 3 primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures during the 8-week baseline period were randomized to either FYCOMPA® or placebo. Efficacy was analyzed in 162 patients (FYCOMPA® N=81, placebo N=81) who received medication and at least one post-treatment seizure assessment. Patients were titrated over 4 weeks up to a dose of 8 mg per day or the highest tolerated

dose and treated for an additional 13 weeks on the last dose level achieved at the end of the titration period. The total treatment period was 17 weeks. Study drug was given once per day.

The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in primary generalized tonic-clonic seizure frequency per 28 days during the treatment period as compared to the baseline period. The criterion for statistical significance was p<0.05. A statistically significant decrease in seizure rate was observed with FYCOMPA® compared to placebo.

Intellectual Property Protections for FYCOMPA®

Patent protection for FYCOMPA® is primarily from two patents listed in the Orange Book. The first, U.S. patent no. 6,949,571 (the '571 patent) expired on May 23, 2025. The second FYCOMPA® patent in the Orange Book is U.S. Patent No. 8,772,497 (the '497 patent), which expires on July 1, 2026.

Expiration of Patent Protection for FYCOMPA®

Following the expiration of the '571 patent and the '497 patent, three generic versions of the tablets and one generic version of the oral suspension have come onto the market.

Manufacturing and Supply

We are licensed in Florida as a virtual drug manufacturer, which means that we have no in-house manufacturing capacity and we are obligated to rely on contract manufacturers and packagers. We have no plans to build or acquire the manufacturing capability needed to manufacture any of our research materials or commercial products, and we expect that our drug products and drug substances will be prepared by contractors with suitable capabilities for these tasks and that we will enter into appropriate supply agreements with these contractors at appropriate times in the development and commercialization of our products. Because we will use contractors to manufacture and supply our products, we will be reliant on such contractors. Further, the contractors selected would have to be inspected by the FDA and found to be in substantial compliance with federal regulations in order for an application for one of our drug candidates to be approved, and there can be no assurance that the contractors we select would pass such an inspection.

FIRDAPSE®

We have entered into agreements with a supplier of the API contained in FIRDAPSE® for future requirements and we have contracted with third-party contract manufacturers who are manufacturing FIRDAPSE® tablets for us.

AGAMREE®

Under our License and Collaboration Agreement with Santhera, we are currently purchasing supplies of AGAMREE® from Santhera while we take the steps to add additional outside, third-party manufacturers for the manufacture and supply of AGAMREE®. In that regard, we expect to have an additional third-party manufacturer for the manufacture and supply of AGAMREE® before the end of 2026.

FYCOMPA®

Under our Supply Agreement with Eisai, Eisai has agreed to manufacture and supply to us finished bulk FYCOMPA® tablets for us for a seven-year period that will run through at least the end of 2029. In addition, Eisai has assigned to us third-party manufacturing contracts related to final packaging of bulk FYCOMPA® tablets and also the manufacture of the oral solution formulation.

Manufacturing Changes

Any significant change that we make for any of our drug products must be approved by the FDA in an sNDA. If the manufacturing plan and data are insufficient, any sNDA we submit will not be approved. Before an sNDA can be approved, our manufacturers must also demonstrate compliance with FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations and policies. Further, even if we receive approval of any sNDAs for our drug product(s), if our manufacturers do not follow cGMPs in the manufacture of our products, it may delay product launches or shipments and adversely affect our business.

Since we contract with third parties to manufacture our products, our contract manufacturers are required to comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations that affect the manufacturing process. As a result, we do not believe that we will have any significant direct exposure to environmental issues.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive, and any product candidate developed or licensed by us would likely compete with currently marketed and potentially new drugs and therapies even though they are not indicated for these conditions. We also may face generic competition upon the loss of exclusivity and/or patent protection for our products. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities, government agencies and

research organizations that compete with us in developing various approaches to the treatment of orphan diseases. Many of these organizations have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing and manufacturing resources than we have.

FIRDAPSE®

Before the approval of FIRDAPSE®, LEMS was generally treated with unapproved drugs and therapies including steroids, azathioprine, other immunosuppressants and intravenous immunoglobulin, which work by suppressing the immune system, and pyridostigmine. Plasma exchange has also been used in an attempt to remove antibodies from the body. Further, one other product, guanidine HCl tablets, was approved many years ago (during a period when drugs were not required to be reviewed by the FDA for both safety and effectiveness) for use in the treatment of LEMS. However, this drug has significant side effects and is not currently believed to be an effective treatment for LEMS. Notwithstanding, drugs may be prescribed by physicians for the treatment of LEMS whether or not they are considered effective.

Finally, we are aware that amifampridine has been available in the past from compounding pharmacies and may remain available, even though FIRDAPSE® has been approved and is commercially marketed in the U.S.

AGAMREE®

The market for DMD treatment is highly competitive, with multiple lines of treatment and medications, both name brand and generic. The first-line treatment has long been and continues to be corticosteroids. On February 9, 2017, the FDA approved Emflaza (deflazacort), a corticosteroid marketed by PTC Therapeutics for the treatment of DMD in patients five years old and older. In March 2024, the FDA approved Duvyzat (Givinostat), a non-steroidal first-in-class medication intended for people six years of age and older. The product works by inhibiting histone deacetylase enzymes to reduce inflammation and slow muscle damage. Finally, a gene-therapy treatment, Elevidys, was approved in 2023 for the treatment of ambulatory DMD patients between the ages of four and five, with the exceptions of patients with specific deletions in exon eight or exon nine of the DMD gene.

After the submission of additional study data in June 2024, Sarepta received an expanded label for treatment of all DMD patients over the age four. After the evaluation of a number of safety reports of patients on Elevidys, the FDA announced a restriction of the label, in July 2025, to treatment of only ambulatory patients with DMD. On January 26, 2026, Sarepta announced positive results from a three-year global, randomized placebo-controlled Phase 3 study evaluating Elevidys in ambulatory individuals with DMD ages 4 to 7 (averaging nine years of age at the time of last assessment). Since the drug was only evaluated with co-treatment with prednisone as an immunosuppressant, we expect that DMD patients transitioning to Elevidys may (in the short-term) delay initiating use of AGAMREE® while waiting for access to such gene therapy or stop their AGAMREE® therapy during the course of their gene therapy treatment.

In addition, there are other companies which have announced plans for pre-clinical candidates and clinical development for the treatment of DMD, including gene transfer and/or gene editing therapies.

We believe that patients are likely to return to a differentiated steroid like AGAMREE® post the immunosuppression period due to its potential superior clinical profile. Additionally, we believe that in the long-term, corticosteroids like AGAMREE®, will continue to be the foundational therapy for the treatment of DMD. However, there can be no assurance that new therapies approved in the future for the treatment of DMD will require the use of steroids after administration of such new therapies.

FYCOMPA®

FYCOMPA® is the first and only AED that targets a specific receptor in the brain called “AMPA”. The receptor plays a role in allowing seizures to occur. Seizures have historically been treated with benzodiazepines such as clonazepam (Klonopin) and lorazepam (Ativan), GABA inhibitors such as gabapentin (Neurontin), phenobarbital (Luminal), and pregabalin (Lyrica), and sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine (Tegretol) and lacosamide (Vimpat). Additionally, surgical options such as deep brain stimulation have been used in patients who have failed polypharmacy. Finally, there are multiple compounds that have been recently approved or are in late-stage development for focal epilepsy.

One or more generic manufacturers have approved ANDAs for FYCOMPA® and several are currently marketing their own generic versions of the product.

Factors affecting competition generally

In general, our ability to compete depends in large part upon:

Business Development

We are continuing to work to broaden and diversify our product portfolio through acquisitions of early and/or late-stage products or companies or technology platforms in rare disease therapeutic categories. To accomplish these priorities, we are continuing to employ a disciplined approach to evaluating assets, and we believe that this strategic expansion will better position our company long-term to build out a broader more diversified portfolio of drug candidates (which should add greater value to our company over the near and long-term). In that regard, we are currently exploring several additional potential opportunities to acquire companies with commercial drug products and/or drug products in development or to in-license or acquire commercialized drug products or drug products in development. However, other than the recent License Agreement with KYE for AGAMREE®, no additional definitive agreements have been entered into to date and there can be no assurance that our efforts to continue to broaden and diversify our product portfolio will be successful.

Regulatory Matters

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, record-keeping, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. Our drugs must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before they may be legally marketed in the U.S.

In the U.S., drugs are subject to rigorous regulation by the FDA under the FDCA and implementing regulations, as well as other federal and state statutes. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process, or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following: completion of pre-clinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies according to the FDA’s good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations:

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and the receipt and timing of any approval is uncertain.

U.S. Drug Development Process

Once a pharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the pre-clinical testing stage. Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. Prior to beginning human clinical trials, an IND sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. The IND sponsor must submit the results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some pre-clinical or non-clinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the pre-clinical studies, the IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the trial lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30–day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trial. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may, at any time, impose a clinical hold on ongoing clinical trials. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, clinical trials cannot commence or recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with federal regulations and GCP.

Clinical trials must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol before any clinical trial commences at that institution. All research subjects must provide informed consent, and informed consent information must be submitted to the IRB for approval prior to initiation of the trial. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if adverse events or other certain types of other changes occur.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three phases. A fourth, or post-approval, phase may include additional clinical studies. These phases generally include the following, and may be sequential, or may overlap or be combined:

While Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 tests are generally required for approval of an NDA, certain drugs may not require one or more steps in the process depending on other testing and the situation involved. Additionally, the FDA, an IRB, or the sponsor may stop testing at any time if results show patients being exposed to unnecessary health risks or overly dangerous side effects.

In addition, the manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access to such investigational drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches

of the drug candidate and, among other requirements, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

FDA approval of an NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of product development, pre-clinical studies and clinical studies, together with other detailed information, including information on the chemistry, manufacture and composition of the product. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of the NDA to review the application to ensure that it is sufficiently complete for substantive review before filing it. The FDA may request additional information rather than file an NDA. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA files it. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The submission of an NDA is also subject to the payment of a substantial application fee (for FDA fiscal year 2026 this fee is $4,682,003), although a waiver of such fee may be obtained under certain limited circumstances, including when the drug that is subject of the application has received Orphan Drug Designation for the indication sought. Further, the sponsor of an approved NDA is subject to an annual program fee, which for FDA fiscal year 2026 is $442,213 per prescription drug product. User fees typically increase annually. The approval process is lengthy and difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured to determine whether its manufacturing is cGMP–compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, purity and stability.

If the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA submission or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will issue a complete response letter. The complete response letter outlines the deficiencies in the submission and often requires additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. Even after submitting this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. With limited exceptions, the FDA may withhold approval of an NDA regardless of prior advice it may have provided or commitments it may have made to the sponsor.

Once an NDA is approved, changes to the conditions of approval, including additional indications, are made by the submission of a supplement to the NDA. The sNDA must contain all of the information necessary to support the change. In the case of a new indication, that information usually consists of at least one clinical trial, and often more. Like an NDA, FDA determines whether the sNDA is sufficiently complete to permit review before it files the sNDA. FDA then reviews the sNDA. Like an NDA, FDA can either approve the sNDA or issue a complete response letter outlining the deficiencies in the sNDA.

Post-approval requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and other Elements To Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug.

Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or sNDA before the change can be implemented. An sNDA for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control as well as drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state

agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

Controlled Substance Regulations

A drug product approved by FDA may be subject to scheduling as a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) depending on the drug’s potential for abuse. Controlled substances that are pharmaceutical products are subject to a high degree of regulation under the CSA, which establishes, among other things, certain registration, manufacturing quotas, security, recordkeeping, reporting, import, export and other requirements administered by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA classifies controlled substances into five schedules. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently “accepted medical use” in the U.S., lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and may not be prescribed, marketed or sold in the U.S. Pharmaceutical products approved for use in the U.S. may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest potential for abuse or dependence and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse. FYCOMPA® is a Schedule III drug (DEA Controlled Substance Code 2261), which means that the DEA has determined that (i) it has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II, (ii) it has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S., and (iii) abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Schedule III drugs are subject to certain DEA import volume limits and state regulations relating to manufacturing, storage, distribution and physician prescription procedures, including limitations on prescription refills. In addition, the third parties who perform our clinical and commercial manufacturing, distribution, and dispensing for FYCOMPA® are required to maintain necessary DEA registrations and state licenses. The DEA periodically inspects facilities for compliance with its rules and regulations.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims covering the applicant’s product or approved methods of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug are then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity (NCE), which is a drug product that contains an active moiety that has never been approved by FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which FDA cannot receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. A drug may obtain a three-year period of exclusivity for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for the previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. During this period of exclusivity, FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change.

