ORKA Oruka Therapeutics Inc

As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025

Registration No. 333-283212

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

FORM S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

Oruka Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

855 Oak Grove Avenue

Suite 100

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 606-7910

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

Paul Quinlan

General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

Oruka Therapeutics, Inc.

855 Oak Grove Avenue

Suite 100

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 606-7910

(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)

Copies to:

Ryan A. Murr

Branden C. Berns

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 393-8373

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: From time to time after the effective date of this Registration Statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. ☒

If this form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act. ☐

The Registrant hereby amends this registration statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment that specifically states that this registration statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or until this registration statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. The selling stockholders named in this prospectus may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities, and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities, in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED MARCH 6, 2025

PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS

Oruka Therapeutics, Inc. 

8,719,000 Shares 

Common Stock

Offered by the Selling Stockholders

This prospectus relates to the proposed resale or other disposition by the selling stockholders identified herein (the “Selling Stockholders”) of up to (i) 5,600,000 shares (the “Private Placement Common Shares”) of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), (ii) 2,439,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Private Placement Conversion Shares”) issued upon the conversion of 2,439 shares (the “Private Placement Preferred Shares”) of Series A preferred stock, par value $0.001 (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) in November 2024 and (iii) 680,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the exercise of pre-funded warrants (the “Pre-Funded Warrants”). The shares of Common Stock registered by this prospectus are referred to herein as the “Resale Shares.”

The Private Placement Common Shares, Private Placement Preferred Shares and Pre-Funded Warrants were issued and sold to accredited investors in a private placement (the “September 2024 PIPE”), which closed on September 13, 2024. We are not selling any Resale Shares under this prospectus and will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of Resale Shares by the Selling Stockholders. Upon any exercise of the Pre-Funded Warrants by payment of cash, however, we will receive the nominal cash exercise price paid by the holders of the Pre-Funded Warrants. We intend to use those proceeds, if any, for general corporate purposes.

The Selling Stockholders may sell the Resale Shares on any national securities exchange or quotation service on which the securities may be listed or quoted at the time of sale, on the over-the-counter market, in one or more transactions otherwise than on these exchanges or systems, such as privately negotiated transactions, or using a combination of these methods, and at fixed prices, at prevailing market prices at the time of the sale, at varying prices determined at the time of sale, or at negotiated prices. See the disclosure under the heading “Plan of Distribution” elsewhere in this prospectus for more information about how the Selling Stockholders may sell or otherwise dispose of their Resale Shares hereunder.

The Selling Stockholders may sell any, all or none of the securities offered by this prospectus and we do not know when or in what amount the Selling Stockholders may sell their Resale Shares hereunder following the effective date of the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part. Discounts, concessions, commissions and similar selling expenses attributable to the sale of the Resale Shares will be borne by the Selling Stockholder. We will pay certain fees and expenses (other than discounts, concessions, commissions and similar selling expenses) incident to the registration of the Resale Shares with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

You should carefully read this prospectus and any applicable prospectus supplement before you invest in any of the securities being offered.

Our Common Stock is traded on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “ORKA.” On [March 5], 2025, the last reported sale price for our Common Stock was $[●] per share.

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the information under the heading “Risk Factors” beginning on page 6 of this prospectus and any applicable prospectus supplement.

We are a “smaller reporting company” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act and are subject to reduced public company reporting requirements.

Neither the SEC nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The date of this prospectus is                         , 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS

This prospectus is part of the registration statement that we filed with the SEC using a “shelf” registration process. Under this shelf registration process, the Selling Stockholders may, from time to time, sell the securities described in this prospectus in one or more offerings.

This prospectus contains information that you should consider when making your investment decision. Neither we, nor the Selling Stockholders, have authorized anyone to give any information or to make any representation other than those contained in this prospectus. The Selling Stockholders are offering to sell, and seeking offers to buy, our securities only in jurisdictions where it is lawful to do so. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with different information. This prospectus and any accompanying prospectus supplement do not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities other than the securities described in any accompanying prospectus supplement or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy such securities in any circumstances in which such offer or solicitation is unlawful. You should assume that the information appearing in this prospectus, any prospectus supplement and any related free writing prospectus is accurate only as of their respective dates. Our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may have changed materially since those dates.

In this prospectus, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “Oruka,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Oruka Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries.

This prospectus contains trade names, trademarks and service marks of others, which are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this prospectus may appear without the ® or TM symbols.

All references to “our product candidates,” “our programs,” “our portfolio” and “our pipeline” in this prospectus refer to the research programs with respect to which we have exercised the option to acquire intellectual property license rights to or have the option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to those certain antibody discovery and option agreements, each dated March 6, 2024 and subsequently amended and restated on March 28, 2024, by and among Oruka, Paragon Therapeutics, Inc. (“Paragon”) and Paruka Holding LLC (“Paruka”) (the “Paragon Option Agreements”).

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. We caution readers that any forward-looking statement is not a guarantee of future performance and that actual results could differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statement. These statements are based on current expectations of future events.

All statements, other than statements of historical facts contained in this prospectus, including, without limitation, statements regarding: our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, the length of time that we believe our existing cash resources will fund our operations, our market size, our competition, our potential growth opportunities, our clinical development activities and timeline, the efficacy and safety profile of our product