An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there cannot be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA can be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

Most drug products obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA or an ANDA. A third alternative is a special type of NDA, commonly referred to as a Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2), NDA, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on FDA’s previous approval of a similar product, or published literature, in support of its application.

505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness or published literature is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain pre-clinical or clinical studies of the new product.

The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted on previously approved drug product, the Section 505(b)(2) applicant must submit patent certifications with respect to any patents for the approved product on which the application relies that are listed in the FDA’s publication, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify for each listed patent that either: (1) the required patent information has not been filed; or (2) the listed patent has expired; or (3) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date, and approval is not sought until after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the proposed new product. A certification that the new product will not infringe the previously approved product’s listed patent or that such patent is invalid or unenforceable is known as a Paragraph IV certification.

If the applicant does not challenge one or more listed patents through a Paragraph IV certification, the FDA will not approve the Section 505(b)(2) NDA application until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. Further, the FDA also will not approve, as applicable, a Section 505(b)(2) NDA application until any non-patent exclusivity has expired, for example: five-year exclusivity period for obtaining approval of an NCE; or three-year exclusivity period for an approval based on new clinical trials; or pediatric exclusivity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product.

A section 505(b)(2) NDA applicant must send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the owner of the referenced NDA for the previously approved product and relevant patent holders within 20 days after the Section 505(b)(2) NDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. If the relevant patent holder elects to initiate litigation, the Section 505(b)(2) applicant may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of its product, only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before its product may be commercialized. Alternatively, if the NDA applicant or relevant patent holder does not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the specified 45-day period, the FDA may approve the Section 505(b)(2) application at any time.

ANDAs

Generic drugs may enter the market after the approval of an ANDA. The ANDA development process typically does not require new pre-clinical or clinical studies, but it does typically require one or more bioequivalence studies to show that the ANDA drug is bioequivalent to the previously approved brand name reference listed drug. Bioequivalence studies compare the bioavailability of the proposed drug product with that of the approved listed product containing the same active ingredient. Bioavailability is a measure of the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety is absorbed from a drug product and becomes available at the site of action. A demonstration of bioequivalence means that the rate and extent of

absorption of the ANDA drug is not significantly different from the rate and extent of absorption of the brand name reference listed drug when administered at the same molar dose under similar experimental conditions.

As noted above, generic drug products are generally introduced to the marketplace at the expiration of patent protection and non-patent market exclusivity for the reference listed drug. However, if an ANDA applicant is the first ANDA applicant to submit an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV certification, that ANDA may be eligible for a period of generic marketing exclusivity on approval. This exclusivity, which under certain circumstances must be shared with other ANDA applicants with Paragraph IV certifications, lasts for 180 days, during which the FDA cannot grant final approval to other ANDA sponsors of an application for a generic equivalent to the same reference drug. Under certain circumstances, eligibility for 180-day exclusivity may be forfeited.

Various types of changes to an approved ANDA must be requested in a prior approval supplement. In addition, some changes may only be approved after new bioequivalence studies are conducted or other requirements are satisfied. In addition, the ANDA applicant must demonstrate that manufacturing procedures and operations conform to FDA cGMP requirements. Facilities, procedures, operations, and/or testing of products are subject to periodic inspection by the FDA and other authorities. In addition, the FDA conducts pre-approval and post-approval reviews and inspections to determine whether the systems and processes are in compliance with cGMP and other FDA regulations.

There are also user fees for ANDA applicants, sponsors, and manufacturers. For fiscal year 2026, the application fees are $358,247 per ANDA application and the facility fees are $238,943 per domestic finished dosage form facility, $253,943 per foreign finished dosage form facility, $43,549 per domestic API facility, and $58,549 per foreign API facility. In addition, there is a new annual program fee based on the size of the generic drug applicant. These user fees typically increase each fiscal year.

National Priority Vouchers

In June 2025, the FDA announced the creation of Commissioner's National Priority Voucher, a pilot program designed to accelerate the review of products with the potential to address one or more of what it refers to as "key national priorities": addressing a U.S. public health crisis, delivering more innovative cures for the American people, addressing a large unmet medical need, promoting domestic drug development and manufacturing to advance the health interests of Americans and strengthen U.S. supply chain resiliencies, and increasing the accessibility and affordability of drugs and biologics. Voucher recipients receive enhanced communications with review staff throughout the development process, and review decisions are targeted for completion within 1-2 months following submission of an application. The first vouchers were awarded in December 2025.

Other Regulatory Requirements

In addition to regulation by the FDA and certain state regulatory agencies, we are also subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and the marketing of other products. Outside of the U.S., our ability to market a product depends upon receiving a marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory agencies. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, marketing authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. In any country, however, we will only be permitted to commercialize our products if the appropriate regulatory agency is satisfied that we have presented adequate evidence of safety, quality and efficacy. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries must be obtained prior to the commencement of marketing of the product in those countries. The regulatory approval and oversight process in other countries includes all of the risks associated with regulation by the FDA and certain state regulatory agencies as described above.

Under the European Union regulatory system, applications for drug approval may be submitted either in a centralized or decentralized manner. Under the centralized procedure, a single application to the European Medicines Agency leads to an approval granted by the European Commission which permits marketing of the product throughout the European Union. The decentralized procedure provides for mutual recognition of nationally approved decisions and is used for products that do not comply with requirements for the centralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure, the holders of national marketing authorization in one of the countries within the European Union may submit further applications to other countries within the European Union, who will be requested to recognize the original authorization based on an assessment report provided by the country in which marketing authorization is held.

Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement

In both the U.S. and foreign markets, our ability to commercialize our products successfully, and to attract commercialization partners for our products, depends in significant part on the availability of adequate financial coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including, in the U.S., governmental payors such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care organizations, private commercial health insurers and PBMs. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medicines and examining their cost effectiveness, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic or other studies in order to further demonstrate the value of our products. Even with the availability of such

studies, our products may be considered less safe, less effective or less cost-effective than alternative products, and third-party payors may not provide coverage and reimbursement for our drug candidates, in whole or in part.

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the health care industry in the U.S. to fundamental changes. There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could significantly affect our business, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the Affordable Care Act), the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and Most Favored Nation (MFN) pricing.

We anticipate that in the U.S., Congress, state legislatures, and private sector entities will continue to consider and may adopt healthcare policies intended to curb rising healthcare costs. These cost-containment measures could include:

We are unable to predict what additional legislation, regulations or policies, if any, relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future or what effect such legislation, regulations or policies would have on our business. Any cost containment measures, including those listed above, or other healthcare system reforms that are adopted may have a material adverse effect on our business prospects.

Further, the pricing of pharmaceutical products generally, and particularly the pricing of orphan drugs, has received scrutiny from the press, and from members of Congress in both parties. Some members of the medical community and some politicians have also made statements in the press on the potential pricing of orphan drugs generally and on the pricing of our product specifically. The impact of this scrutiny on us and on the pricing of orphan drugs and other pharmaceutical products generally cannot be determined at this time.

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend in significant part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement by third-party payors, such as state and federal governments, including Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private commercial insurance plans and pharmacy benefit management (PBM) plans. There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform or consistent policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor as well as from state to state. Consequently, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that must be played out across many jurisdictions and different entities. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Particularly given the rarity of LEMS and DMD, our experience has been that securing coverage and appropriate reimbursement from third-party payors requires targeted education and highly skilled insurance navigation experts that have experience with rare disease launches and medical exception processes at insurance companies to provide patient coverage for important rare disease therapies. To that end, we have engaged a dedicated team of field-based market access account managers and reimbursement experts as well as a patient service center staffed with experienced personnel focused on ensuring that clinically-qualified patients have access to our products.

There can be no assurance, however, as to whether payors will continue to cover our products, and if so, at what level of reimbursement. In that regard, we have advised payors that we will provide free medication to support titration and confirm patient therapeutic benefit. Further, when necessary and in compliance with applicable laws, we provide patients with access to therapy at no charge while those patients are awaiting coverage decisions.

Orphan Drug Exclusivity

Some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (ODA), the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the U.S. a drug for this

type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the U.S. for that drug. In the U.S., Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. An Orphan Drug Designation does not shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. The grant of an Orphan Drug Designation request does not alter the standard regulatory requirements and process for obtaining marketing approval. Safety and efficacy of a compound must be established through adequate and well-controlled studies. If a product which has been granted Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication or use for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to an orphan drug exclusivity period, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication or use for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as where an alternative product demonstrates clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. In addition, holders of exclusivity for orphan drugs are expected to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of their orphan drugs to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in the withdrawal of marketing exclusivity for the drug.

The orphan drug exclusivity contained in the ODA has been the subject of recent scrutiny from the press, from some members of Congress and from some in the medical community. There can be no assurance that the exclusivity granted in the ODA to orphan drugs approved by the FDA will not be modified in the future, and as to how any such change might affect our products, if approved.

The European Orphan Drug Regulation is considered for drugs intended to diagnose, prevent or treat a life-threatening or very serious condition afflicting five or fewer per 10,000 people in the EU, including compounds that for serious and chronic conditions would likely not be marketed without incentives due to low market return on the sponsor’s development investment. The medicinal product considered should be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. Benefits of being granted Orphan Medicinal Product Designation are significant, including eight years of data exclusivity, two years of marketing exclusivity and a potential one-year extension of both. The EU Community and Member States may not accept or grant for ten years a new marketing authorization or application for another drug for the same therapeutic indication as the orphan drug, although the ten-year period can be reduced to six years if, after the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of the marketing exclusivity. A supplementary protection certificate may extend the protection six months beyond patent expiration if that is later than the orphan drug exclusivity period. To apply for the supplementary protection, a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, must be included in the market application. In Europe all drugs now seeking marketing authorization need to have a PIP agreed with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) before it can be approved, even if it is a drug being developed specifically for a pediatric indication. If a product is developed solely for use in the pediatric population, then a Pediatric Use Marketing Authorization, or PUMA, may provide eight years of data exclusivity and ten years of marketing exclusivity.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

Breakthrough therapy designation was introduced in an effort to encourage innovation and expedite the development and review of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. The criteria for breakthrough therapy designation are preliminary clinical evidence that demonstrates the drug may have substantial improvement on at least one clinically significant endpoint over available therapy. A breakthrough therapy designation conveys all of the fast-track program features (see below for more details on fast-track designation), as well as more intensive FDA guidance on an efficient drug development program. The FDA also has an organizational commitment to involve senior management in such guidance. Actions taken to expedite development may include the following actions, as appropriate holding meetings with the sponsor and review team throughout the development of the drug;

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

An NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug 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. Additionally, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States that provides for an additional six months of marketing protection to be added to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies and the applicant submitting reports to FDA for the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. 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. This is not a patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot accept or approve another application.

Fast-Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the fast-track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a fast-track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for fast-track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Under the fast-track program and FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, FDA may approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, will allow FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by FDA. The FDA is authorized to require a post-approval study to be underway prior to approval or within a specified time period following approval. The FDA is also required to specify conditions of any required post-approval study, which may include milestones such as a target date of study completion. Sponsors are required to submit progress reports for required post-approval studies and any conditions required by the FDA not later than 180 days following approval and not less frequently than every 180 days thereafter until completion or termination of the study. The FDA may initiate enforcement action for the failure to conduct with due diligence a required post-approval study, including a failure to meet any required conditions specified by the FDA or to submit timely reports.

In addition to other benefits such as the ability to use surrogate endpoints and engage in more frequent interactions with FDA, FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast-track drug’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, the fast-track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Priority Review

Under FDA policies, a drug candidate is eligible for priority review, or review within a six to eight-month time frame from the time a complete NDA is submitted, if the drug candidate is intended for the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious or life-threatening condition, demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need, or provides a significant improvement compared to marketed drugs.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the clinical trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of drug products, other state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. These laws include anti-kickback statutes and false claims statutes. The federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and patients, prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Violations of the anti-kickback statute are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, civil monetary penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor.

Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payer.

The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, certain types of advanced practice nurses, and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family, which includes annual data collection and reporting obligations. The information reported each year is made publicly available on a searchable website. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.

In addition, several states now require prescription drug companies to report expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products, to report gifts and payments to individual physicians in these states and to report certain pricing information, including price increases. Other states prohibit various other marketing-related activities. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. In addition, California, Connecticut, Nevada, and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. Several additional states are considering similar proposals. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time-consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws face civil penalties.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state and foreign regulations. In the U.S., the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA), a part of the FDCA. In addition, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), has imposed “track and trace” requirements on the distribution of prescription drug products by manufacturers, distributors, and other entities in the drug supply chain. The DSCSA requires product identifiers (i.e., serialization) on prescription drug products in order to eventually establish an electronic interoperable prescription product to system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the U.S. and preempts existing state drug pedigree laws and regulations on this topic. The DSCSA also establishes new requirements for the licensing of wholesale distributors and third-party logistic providers, although FDA regulations addressing wholesale distributors and third-party logistics providers have not yet been promulgated. We serialize our product at both the package and homogeneous case level, pass serialization and required transaction information to our customers, and believe that we comply with all such requirements.

Government Programs for Marketed Drugs

Medicaid, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and Medicare

Federal law requires that a pharmaceutical manufacturer, as a condition of having its products receive federal reimbursement under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, must pay rebates to state Medicaid programs for all units of its covered outpatient drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program under either a fee-for-service arrangement or through a managed care organization. This federal requirement is effectuated through a Medicaid drug rebate agreement between the manufacturer and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). CMS administers the Medicaid drug rebate agreements, which provide, among other things, that the drug manufacturer will pay rebates to each state Medicaid agency on a quarterly basis and report certain price information on a monthly and quarterly basis. The rebates are based on prices reported to CMS by manufacturers for their covered outpatient drugs and how the drugs are classified. For innovator products, that is, drugs that are marketed under approved NDAs, the basic rebate amount is generally the greater of 23.1% of the average manufacturer price (AMP) for the quarter or the difference between such AMP and the best price for that same quarter. The AMP is the weighted average of prices paid to the manufacturer (1) directly by retail community pharmacies and (2) by wholesalers for drugs distributed to retail community pharmacies. The best price is essentially the lowest price available to non-governmental entities. Innovator products are also subject to an additional inflation rebate that is based on the amount, if any, by which the product’s current AMP has increased over the baseline AMP, which is the AMP for the first full quarter after launch, adjusted for inflation. To date, the rebate amount for a drug has been capped at 100% of the AMP; however, effective January 1, 2024, this cap was eliminated, which means that a manufacturer could pay a rebate amount on a unit of the drug that is greater than the average price the manufacturer receives for the drug. For non-innovator products, generally generic drugs marketed under approved ANDAs, the basic rebate amount is 13% of the AMP for the quarter. Non-innovator products are also subject to an additional inflation rebate. The additional rebate is similar to that discussed above for innovator products, except that the baseline AMP quarter is the fifth full quarter after launch (for non-innovator multiple source drugs launched on April 1, 2013 or later) or the third quarter of 2014 (for those launched before April 1, 2013). The terms of participation in the Medicaid drug rebate program impose an obligation to correct the prices reported in previous quarters, as may be necessary. Any such corrections could result in additional or lesser rebate liability, depending on the direction of the correction. In addition to retroactive rebates, if a manufacturer were found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, federal law provides for civil monetary penalties for failing to provide required information, late submission of required information, and false information. CMS may also impose penalties against a manufacturer that is notified by CMS about a “misclassification,” defined as an incorrectly reported drug attribute (for example, an erroneous classification of non-innovator rather than innovator), and fails to correct the error within 30 days. In September 2024, CMS issued a final rule that, among other changes, more expansively defined “misclassification” to include not only misclassifying the drug category but also other drug product information. A misclassification can occur even if it was not a knowing error. A manufacturer that fails to correct the misclassification faces a CMP of 23.1% of the AMP of the drug multiplied by the number of misclassified units paid for under Medicaid. Other penalties include suspension of a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate agreement if a manufacturer fails to submit the required pricing reports or fails to correct a misclassification within 90 calendar days after receiving notice from CMS.

A manufacturer must also participate in a federal program known as the 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available to pay for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Under this program, the participating manufacturer agrees to charge certain federally funded clinics and safety net hospitals no more than an established discounted price for its covered outpatient drugs. The formula for determining the discounted price is defined by statute and is based on the AMP and the unit rebate amount as calculated under the Medicaid drug rebate program, discussed above. Manufacturers are required to report pricing information to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) on a quarterly basis. HRSA has also issued regulations relating to the calculation of the ceiling price as well as imposition of civil monetary penalties for each instance of knowingly and intentionally overcharging a 340B covered entity.

Federal law also requires that manufacturers report data on a quarterly basis to CMS regarding the pricing of drugs that are separately reimbursable under Medicare Part B. These are generally drugs, such as injectable products, that are administered “incident to” a physician service and are not generally self-administered. The pricing information submitted by manufacturers is the basis for reimbursement to physicians and hospital outpatient departments for drugs covered under Medicare Part B. Under the IRA, manufacturers are also required to provide quarterly rebates for certain single-source drugs and biologics (including biosimilars) covered under Medicare Part B with prices that increase faster than the rate of inflation, and in November 2024, CMS finalized regulations pertaining to the Medicare Part B inflation rebates. As with the Medicaid drug rebate program, federal law provides for civil monetary penalties for failing to provide required information, late submission of required information, and false information.

Medicare Part D provides prescription drug benefits for individuals at least 65 years of age and certain people with disabilities. Enrollees in Part D plans, after they meet a deductible, pay a co-insurance of 25% until they reach the out-of-pocket limit, after which they have no co-insurance. The out-of-pocket limit is $2,100 in 2026 and is to be adjusted for inflation thereafter. Each

manufacturer of a drug approved under an NDA. in order for the drugs to be reimbursed by Medicare Part D, is required to enter into a manufacturer discount agreement with HHS and provide a discount on those drugs dispensed to Medicare enrollees. The discount is 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs above the deductible and below the out-of-pocket limit, and 20% once the out-of-pocket limit has been reached. The IRA also requires manufacturers to provide annual Medicare Part D rebates for single-source drugs and biological products with prices that increase faster than the rate of inflation, and in November 2024, CMS finalized regulations pertaining to Medicare Part D inflation rebates.

The IRA also requires HHS to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D. The negotiated price may not exceed a statutory ceiling price. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) are eligible to be selected by CMS for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D products in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each product has been announced. In addition, CMS has selected and announced the negotiated maximum fair price for 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs in 2027. For 2028, CMS selected an additional 15 drugs, comprised of drugs covered under Medicare Part D and, for the first time, drugs payable under Medicare Part B For 2029 and subsequent years, 20 Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. Currently, a drug or biological product that has an orphan drug designation for only one rare disease or condition will be excluded from the IRA’s price negotiation requirements, but loses that exclusion if it has designations for more than one rare disease or condition, or if is approved for an indication that is not within that single designated rare disease or condition, unless such additional designation or such disqualifying approvals are withdrawn by the time CMS evaluates the drug for selection for negotiation. However, as a result of a statutory amendment enacted in July 2025, beginning with the 2028 negotiated price applicability year, a drug may be designated for more than one rare disease or condition and still be excluded from price negotiation, as long as the only approved indications are for such rare diseases or conditions.

In late 2025, CMS introduced three models for rebates and negotiations with drug manufacturers. First, in November 2025, CMS introduced the GENEROUS (Generating Cost Reduction for U.S. Medicaid) Model, a voluntary program using supplemental rebates tied to an MFN net price benchmark, allowing Medicaid to obtain drugs priced in line with what is paid in economically comparable countries. Later, in December 2025, CMS released information about proposed rulemaking for the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) model and the Guarding US Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) model. These two mandatory Medicare demonstration pricing models are aimed at testing alternative calculations for manufacturer rebates to bring prices in line with drug pricing in other jurisdictions. The GLOBE model, if enacted, would assess a rebate for certain drugs payable under Medicare Part B if those prices exceed those paid in economically comparable countries, while the GUARD model would similarly assess a rebate for certain drugs payable under Medicare Part D. All of these models are designed to incentivize price concessions, rebate negotiations, and marketing changes for drug manufacturers to maintain access to US markets.

Federal Contracting/Pricing Requirements

Manufacturers are also required to make their covered drugs, which are generally drugs approved under NDAs, available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), which is administered by the VA. The law also requires manufacturers to offer deeply discounted FSS contract pricing for purchases of their covered drugs by the VA, the DoD, the Coast Guard, and the Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service) in order for the manufacturer’s covered drugs to be eligible for purchase by these agencies and also in order for federal funding to be available for reimbursement of the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. FSS pricing to those four federal agencies for covered drugs must be no more than the Federal Ceiling Price (FCP), which is at least 24% below the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (Non-FAMP) for the prior government fiscal year. The Non-FAMP is the average price for covered drugs sold to wholesalers or other middlemen, net of any price reductions.

The accuracy of a manufacturer’s reported Non-FAMPs, FCPs, or FSS contract prices may be audited by the government. Among the remedies available to the government for inaccuracies is recoupment of any overcharges to the four specified federal agencies based on those inaccuracies. If a manufacturer were found to have knowingly reported false prices, in addition to other penalties available to the government, the law provides for civil monetary penalties of $100,000 per incorrect item.

Finally, manufacturers are required to disclose in FSS contract proposals all commercial pricing that is equal to or less than the proposed FSS pricing, and subsequent to award of an FSS contract, manufacturers are required to monitor certain commercial price reductions and extend commensurate price reductions to the government, under the terms of the FSS contract Price Reductions Clause. Among the remedies available to the government for any failure to properly disclose commercial pricing and/or to extend FSS contract price reductions is recoupment of any FSS overcharges that may result from such omissions, and civil penalties under the Federal False Claims Act if such failures are known.

TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Network Program

The DoD provides outpatient pharmacy benefits to current and retired military service members and their families through the TRICARE healthcare program. When a TRICARE beneficiary obtains a prescription drug through a retail pharmacy, the DoD (through its contractor) reimburses the pharmacy at the retail price for the drug rather than procuring it from the manufacturer at the discounted FCP discussed above. In order for the DoD to realize discounted prices for covered drugs (generally drugs approved under NDAs or BLAs), federal law requires manufacturers to pay refunds on utilization of their covered drugs dispensed to TRICARE beneficiaries through retail pharmacies in DoD’s TRICARE network. These refunds are generally the difference between the Non-FAMP and the FCP and are due on a quarterly basis. Absent an agreement from the manufacturer to provide such refunds, DoD will designate the manufacturer’s products as Tier 3 (non-formulary) and require that beneficiaries obtain prior authorization in order for the products to be dispensed at a TRICARE retail network pharmacy. However, refunds are due whether or not the manufacturer has entered into such an agreement.

Branded Pharmaceutical Fee

A branded pharmaceutical fee is imposed on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs, generally drugs approved under NDAs. In each year between 2011 and 2018, the aggregate fee for all such manufacturers ranged from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion, and has remained at $2.8 billion since 2019. This annual fee is apportioned among the participating companies based on each company’s sales of qualifying products to or utilization by certain U.S. government programs during the preceding calendar year. The fee is not deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Utilization of generic drugs, generally drugs approved under ANDAs, is not included in a manufacturer’s sales used to calculate its portion of the fee. Further, orphan drugs with only one indication are generally exempt from this fee.

Human Capital Management

We are dedicated to making a meaningful impact on the lives of those suffering from rare diseases, and we believe in putting patients first in everything we do. To facilitate talent attraction and retention, we strive to make Catalyst an inclusive, safe, and healthy workplace, with opportunities to grow and develop in their careers, supported by strong compensation, benefits, health and welfare programs. Our goal in selecting employees is to retain high quality personnel with substantial prior experience who understand and support our mission as a company to develop and commercialize innovative therapies for people with rare, debilitating, chronic neuromuscular and neurological diseases and who are willing to work hard and in a collaborative manner to further that mission.

Employee Profile

As of February 23, 2026, we had 182 employees, 128 of whom are in our commercial organization, 8 of whom are in our R&D organization, and the rest of whom are in our G&A organization. We also utilize the services of several consultants. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe our relationship with our employees and consultants is good.

Compensation and Benefits

Our compensation philosophy is to provide pay and benefits that are competitive in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry where we compete for talent. We monitor our compensation programs closely and review them at least annually to provide what we consider to be a very competitive mix of compensation and health, welfare and retirement benefits for all our employees. Our compensation package includes market-competitive base salaries, annual performance bonuses and stock option grants. Our benefits programs include company sponsored medical, dental and vision health care coverage, life and AD&D insurance, and a 401(k) plan with a matching employer contribution, among others benefits.

Our Workforce Goals

We believe a diverse workforce is critical to our success and we are fundamentally committed to creating and maintaining a work environment in which employees are treated fairly, with dignity, decency, respect and in accordance with all applicable laws. We strive to create a professional work environment that is free from all forms of harassment, discrimination and bullying in the workplace, including sexual harassment and any form of retaliation. We are an equal opportunity employer and we strive to administer all human resources actions and policies without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or expression, past or present military or veteran status, marital status, familial status, or any other status protected by applicable law. Our management team and employees are expected to exhibit and promote honest, ethical, and respectful conduct in the workplace. All employees must adhere to a code of business conduct and ethics and our employee handbook, which combined, define standards for appropriate behavior and are annually trained to help prevent, identify, report, and stop any type of discrimination and harassment. Our recruitment, hiring, development, training, compensation, and advancement is based on qualifications, performance, skills, and experience without regard to gender, race, or ethnicity.

Communication and Engagement

We focus on engagement with our employees as we believe an engaged workforce is key to our success and to the success and wellbeing of our employees. In addition, we are always looking for new and different ways to engage our staff further as a team and individually.

Health, Wellness and Safety

The health, safety, and wellness of our employees is a priority in which we have always invested and will continue to do so. We provide our employees and their families with access to a variety of innovative, flexible, and convenient health and wellness programs. Program benefits are intended to provide protection and security, so employees can have peace of mind concerning events that may require time away from work or that may impact their financial well-being.

Company Culture

We are committed to instilling a company culture that is focused on empowerment, empathy, and passion. We expect our employees to observe the highest levels of business ethics, integrity, mutual respect, tolerance and inclusivity. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics sets forth policies reflecting these values and provide direction for registering complaints in the event of any violation of our policies. We maintain an “open door” policy at all levels of our organization and any form of retaliation against an employee is strictly prohibited.

Available Information

We make available free of charge on or through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Our Internet address is www.catalystpharma.com. The content on our website is not, nor should it be deemed to be, incorporated by reference into this report.

Risks Related to the Development of Additional Drug Products and Indications

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

There are also general risk factors relating to us that you should consider that relate to our business and to our common stock.

Risk Factors

Our business involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, and all of the other information contained in this Form 10-K in assessing the risks relating to ownership of our common stock. The risks described below could cause our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects to materially suffer and the market price of our stock to decline.

Risks Related to our Business and the Marketing of Approved Products

Our success depends on the successful commercialization of our products. To the extent that our drug products are not commercially successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially harmed.

We received approval for FIRDAPSE® for the treatment of LEMS from the FDA in November 2018; in January 2023, we completed our acquisition of FYCOMPA® for the treatment of (i) partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalized seizures in people with epilepsy four years of age and older, and (ii) for the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in people with epilepsy twelve years of age and older from Eisai; and in October 2023, we received approval for AGAMREE® for the treatment of DMD. We invest a significant amount of effort and financial resources in the commercialization of these drug products in the U.S., and, in the case of FIRDAPSE®, Canada and now Japan and in the case of AGAMREE®, Canada. The ability for us to generate net product revenues from our drug products will depend on the size of the markets, the numbers of competitors in such markets and numerous other factors, including:

Our drug products may fail to receive the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payers or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, which would negatively impact our business.

Our drug products may fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payers, or others in the medical community. If any of our drug products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant net product revenue or become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our drug products is dependent on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

Our business is subject to substantial competition.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial and other resources, larger research and development staffs and more experience developing products, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and manufacturing and marketing products than we have. We compete against pharmaceutical companies that are developing or currently marketing therapies that will compete with us. In addition, we compete against biotechnology companies, universities, government agencies, and other research institutions in the development of pharmaceutical products. Our business could be negatively impacted if our competitors’ present or future offerings are more effective, safer or less expensive than ours, or more readily accepted by regulators, healthcare providers or third-party payors. Further, we may also compete with respect to manufacturing efficiency and marketing capabilities. For all of these reasons, we may not be able to compete successfully.

Tariffs could adversely affect our business.

President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have each signaled plans for the Administration to potentially tax pharmaceutical imports through tariffs. In furtherance of that goal, on April 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce posted a notice in the Federal Registry announcing that it would begin a probe "to determine the effects on national security of imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients" under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, the results of which could lead to tariffs on pharmaceutical imports.

We source our API and finished drug products from both U.S. and foreign suppliers. Additionally, we currently purchase AGAMREE® active ingredients from Santhera while working to complete our own manufacturer arrangements for the product and also purchase FYCOMPA® supplies from Eisai through at least the end of 2029, both of which source from outside of the U.S. If tariffs make purchases of materials from certain jurisdictions untenable, we may need to obtain materials from other sources, if possible, which could also increase our costs and delay our planned clinical trials and manufacture of our products and product candidates. Further, retaliatory tariffs introduced by other countries could affect the sales of our products outside of the United States. Finally, royalties owed as part of our license arrangements may be subject to tariffs. Any of these factors may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

The successful commercialization of our approved products or any we may develop will depend in part on the extent to which government authorities and health insurers establish adequate reimbursement levels and pricing policies.

Sales of our approved products or any we may license, develop or acquire will depend in part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers such as government insurance programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, health maintenance organizations and other health care related organizations, who are increasingly challenging the price of medical products and services. Accordingly, there is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. Adoption of any drug by the medical community may be limited if third-party payers will not offer adequate coverage. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new products are typically made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform or consistent policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor as well as from state to state. Consequently, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that must be played out across many jurisdictions and different entities. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. We are unable to predict all changes to the coverage or reimbursement methodologies that will be applied by private or government payers. Any denial of private or government payer coverage or inadequate reimbursement could harm our business and reduce our revenue.

In addition, both the federal and state governments in the United States and foreign governments continue to propose and pass new legislation, regulations, and policies affecting coverage and reimbursement rates, which are designed to contain or reduce the cost of health care. Further federal and state proposals and healthcare reforms are likely, which could limit the prices that can be charged for the product candidates that we develop and may further limit our commercial opportunity. For example, the IRA includes several measures intended to lower the cost of prescription drugs and related healthcare reforms, including limits on price increases and subjecting an escalating number of drugs to annual price negotiations with CMS. In addition, an executive order issued by the White House on May 12, 2025, directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement a “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing policy. And the recently-enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) imposes new restrictions on funding for government health care programs and on individual eligibility for coverage under those programs, which may lead to lower reimbursements for drugs covered by those programs.

In late 2025, CMS introduced three models for rebates and negotiations with drug manufacturers. First, in November 2025, CMS introduced the GENEROUS (Generating Cost Reduction for U.S. Medicaid) Model, a voluntary program using supplemental rebates tied to an MFN net price benchmark, allowing Medicaid to obtain drugs priced in line with what is paid in economically comparable countries. Later, in December 2025, CMS released information about proposed rulemaking for the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) model and the Guarding US Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs (GUARD) model. These two mandatory Medicare demonstration pricing models are aimed at testing alternative calculations for manufacturer rebates to bring prices in line with drug pricing in other jurisdictions. The GLOBE model, if enacted, would assess a rebate for certain drugs payable under Medicare Part B if those prices exceed those paid in economically comparable countries, while the GUARD model would similarly assess a rebate for certain drugs payable under Medicare Part D. All of these models are designed to incentivize price concessions, rebate negotiations, and marketing changes for drug manufacturers to maintain access to US markets.

We cannot be sure whether additional legislation or rulemaking related to these developments will be issued or enacted, or what impact, if any, such changes will have on the profitability of any of our drug candidates, if approved for commercial use, in the future. There also may be future changes unrelated to these that result in reductions in potential coverage and reimbursement levels for our product candidates, if approved and commercialized, and we cannot predict the scope of any future changes or the impact that those changes would have on our operations.

If future reimbursement for our products is less than we project, or rebate obligations associated with them are substantially greater than we expect, our future net revenue and profitability could be materially diminished.

Our strategy of seeking to acquire or in-license innovative technical platforms or earlier stage drug development programs may not be successful.

We continue to seek to broaden and diversify our product portfolio through acquisitions of both early and late-stage products or companies or technology platforms in orphan, rare disease therapeutic categories. To accomplish these priorities, we are employing a disciplined approach to evaluating assets and we believe that this strategic expansion will better position our company to build out a broader more diversified portfolio of drug candidates, which should add greater value to our company over the near-term and the long-term. However, there can be no assurance that whatever product candidates or technology platforms we acquire, if any, will be successfully developed or commercialized.

The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate is lengthy and complex, and we may be unable to in-license or acquire the rights to any such products, product candidates or technologies from third parties for several reasons. Further, even if we identify acquisition or in-licensing targets, we may not be able to close those

deals or we may determine after diligence not to pursue identified targets. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify, select and acquire or in-license promising product candidates and technologies.

In addition, acquisitions and in-licenses may entail numerous operational, financial and legal risks, including:

Because the target patient population for certain of our products is small, we must achieve significant market share and obtain relatively high per-patient prices for our products to achieve meaningful gross margins.

Our products target diseases with a small patient population. A key component of the successful commercialization of a drug product for these indications includes identification of patients and a targeted prescriber base for the drug product. Due to small patient populations for certain of our products, we believe that we would need to have significant market penetration to achieve meaningful revenues and identifying patients and targeting the prescriber base are key to achieving significant market penetration. Typically, drugs for conditions with small prevalence have higher prices in order to generate a return on investment, and as a result, the per-patient prices at which we sell our products are relatively high in order for us to generate an appropriate return for the investment in these product development programs and achieve meaningful gross margins.

There can be no assurance that we will be successful in achieving a sufficient degree of market penetration and/or obtaining or maintaining high per-patient prices for FIRDAPSE® and AGAMREE® for diseases with small patient populations. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for FIRDAPSE® and AGAMREE®, because the potential target populations are very small, we may not be able to maintain profitability despite obtaining such significant market share. Additionally, patients who discontinue therapy or do not fill prescriptions are not easily replaced by new patients, given the limited patient population.

Because of risks associated with taking FYCOMPA®, potential patients may be reluctant to start treatment with FYCOMPA® or may discontinue use.

FYCOMPA®'s labeling has a boxed warning noting that some people taking the drug have undergone serious psychiatric and behavioral changes. These events occurred in people who had no history of such issues, as well as people who had such a history. The psychiatric changes included mood changes like euphoric mood, anger, irritability, aggression, belligerence, agitation, and anxiety, as well as psychosis (acute psychosis, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia) and delirium (delirium, confusional state, disorientation, memory impairment). Behavioral changes included physical assault and homicidal ideation and/or threats. While these side effects are rare, their existence may cause reluctance on the part of patients or providers to start or continue treatment.

Other serious side effects include suicidal thoughts or behavior (like all anti-epileptic drugs), dizziness and gait disturbance, somnolence and fatigue, risk of falls, and increased risk of seizures if the drug is quickly withdrawn. In clinical trials, dizziness, somnolence, vertigo, aggression, anger, loss of coordination, blurred vision, irritability, and slurred speech were the side effects

that most commonly led people to leave the trial. Use of FYCOMPA® is also contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Risks Related to the Development of Additional Drug Products and Indications

Failure can occur at any stage of our drug development efforts.

We will only obtain regulatory approval to commercialize our future drug candidates if we can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA (or the equivalent foreign regulatory authorities) in adequate and well-controlled clinical studies and trials that the drug is safe and effective for its intended use, that the clinical and other benefits outweigh the safety risks and that it otherwise meets approval requirements. As we have experienced in the past, a failure of one or more pre-clinical or clinical trials or studies can occur at any stage of drug development. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, testing that could delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval for, or commercializing our drug candidates, including but not limited to:

We rely on third parties to conduct our pre-clinical studies and clinical studies and trials, and if they do not perform their obligations to us we may not be able to obtain approval for additional indications.

We do not have the ability to independently conduct pre-clinical studies or clinical studies and trials, and we rely on third parties, such as third-party contract research and governmental organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators (including academic clinical investigators), to conduct studies and trials for us. Our reliance on third parties for development activities reduces our control over these activities. These third parties may not complete activities on schedule or may not conduct our pre-clinical studies and our clinical studies and trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our study design. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be adversely affected, and our efforts to obtain regulatory approvals for and commercialize our product candidates may be delayed.

If we conduct studies with other parties, we may not have control over all decisions associated with that trial. To the extent that we disagree with the other party on such issues as study design, study timing and the like, it could adversely affect our drug development plans.

Although we also rely on third parties to manage the data from our studies and trials, we are responsible for confirming that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with its general investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies will require us to comply with applicable regulations and standards, including Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP), for conducting, recording and reporting the results of such studies and trials to assure that the data and the results are credible and accurate and that the human study and trial participants are adequately protected. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of these obligations and requirements, and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval for any additional indications if these requirements are not met.

We will need to continue to develop and maintain distribution and production capabilities or relationships to be successful.

We are licensed in Florida as a virtual drug manufacturer, which means we have no in-house manufacturing capacity and we will be obligated to rely on contract manufacturers and packagers. We cannot be sure that we will successfully manufacture any product, either independently or under manufacturing arrangements, if any, with third-party manufacturers. Moreover, if

any manufacturer should cease doing business with us or experience delays, shortages of supply or excessive demands on their capacity, we may not be able to obtain adequate quantities of product in a timely manner, or at all. Manufacturers, and in certain situations their suppliers, are required to comply with current NDA commitments and cGMP requirements enforced by the FDA, and similar requirements of other countries. The failure by a manufacturer to comply with these requirements could affect its ability to provide us with product. Although we intend to rely on third-party contract manufacturers, we are ultimately responsible for ensuring that our products are manufactured in accordance with cGMP. In addition, if, during a preapproval inspection or other inspection of our third-party manufacturers’ facility or facilities, the FDA determines that the facility is not in compliance with cGMP, any of our marketing applications that lists such facility as a manufacturer may not be approved or approval may be delayed until the facility comes into compliance with cGMP and completes a successful re-inspection by the FDA.

Any manufacturing problem, natural disaster, or epidemic, affecting manufacturing facilities, or the loss of a contract manufacturer could be disruptive to our operations and result in lost sales. Additionally, we will be reliant on third parties to supply the raw materials needed to manufacture our products. Any reliance on suppliers may involve several risks, including a potential inability to obtain critical materials and reduced control over production costs, delivery schedules, reliability and quality. Any unanticipated disruption to future contract manufacture caused by problems at suppliers could delay shipment of products, increase our cost of goods sold and result in lost sales.

If our suppliers were to be unable to supply us with adequate supply of our drugs, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our drug candidates.

We could be impacted by the viability of our suppliers.

We source FIRDAPSE® from more than one supplier, and we have entered into contracts with our suppliers that contractually obligate them to meet our requirements. However, if our suppliers cannot or will not meet our requirements (for whatever reason), our business could be adversely impacted.

We are dependent on our licensing partner for supplies of AGAMREE® and FYCOMPA®.

Through our agreement with Santhera for AGAMREE®, we have agreed to purchase certain supplies of the product through Santhera. We are also currently working to add a U.S. supplier for AGAMREE® and expect to complete that process by the end of 2026. If we are unable to obtain sufficient supplies of our drug product, our business would be adversely impacted.

Our commercialization, collaborative and other arrangements may give rise to disputes over commercial terms, contract interpretation, and ownership or protection of intellectual property and may adversely affect the commercial success of our product candidates.

We have in the past and may again in the future enter into collaboration or license arrangements, including commercialization or collaborative arrangements, some of which may be based on less definitive agreements, such as memoranda of understanding, material transfer agreements, options or feasibility agreements.

Commercialization and collaborative relationships are generally complex and can give rise to disputes regarding the relative rights, obligations and revenues of the parties, including the ownership of intellectual property and associated rights and obligations, especially when the applicable collaborative provisions have not been fully negotiated and documented. Such disputes have arisen in the past from time to time and, if they arise again could delay collaborative research, development or commercialization of potential product candidates, and can lead to lengthy, expensive litigation or arbitration. The terms of such arrangements may also limit or preclude us from commercializing products or technologies developed pursuant to such collaborations. Additionally, the commercialization or collaborative partners under these arrangements might breach the terms of their respective agreements or fail to maintain, protect or prevent infringement of the licensed patents or our other intellectual property rights by third parties. Moreover, negotiating commercialization and collaborative arrangements often takes considerably longer to conclude than the parties initially anticipate, which could cause us to enter into less favorable agreement terms that delay or defer recovery of our development costs and reduce the funding available to support key programs. Any failure by our commercialization or collaborative partners to abide by the terms of their respective agreements with us (including their failure to accurately calculate, report or pay any royalties payable to either us or a third-party or their failure to repay, in full or in part, either any outstanding receivables or any other amounts for which we are entitled to reimbursement) may adversely affect our results of operations.

We are not always able to enter into commercialization or collaborative arrangements on acceptable terms, which can harm our ability to develop and commercialize our current and potential future products and technologies. Other factors relating to collaborations that may adversely affect the commercial success of our product candidates include:

Our commercialization or collaborative arrangements do not necessarily restrict our commercialization or collaborative partners from competing with us or restrict their ability to market or sell competitive products. Our current and any future commercialization or collaborative partners may pursue existing or other development-stage products in preference to those being commercialized or developed in collaboration with us.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which would adversely affect our results of operations.

To manage future growth, we will likely need to hire, train, and manage additional employees. Concurrent with expanding our operational and marketing capabilities, we will also need to increase our product development activities. We may not be able to support, financially or otherwise, future growth, or hire, train, motivate, and manage the required personnel. Our failure to manage growth effectively could limit our ability to achieve our goals.

Our success in managing our growth will depend in part on the ability of our executive officers to continue to implement and improve our operational, management, information and financial control systems, and to expand, train and manage our employee base, and particularly to expand, train and manage a specially trained field-based force to market our products. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the intense competition for such personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, universities and non-profit research institutions. Our inability to manage growth effectively could cause our operating costs to grow at a faster pace than we currently anticipate and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Pressure on drug product third-party payor coverage, reimbursement and pricing may impair our ability to be reimbursed at prices or on terms sufficient to provide a viable financial outcome.

The commercial success of our drug products will depend substantially on the extent to which the cost of those products will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities (such as Medicare and Medicaid), private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to continue to successfully commercialize our products. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to establish and maintain pricing sufficient to realize a meaningful return on our investment.

Throughout the world and particularly in the United States, the healthcare system is under significant financial pressure to reduce costs. The price of pharmaceuticals has been a topic of considerable public discussion that could lead to price controls or other price-limiting strategies by payers that have the effect of lowering payment and reimbursement rates for drugs or otherwise making the commercialization of pharmaceuticals less profitable. Many federal and state legislatures have considered, and adopted, healthcare policies intended to curb rising healthcare costs, such as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. These cost-containment measures may include, among other measures: requirements for pharmaceutical companies to negotiate prescription drug prices with government healthcare programs; controls on government-funded reimbursement for drugs; new or increased requirements to pay prescription drug rebates to government healthcare programs, including if drug prices increase at a higher rate than inflation; controls on healthcare providers; challenges to or limits on the pricing of drugs, including pricing controls or limits or prohibitions on reimbursement for specific products through other means; requirements to try less expensive products or generics before a more expensive branded product; and public funding for cost effectiveness research, which may be used by government and private third-party payers to make coverage and payment decisions. In addition, in May 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order entitled "Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients," which, among other things, directs the HHS and other agencies to communicate MFN price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for U.S. patients in line with comparably developed nations and to facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs. The HHS subsequently issued guidance indicating the MFN target price is the lowest price paid in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capita. It is currently unclear whether and to what extent these measures will be implemented and what impact any such implementation would have on our business.

In late 2025, CMS introduced three models for rebates and negotiations with drug manufacturers. First, in November 2025, CMS introduced the GENEROUS (Generating Cost Reduction for U.S. Medicaid) Model, a voluntary program using supplemental rebates tied to an MFN net price benchmark, allowing Medicaid to obtain drugs priced in line with what is paid in economically comparable countries. Later, in December 2025, CMS released information about proposed rulemaking for the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing (GLOBE) model and the Guarding US Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs

(GUARD) model. These two mandatory Medicare demonstration models are aimed at testing alternative calculations for manufacturer rebates to bring prices in line with drug pricing in other jurisdictions. The GLOBE model, if enacted, would assess a rebate for certain drugs payable under Medicare Part B if those prices exceed those paid in economically comparable countries, while the GUARD model would similarly assess a rebate for certain drugs payable under Medicare Part D. All of these models are designed to incentivize price concessions, rebate negotiations, and marketing changes for drug manufacturers to maintain access to US markets.

There can be no assurance that the current administration or future administrations will not pursue different or additional measures that could impact drug pricing in the U.S. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate developments in healthcare systems and pharmaceutical drug pricing. These developments could, for example, impact our potential licensing agreements as commercial and collaborative partners may also consider the impact of these pressures on their licensing strategies.

In addition, increasingly, third-party payors are requiring higher levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes of new technologies and are challenging the prices charged. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. Further, the net reimbursement for drug products may be subject to additional reductions if there are changes to laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. An inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

The pricing of pharmaceutical products, in general, and of specialty drugs, in particular, has been a topic of concern in the U.S. Congress. There have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs in general and the cost of pharmaceuticals in particular. For example, healthcare reform proposals culminated in the enactment of the IRA, which eliminated, beginning in 2025, the coverage gap under Medicare Part D by significantly lowering the enrollee maximum out-of-pocket cost and requiring manufacturers to subsidize, through a newly established manufacturer discount program, 10% of Part D enrollees’ prescription costs for brand drugs below the out-of-pocket limit, and 20% once the out-of-pocket limit has been reached. The IRA also requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate the selling price of certain drugs and biologics that the CMS reimburses under Medicare Part B and Part D. The negotiated price may not exceed a statutory ceiling price. Only high-expenditure single-source drugs that have been approved for at least 7 years (11 years for single-source biologics) can be selected by CMS for negotiation, with the negotiated price taking effect two years after the selection year. The negotiated prices, which will first become effective in 2026, will be capped at a statutory ceiling price. For 2026, the first year in which negotiated prices become effective, CMS selected 10 high-cost Medicare Part D products in 2023, negotiations began in 2024, and the negotiated maximum fair price for each product has been announced. CMS has selected and announced the negotiated maximum fair price for 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs, which will become effective in 2027. For 2028, CMS selected an additional 15 drugs, comprised of drugs covered under Part D and, for the first time, drugs payable under Part B. For 2029 and subsequent years, 20 Part B or Part D drugs will be selected. A drug or biological product that has an orphan drug designation for only one rare disease or condition will be excluded from the IRA’s price negotiation requirements, but loses that exclusion if it has designations for more than one rare disease or condition, or if is approved for an indication that is not within that single designated rare disease or condition, unless such additional designation or such disqualifying approvals are withdrawn by the time CMS evaluates the drug for selection for negotiation. However, as a result of a statutory amendment enacted in July 2025, beginning with the 2028 negotiated price applicability year, a drug may be designated for more than one rare disease or condition and still be excluded from price negotiation, as long as the only approved indications are for such rare diseases or conditions. The IRA also imposes rebates on Medicare Part D and Part B drugs whose prices have increased at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. There have also been indications by some, including President Trump’s Secretary of HHS, that the government should seize the patents of “high priced drugs” and transfer them to other manufacturers to lower drug prices. It is unclear to what extent other statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented in the future and to what extent these or any future legislation or regulations will have on our business, including market acceptance, and sales, of our products and product candidates.

Further, at the U.S. state level, legislatures are increasingly enacting laws and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or reimbursement constraints, discount requirements, marketing cost disclosure and price increase transparency reporting, and programs designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, the FDA issued a final rule in 2020 providing guidance for states to build and submit importation proposals for drugs from Canada, and the FDA authorized the first such plan in Florida in 2024, but implementation of Florida’s plan has been extended until May 6, 2026. It is unclear how this program will be implemented, including which drugs will be chosen, and whether it will be subject to legal challenges in the United States or Canada. Other states have also submitted proposals that are pending review by the FDA. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures may be

adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services or otherwise negatively impact our business model.

Any new laws or regulations that have the effect of imposing additional costs or regulatory burden on pharmaceutical manufacturers, or otherwise negatively affect the industry, could adversely affect our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates. The implementation of any price controls, caps on prescription drugs or price transparency requirements could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our contract research organizations and other key vendors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our product development programs.

Our internal computer systems and those of our contract research organizations and other key vendors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our drug candidates could be delayed.

Our employees, sales agents and consultants may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, sales agents or consultants. Misconduct could include failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with manufacturing standards, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing, and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs, and other business arrangements. 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. It is not always possible to identify and deter such 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 or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

The healthcare industry is highly regulated, subject to stringent regulatory standards and other applicable laws, and we may be the subject of unexpected changes in interpretation or enforcement, any of which may adversely impact our business.

The healthcare industry is highly regulated. We, and our customers, are subject to various local, state, federal, national, and transnational laws and regulations, which include the operating, quality, and security standards of the FDA, the DEA, various state boards of pharmacy, state health departments, similar bodies of the U.K., the E.U. and its member states, and other comparable agencies around the world, and, in the future, any change to such laws and regulations or the interpretation or application thereof could adversely affect us. Among other rules affecting us, we are subject to laws and regulations concerning cGMP and drug safety. New public health orders or best practice guidelines may increase our costs to operate or reduce our productivity, thereby affecting our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies, and procedures will in every instance protect us from acts of our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators that turn out to violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including, without limitation, healthcare, employment, foreign corrupt practices, trade restrictions and sanctions, environmental, competition, and privacy laws and regulations. Failure by us or by our customers to comply with the requirements of applicable laws and regulations or requests from regulatory authorities could result in warning letters, product recalls or seizures, monetary sanctions, injunctions to halt manufacture or distribution, restrictions on our operations, civil or criminal sanctions, or withdrawal of existing or denial of pending approvals, permits, or registrations, including those relating to products or facilities. In addition, any such failure relating to the products or services we provide could expose us to contractual or product liability claims as well as claims from our customers, including claims for reimbursement for lost or damaged API, which cost could be significant. Our business activities outside the U.S. are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Anti-Bribery Act, and other anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations, or rules. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations

of these laws and regulations may have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations.

In addition, any new offering or product classified as a pharmaceutical or medical device must undergo lengthy and rigorous clinical testing and other extensive, costly, and time-consuming procedures mandated by the FDA, the EMA, and other equivalent local, state, federal, national, and transnational regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions that regulate our offerings and products.

Our results depend on our ability to execute and improve, when necessary, our quality management strategy and systems, and effectively train and maintain our workforce with respect to quality management. Quality management plays an essential role in determining and meeting customer requirements, preventing defects, and improving our offerings, and, despite our network of quality systems, a quality or safety issue, including with respect to a high-revenue product, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, stock price, or results of operations and may subject us to regulatory action, including a product recall, product seizure, injunction to halt manufacture or distribution, or restriction on our operations; monetary fines; or other civil or criminal sanctions. In addition, such an issue could subject us to adverse publicity and costly litigation, including claims from our customers for reimbursement for the cost of lost or damaged API or other related losses, the cost of which could be significant.

The regulatory approval process is lengthy, and we may not be able to obtain all of the regulatory approvals required to manufacture and commercialize our drug products in which we are licensed to them.

We will not be able to commercialize our products in other countries or for additional indications until we have obtained the requisite regulatory approvals from applicable governmental authorities. To obtain regulatory approval of a drug candidate for an indication, we must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency that such drug candidate is safe and effective for that indication. The type and magnitude of the testing required for regulatory approval varies depending on the drug candidate and the disease or condition for which it is being developed. In addition, in the U.S. we must show that the facilities used to manufacture our drug candidates are in compliance with cGMP requirements. We will also have to meet similar regulations in any foreign country where we may seek to commercialize our drug candidates. In general, these requirements mandate that manufacturers follow elaborate design, testing, control, documentation, and other quality assurance procedures throughout the entire manufacturing process. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals typically takes several years and requires the expenditure of substantial capital and other resources. Despite the time, expense and resources invested by us in the approval process, we may not be able to demonstrate that our drug candidate is safe and effective for such indications, in which event we would not receive the regulatory approval required to market it.

If our pre-clinical studies or our clinical studies and trials are unsuccessful or significantly delayed, our ability to commercialize our products will be impaired.

Before we can obtain future regulatory approval for the sale of our drug candidates for an indication, we may have to conduct, at our own expense, pre-clinical tests in animals in order to support the safety of our drug candidates. Pre-clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take several years to complete, and is uncertain as to outcome. Our pre-clinical tests may produce negative or inconclusive results, and on the basis of such results, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to halt ongoing clinical trials or conduct additional pre-clinical testing.

In other countries where FIRDAPSE®, FYCOMPA®, AGAMREE®, or any other product we may acquire or license may be marketed, we will also be subject to regulatory requirements governing human clinical studies, trials and marketing approval for drugs. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement varies widely from country to country.

We may face significant delays in our clinical studies and trials due to an inability to recruit patients for our clinical studies and trials or to retain patients in the clinical studies and trials we may perform.

We may encounter difficulties in our current and future clinical studies and trials recruiting patients, particularly since the conditions we are studying are rare, orphan conditions. The availability of approved therapies can also make enrollment difficult. We compete for study and trial subjects with others conducting clinical trials testing other treatments for the indications we are studying for our drug candidates. Further, unrelated third parties and investigators in the academic community have in the past and we expect will continue in the future to test our drug products and/or drug candidates. If these third-party tests are unsuccessful, or if they show significant health risk to the test subjects, our development efforts may also be adversely affected.

Clinical trials in orphan diseases are often difficult to enroll given the small number of patients with these diseases. Completion of orphan clinical trials may take considerably more time than other trials, sometimes years, depending on factors such as type, complexity, novelty and intended use of a product candidate. As a result of the uncertainties described above, there can be no assurance that we will meet timelines that we establish for any of our clinical trials.

If our third-party suppliers or contract manufacturers do not maintain appropriate standards of manufacturing in accordance with cGMP and other manufacturing regulations, our development and commercialization activities could suffer significant interruptions or delays.

We rely, and intend to continue to rely, on third-party suppliers and contract manufacturers to provide us with materials for our clinical trials and commercial-scale production of our products. These suppliers and manufacturers must continuously adhere to cGMP as well as any applicable corresponding manufacturing regulations outside of the U.S. In complying with these regulations, we and our third-party suppliers and contract manufacturers must expend significant time, money and effort in the areas of design and development, testing, production, record-keeping, and quality control to assure that our products meet applicable specifications and other regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in an enforcement action against us, including warning letters, the seizure of products, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, shutting down of production, and criminal prosecution. Any of these third-party suppliers or contract manufacturers will also be subject to inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies. If any of our third-party suppliers or contract manufacturers fail to comply with cGMP or other applicable manufacturing regulations, our ability to develop and commercialize our products could suffer significant interruptions and delays.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product ourselves, including:

If any of our contract manufacturers fail to achieve and maintain appropriate manufacturing standards, patients using our products could be injured or die, resulting in product liability claims. Even absent patient injury, we may be subject to product recalls, product seizures or withdrawals, delays or failures in testing or delivery, cost overruns, or other problems that could seriously harm our business or profitability.

Our drug products are subject to continuing regulatory review. If we fail to comply with continuing U.S. and applicable foreign regulations, we could lose those approvals, and our business would be severely harmed.

We are and will continue to be subject to continuing regulatory review for our approved products, including the review of our required nonclinical and clinical post-marketing studies, and other clinical results which are reported after our drug candidates become commercially available approved drugs. As greater numbers of patients use a drug following its approval, side effects and other problems may be observed after approval that were not seen or anticipated during preapproval clinical studies and trials. In addition, the manufacturer, and the manufacturing facilities we use to make any approved drugs, will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA. The subsequent discovery of previously unknown problems with the drug, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the drug, manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements, we may be subject to fines, suspension, or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions.

Our product promotion and advertising are also subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. In particular, the marketing claims we will be permitted to make in labeling or advertising regarding our marketed products will be limited by the terms and conditions of the FDA-approved labeling and available scientific data. We must submit copies of our advertisements and promotional labeling to the FDA at the time of initial publication or dissemination. If the FDA believes these materials or statements promote our products for unapproved indications, or with unsubstantiated claims, or if we fail to provide appropriate safety related information, the FDA could allege that our promotional activities misbrand our products. Specifically, the FDA could issue an untitled letter or warning letter, which may demand, among other things, that we cease such promotional activities and issue corrective advertisements and labeling to all recipients of the misbranded materials. The FDA also could take enforcement action including seizure of allegedly misbranded product, injunction, or criminal prosecution against us and our officers or employees. If we repeatedly or deliberately fail to submit such advertisements and labeling to the agency, the FDA could withdraw our approvals. Moreover, the Department of Justice can bring civil or criminal actions against companies and executives that promote drugs or biologics for unapproved uses, based on the FDCA, the False Claims Act, and other federal laws governing the marketing and reimbursement for such products under federally supported healthcare programs

such as Medicare and Medicaid. Monetary penalties in such cases have often been substantial, and civil penalties can include costly mandatory compliance programs and potential exclusion of a company’s products from federal healthcare programs.

Enacted and future legislation or judicial action may increase the difficulty and cost for us to commercialize FIRDAPSE®, FYCOMPA®, AGAMREE®, or any other drug candidates we may acquire or license and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the U.S., there have been a number of court cases, legislative and regulatory changes, and other potential changes relating to the healthcare system that restrict or regulate post-approval activities, which may affect our ability to profitably sell FIRDAPSE®, AGAMREE®, or any other drug candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements, restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products, and with respect to orphan drug designation and exclusivity. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements. Delays in feedback from the FDA may affect our ability to quickly update or adjust our label in the interest of patient adherence and tolerability. We cannot predict whether other legislative changes will be adopted or how such changes would affect the pharmaceutical industry generally and specifically the commercialization of FIRDAPSE® and any other products we develop.

While it is difficult to quantify in the absence of specific proposals, we assess the risk of a material financial impact from potential new tariffs to be low due to a significant portion of our supply chain being U.S. based; however, this may not prove to be the case.

If we fail to obtain or subsequently maintain orphan drug exclusivity or regulatory exclusivity for FIRDAPSE®, AGAMREE®, and any other orphan drug candidates we may acquire or in-license, our competitors may sell products to treat the same conditions at greatly reduced prices, and our revenues would be significantly adversely affected.

In the U.S., orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user fee waivers. The company that first obtains FDA approval for a designated orphan drug for a given rare disease receives marketing exclusivity for use of that drug for the stated disease or condition for a period of seven years, with an additional six months of exclusivity if the product also qualifies for pediatric exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusive marketing rights may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective, a subsequent product is deemed clinically superior, or if the manufacturer is unable to deliver sufficient quantity of the drug.

Because the extent and scope of patent protection for some of our drug products may be particularly limited, orphan drug designation – and ultimately, orphan drug exclusivity – is especially important for our products that are eligible for orphan drug designation. For eligible drugs, we plan to rely on the orphan exclusivity period to maintain a competitive position. However, if we do not obtain orphan drug exclusivity for our drug candidates or we cannot maintain orphan exclusivity for our drug candidates, our competitors may then sell the same drug to treat the same condition and our revenues will be reduced. Also, without strong patent protection, competitors may sell a generic version upon the expiration of orphan exclusivity if our patent position is not upheld.

Even if we obtain orphan drug designation for our future drug candidates, we may not fulfill the criteria for exclusivity or we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any orphan indication. Further, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a particular product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition, and FDA can approve the same drug for a different patient population. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. The FDA can discontinue orphan drug exclusivity after it has been granted if the orphan drug cannot be manufactured in sufficient quantities to meet demand.

Finally, there can be no assurance that the exclusivity provisions currently in the law may not be changed in the future and the impact of any such changes (if made) on us. The orphan drug exclusivity contained in the Orphan Drug Act has been the subject of recent scrutiny from the press, from some members of Congress and from some in the medical community. There can be no assurance that the exclusivity granted in the Orphan Drug Act to orphan drugs approved by the FDA will not be modified in the future, and as to how any such change might affect our products, if approved.

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic versions of any of our products, or such authorities do not grant our products sufficient periods of exclusivity before approving generic versions of our products, the sales of our products could be adversely affected.

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered becomes a "reference listed drug" in the FDA's publication, "Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations", commonly known as the Orange Book. Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference listed drugs through submission of ANDAs in the U.S. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer need not conduct clinical trials. Rather, the applicant generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference listed drug and

that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug is typically lost to the generic product.

The FDA may not approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug has expired. The U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical element (NCE). Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be submitted to the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference listed drug.

While we believe that FIRDAPSE® and AGAMREE® are protected both by patent and NCE, manufacturers may seek to launch generic versions of these products following the expiration of the applicable marketing exclusivity period, even if we still have patent protection for such product.

Competition that FYCOMPA® or our other products may face from generic versions could materially and adversely affect our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on investment for such products.

Changes to the Orphan Drug Act or successful legal challenges to the FDA’s interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act may affect our ability to obtain or subsequently maintain orphan drug exclusivity or affect the scope of orphan drug exclusivity for our products.

There can be no assurance that the designation and/or exclusivity provisions currently in the law may not be changed in the future and the impact of any such changes (if made) on us. For example, the U.S. Congress could pass, and the President could sign, legislation to effectively overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturning the FDA’s approval of RUZURGI®, and such legislation, if passed and signed into law, could retroactively affect the outcome of the 11th Circuit’s decision. Notwithstanding, since we now hold the U.S. rights to RUZURGI®, any such legislative efforts will have no effect on our FIRDAPSE® business.

In that regard, in January 2023, the FDA reported that while it is complying with the 11th Circuit decision in Catalyst’s favor with respect to FIRDAPSE®, going forward the FDA intends to continue to apply its regulations tying the scope of orphan drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved with respect to other orphan drugs. The FDA’s interpretation of the scope of orphan drug exclusivity was recently incorporated into the orphan drug statute as part of the recent 2026 FDA funding bill. This change has no effect on our business with respect to FIRDAPSE®.

The orphan drug exclusivity contained in the Orphan Drug Act has been the subject of scrutiny from the press, from some members of Congress and from some in the medical community. Furthermore, the FDA’s interpretations of the Orphan Drug Act have been successfully challenged in court and future court decisions could continue that trend. There can be no assurance that the exclusivity granted in the Orphan Drug Act to orphan drugs approved by the FDA will not be modified in the future, and as to how any such change might affect our products, if approved.

Our operations and relationships with healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, customers and third-party payors are subject to applicable anti-bribery, anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, transparency and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to, among other things, enforcement actions, criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, third-party payors, customers, and patients expose us to broadly applicable anti-bribery, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, market, sell and distribute our drug candidates. Restrictions under applicable federal and state anti-bribery and healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

If we or our collaborators, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, which could affect our ability to develop, market and sell our products successfully and could harm our reputation and lead to reduced acceptance of our products by the market. These enforcement actions include, not only civil and criminal penalties, but also exclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs, and exclusion from eligibility for the award of government contracts for our products.

Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could involve substantial costs. It is possible that government authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement,

imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, or reputational harm, any of which could adversely affect our financial results. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources.

Disruptions at the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new products to be reviewed and/or approved, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the new Administration’s initiatives and how these might impact the FDA, its implementation of laws, regulations, policies and guidance and its personnel. These initiatives could prevent, limit or delay development and regulatory approval of our product candidates, which would adversely affect our business.

Disruptions at the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new products to be reviewed and/or approved, which would adversely affect our business. Changes in FDA staffing could result in delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review submissions or applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all. Similar consequences would also result in the event of another significant shutdown of the federal government. For example, in 2025, the U.S. government was shut down for a period of 43 days. During the shutdown, the FDA halted all "non-essential" activities. While fees such as under PDUFA allowed the FDA to continue reviewing and approving pending applications for new drugs, biologics, generics, and biosimilars that had been submitted prior to the shutdown, the FDA was prevented from accepting any new submissions requiring user fee payments, including NDAs and ANDAs.

If another prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if geopolitical or global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns or delays could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations. If the FDA is constrained in its ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

In addition, FDA-regulated industries, such as ours, face substantial uncertainty in regard to the regulatory environment we will face as we proceed with research and development efforts following the inauguration of President Trump in January 2025. Some of these efforts have manifested to date in the form of reductions in the number of federal employees, including at the FDA, and other personnel measures that could impact the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel, which could result in delays or limitations on our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA on our product candidates in development and obtain the requisite regulatory approvals in the future. There remains general uncertainty regarding future activities. The new Administration could issue or promulgate executive orders, regulations, policies or guidance that adversely affect us or create a more challenging or costly environment to pursue the development of new therapeutic products. Alternatively, state governments may attempt to address or react to changes at the federal level with changes to their own regulatory frameworks in a manner that is adverse to our operations. If we become negatively impacted by future governmental orders, regulations, policies or guidance as a result of the new Administration, there could be a material adverse effect on us and our business.

We are subject to environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, which could increase our costs or restrict our operations.

Our operations are subject to a variety of environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, including those of the EPA, OSHA, and equivalent local, state, and national regulatory agencies in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Any failure by us to comply with environmental, health, and safety requirements could result in the limitation or suspension of production or subject us to monetary fines, civil or criminal sanctions, or other future liabilities in excess of our reserves. In particular, we are subject to laws and regulations governing the destruction and disposal of raw materials, byproducts of our manufacturing operations, and non-compliant products, the handling of regulated material included in our offerings, and the disposal of our products or their components at the end of their useful lives. In addition, compliance with environmental, health, and safety requirements could restrict our ability to expand our facilities or require us to acquire costly environmental or safety control equipment, incur other significant expenses, or modify our manufacturing processes. Our manufacturing facilities may use, in varying degrees, hazardous substances in their processes. These substances include, among others, chlorinated solvents, and in the past chlorinated solvents were used at one or more of our facilities, including a number we no longer own or operate. As at our current facilities, contamination at such formerly owned or operated properties can result and has resulted in liability to us. In the event of the discovery of new or previously unknown contamination either at our facilities, facilities we acquire in the future, or at third-party locations, including facilities we formerly owned or operated, the issuance of additional requirements

with respect to existing contamination, or the imposition of other cleanup obligations for which we are responsible, we may be required to take additional, unplanned remedial measures for which we have not recorded reserves. We are conducting monitoring and cleanup of contamination at certain facilities currently or formerly owned or operated by us, and such activities may result in unanticipated costs or management distraction.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

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

We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection, and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our drug development programs, products, and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our drug candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the U.S. and abroad related to our development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

The patent applications that we own or have licensed may fail to result in issued patents with claims that protect our drug products in the U.S. or in other foreign countries. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or be used to invalidate a patent. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our drug products, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates or companion diagnostic that we may develop. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.

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

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been and will continue to be the subject of litigation and new legislation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. For example, many countries restrict the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body. Publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

As a result of these and other factors, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. The costs of defending our patents or enforcing our proprietary rights in post-issuance administrative proceedings and litigation can be substantial and the outcome can be uncertain. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. Such challenges 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 or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Generally, issued patents are granted a term of 20 years from the

earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. In certain instances, patent term can be adjusted to recapture a portion of delay by the USPTO in examining the patent application (patent term adjustment) or extended to account for term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period (patent term extension), or both. The scope of patent protection may also be limited. Without patent protection for our current or future product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of such products. 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 owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Our success will depend significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the U.S., involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation, and administrative law proceedings, inter partes review, and post-grant review before the USPTO, as well as oppositions and similar processes in foreign jurisdictions. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we and our collaborators are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility and market exposure as a public company, the risk increases that our products, product candidates or other business activities may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent and other proprietary rights of third parties. Third parties may assert that we are infringing their patents or employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Also, there may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our products or product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our products or product candidates may infringe.

In addition, third parties may obtain patent rights in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon rights. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our products or product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such products or product candidates unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable products or product candidates unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In addition, we may be subject to claims that we are infringing other intellectual property rights, such as trademarks or copyrights, or misappropriating the trade secrets of others, and to the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use intellectual property or proprietary information owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our products or product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful infringement or other intellectual property claim against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties or redesign our affected products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our products or product candidates, and we may do so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our products or product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our products or product candidates, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties or other forms of compensation to third parties.

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights.

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do

not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim against a third-party may also cause the third-party to bring counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, enablement, written description, or patentable subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution.

Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings, such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review, or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the U.S., in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third-party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our products, or current or future product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business.

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

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

We have been, and may continue to be, forced to litigate to enforce or defend our intellectual property, which could be expensive, time-consuming, and unsuccessful, and result in the loss of valuable assets.

We have been, and may continue to be, forced to litigate to enforce or defend our intellectual property rights against infringement and unauthorized use by competitors, and to protect our trade secrets, including in connection with our pending litigation against Hetero regarding their Paragraph IV filing for Firdapse. In so doing, we may place our intellectual property at risk of being invalidated, rendered unenforceable or limited or narrowed in scope. This litigation is expensive and time-consuming. Many of our current and potential competitors have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to defend their intellectual property rights than we can.

Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. Litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition. In addition, an adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly.

General Risk Factors

Our business may require additional capital.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future in order to fund our business, particularly to fund potential company or product acquisitions that are intended to expand our product offerings. If necessary, we would likely raise additional funds in the future through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, corporate collaborations, or other means. We may also seek governmental grants to support our clinical and pre-clinical trials. However, there is no assurance that any such funding will be available, and, even if it is available, whether it will be available on terms that are favorable to us. We may also seek to raise additional capital to fund additional product development efforts, even if we have sufficient funds for our planned operations.

Any sale by us of additional equity or debt securities convertible into additional equity could result in dilution to our stockholders. Further, to the extent that we raise funds through collaborative arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies or grant sublicenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are not able to secure funding when needed, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more research and development programs, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

Unfavorable global economic conditions, whether brought about by material global crises, health epidemics, military conflicts or war, geopolitical and tariffs or other trade disputes or other factors, may adversely affect our business and financial results.

Our business is sensitive to global economic conditions, which can be adversely affected by epidemics and other public health crises, political and military conflict, tariffs or other trade restrictions or the threat of such actions and retaliatory actions, and other international disputes, significant natural disasters (including as a result of climate change) or other events that disrupt macroeconomic conditions. Adverse macroeconomic conditions, including inflation, slower growth or recession, new or increased tariffs and other trade restrictions or the threat of such actions and retaliatory actions, changes to fiscal and monetary policy or government budget dynamics (particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotech areas), tighter credit, higher interest rates, volatility in financial markets, high unemployment, labor availability constraints, currency fluctuations and other challenges in the global economy have in the past adversely affected, and may in the future adversely affect, us and our business partners and suppliers.

Trade policies and geopolitical disputes (including as a result of China-Taiwan relations) and other international conflicts can result in tariffs, sanctions and other measures that restrict international trade, and can materially and adversely affect our business, particularly if these measures occur in regions where we source components or raw materials. For example, tensions between the United States and China have led to a series of tariffs being imposed by the United States on imports from mainland China, as well as other business restrictions. In response to tariffs, countries have implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. Furthermore, in September 2025, the Trump Administration announced plans to impose up to 100% tariffs on imported branded or patented pharmaceutical products, subject to certain exceptions. There is substantial uncertainty as to when such tariffs may go into effect and whether such tariffs would apply to the importation of API or bulk drug products that are intended for use in clinical trials, and, more generally, about the duration of existing tariffs, implementation of announced tariffs, litigation challenging tariffs and whether additional tariffs or other retaliatory measures may be imposed, modified or suspended. Tariffs increase the costs of the components and raw materials we source. Countries may also adopt other measures, such as controls on imports or exports of goods, technology or data, that could adversely impact the Company’s operations and supply chain. Political tensions as a result of trade policies could reduce trade volume, investment, technological exchange and other economic activities between major international economies, resulting in a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets.

Further, military conflicts or wars (such as the ongoing conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and in the Middle East) can cause exacerbated volatility and disruptions to various aspects of the global economy. The uncertain nature, magnitude, and duration of hostilities stemming from such conflicts, including the potential effects of sanctions and counter-sanctions, or retaliatory cyber-attacks on the world economy and markets, have contributed to increased market volatility and uncertainty, which could have an adverse impact on macroeconomic factors that affect our business and operations, such as worldwide supply chain issues. This may also limit the areas in which we can execute our clinical trials. It is not possible to predict the short and long-term implications of military conflicts or wars or geopolitical tensions which could include further sanctions, uncertainty about economic and political stability, increases in inflation rate and energy prices, cyber-attacks, supply chain challenges and adverse effects on currency exchange rates and financial markets.

Additionally, our operations and facilities, as well as operations of our suppliers and manufacturers, may be located in areas that are prone to earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Such operations and facilities are also subject to the risk of interruption by drought, power shortages, nuclear power plant accidents and other industrial accidents, terrorist attacks and other hostile acts, ransomware and other cybersecurity attacks, labor disputes, public health crises, and other events beyond the Company’s control. Global climate change is resulting in certain types of natural disasters occurring more frequently or with more intense effects. Such events can create delays or interruptions to the Company’s development efforts and inefficiencies in the Company’s supply and manufacturing chain. Significant delays in our development efforts could materially impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval and to commercialize our products. Any insurance we maintain against damage to our property and the disruption of our business due to disaster may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Further, because the Company relies on single or limited sources for the supply and manufacture of many critical components, a business interruption affecting such sources would exacerbate any negative consequences to the Company.

Any future public health crises may affect our operations and those of third parties on which we rely, including our business partners and suppliers. We may in the future experience:

The obligations incident to being a public company place significant demands on our management.

As a public reporting company, we are required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related rules and regulations of the SEC, including periodic reports, disclosures and more complex accounting rules. As directed by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC adopted rules requiring public companies to include a report of management on a company’s internal control over financial reporting in their Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based on current rules, we are required to annually report under Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regarding our management’s assessment as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Further, under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our auditors are required to report on their assessment as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. If we or our auditors are unable to conclude that we have effective internal control over our financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our consolidated financial statements, which could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock.

Our business and operations could suffer in the event of system failures or security or data breaches due to cyber-attacks, or cyber intrusions, including ransomware, phishing attacks and other malicious intrusions.

In recent years, cybersecurity threats have become a greater risk and focus for companies. In particular, ransomware attacks, where a hacker locks and threatens to delete or disclose the victim’s data unless a ransom is paid, has become a major risk. We and our third-party service providers are at risk of cyber-attacks or cyber intrusions via the Internet, computer viruses, break-ins, malware, ransomware, phishing attacks, hacking, denial-of-service attacks or other attacks and similar disruptions from the unauthorized use of, or access to, computer systems (including from internal and external sources). These types of incidents continue to be prevalent and pervasive across industries, including in our industry. In addition, we expect information security risks to continue to increase due to the proliferation of new technologies and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists and other external parties, including foreign state actors.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure, including mobile technologies, to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, process, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such information. The size and complexity of our information technology systems, and those of third-party vendors with whom we contract, and the volume of data we retain, make such systems potentially vulnerable to breakdown, malicious intrusion, security breaches, ransomware, phishing, and other cyber-attacks. Our information security systems and those of our third-party vendors are subject to laws and regulations, or may become subject to new laws and regulations, requiring that we enact certain measures to protect the privacy and security of certain information we collect or use in our business. A security breach or privacy violation that leads to disclosure or modification of, or prevents access to, personal information or other protected information, whether caused by internal or external parties, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to notification requirements under certain agreements with third parties, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect personal information, resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue. Similarly, the loss or unauthorized disclosure of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or delay our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data.

If we are unable to prevent such security breaches or privacy violations or implement satisfactory remedial measures, our operations could be disrupted, and we may suffer negative impact to our reputation, financial loss and be subject to regulatory fines and penalties. In addition, breaches and other unauthorized data access can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm of the type described above. Moreover, the reliance on remote working technologies by our employees and third-party partners and the prevalent use of mobile devices that access confidential and personal information increases the risk of data security breaches, which could lead to the loss of confidential information, personal information, trade secrets or other intellectual property. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. While we have implemented security measures to protect our data security and information technology systems, such measures may not prevent such events. Significant disruptions of our information

technology systems or breaches of data security could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are highly dependent on our small number of key personnel and advisors.

We are highly dependent on our executive officers and key employees, and on our Board of Directors. The loss of the services of one or more of these individuals could significantly impede the achievement of our scientific and business objectives. We have no employment or retention agreements with any of our other officers or key employees. If we lose the services of any of our existing executive officers or key employees, or if we were unable to recruit qualified replacements on a timely basis for people who leave our employ, our efforts to develop our drug candidates might be significantly delayed. We do not carry key-man insurance on any of our personnel.

We face a risk of product liability claims and may not be able to obtain adequate insurance.

Our business exposes us to potential risks that may arise from the clinical testing, manufacture, and/or sale of our pharmaceutical products. Patients have received substantial damage awards in some jurisdictions against pharmaceutical companies based on claims for injuries allegedly caused by the use of pharmaceutical products used in clinical trials or after FDA approval.

Liability claims may be expensive to defend and may result in large judgments against us. We currently carry liability insurance that we believe to be adequate. Our insurance may not reimburse us for certain claims or the coverage may not be sufficient to cover claims made against us. We cannot predict all of the possible harms or side effects that may result from the use of our current drug candidates, or any potential future products we may acquire and use in clinical trials or after FDA approval and, therefore, the amount of insurance coverage we currently hold may not be adequate to cover all liabilities we might incur. If we are sued for any injury allegedly caused by our products, our liability could exceed our ability to pay the liability. Whether or not we are ultimately successful in any adverse litigation, such litigation could consume substantial amounts of our financial and managerial resources, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects and stock price.

Business or economic disruptions or global health concerns could seriously harm our development efforts and increase our costs and expenses.

Broad-based business or economic disruptions could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research and development activities. Global health concerns could also result in social, economic, and labor instability in the countries in which we or the third parties with whom we engage operate. We cannot presently predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions, but if we or any of the third parties with whom we engage, including the suppliers, clinical trial sites, regulators and other third parties with whom we conduct business, were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted. It is also possible that global health concerns could disproportionately impact the hospitals and clinical sites in which we conduct any of our clinical trials, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and our results of operation and financial condition.

We anticipate being subject to increasing focus by our investors, regulators, customers, and stakeholders on environmental, social & governance (ESG) disclosures.

Our investors, regulators, and other stakeholders have in the last few years increasingly focused on ESG disclosures. Certain investors, particularly institutional investors, may use third-party benchmarks or scores based on our ESG disclosures to measure our ESG practices, and to decide whether to invest in our shares or engage with us regarding our practices. If our ESG scores or disclosures do not meet desired standards, we may face reputational challenges. There can be no assurance that we will be able to accomplish any particular ESG goal or commitment, including any additional or revised commitment that we may announce in the future, as statements regarding such goals and commitments reflect our plans and aspirations at the time of announcement and do not guarantee achievement of such plans and aspirations within the timelines we announce or at all.

Different stakeholder groups have divergent views on ESG matters, which increases the risk that any action or lack thereof with respect to ESG matters will be perceived negatively by at least some stakeholders and adversely impact our reputation and business. Anti-ESG sentiment has gained some momentum across the U.S., with several states having enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies or legislation, or issued related legal opinions. If we do not successfully manage ESG-related expectations across these varied stakeholder interests, it could erode stakeholder trust, impact our reputation, and constrain our business. Globally, a lack of harmonization in relation to ESG legal and regulatory reform across the jurisdictions in which we may operate may affect our future implementation of, and compliance with, rapidly developing ESG standards and requirements. Generally, we expect stakeholder demands and the prevailing legal environment to require us to devote additional resources to ESG matters in our review of prospective acquisitions. Additionally, collecting, measuring, and reporting ESG information and metrics can be costly, difficult, and time-consuming, are subject to evolving reporting standards, and can present numerous operational, reputational, financial, legal, and other risks. Compliance with ESG-related rules and efforts to meet investor

expectations on ESG matters may place strain on our personnel, systems, and resources, and we may incur significant compliance costs. Additionally, failure to comply with such rules or meet investor expectations may have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations.

The trading price of the shares of our common stock has been and could in the future be highly volatile.

The market price of our common stock has fluctuated in the past and is likely to fluctuate in the future. Market prices for biopharmaceutical companies have historically been particularly volatile. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include:

In addition, equity markets in general, and the market for emerging pharmaceutical and life sciences companies in particular, have experienced substantial price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies traded in those markets. Further, changes in economic conditions in the U.S., Europe, or globally could impact our ability to grow profitably. Adverse economic changes are outside our control and may result in material adverse impacts on our business or financial results. These broad market and industry factors may materially affect the market price of our shares, regardless of our own development and operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Any such litigation that we become involved in could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Delaware law and our certificate of incorporation and by-laws contain provisions that could delay and discourage takeover attempts that stockholders may consider favorable.

Certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and by-laws, and applicable provisions of Delaware corporate law, may make it more difficult for or prevent a third-party from acquiring control of us or changing our Board of Directors and management. These provisions include:

In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law generally prohibits us from engaging in a business combination with any person who owns 15% or more of our common stock for a period of three years from the date such person acquired such common stock, unless Board or stockholder approval is obtained. These provisions could make it difficult for a third-party to acquire us, or for members of our Board of Directors to be replaced, even if doing so would be beneficial to our stockholders.

Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our Board of Directors or management could deter potential acquirers or prevent the completion of a transaction in which our stockholders could receive a substantial premium over the then current market price for their shares.

Future sales of our common stock may cause our stock price to decline.

As of February 23, 2026, we had 122,123,884 shares of our common stock outstanding, of which 6,750,372 shares were held by our executive officers and directors. We also had outstanding: (i) stock options to purchase an aggregate of 12,048,182 shares at exercise prices ranging from $3.42 to $24.90 (7,594,793 of which are currently exercisable); and (ii) restricted stock units for 714,953 shares of common stock (none of which are currently vested).

Sales of shares, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock or other securities, and we currently do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, investors should not invest in our common stock if they require dividend income. Our stockholders will not realize a return on their investment unless the trading price of our common stock appreciates, which is uncertain and unpredictable.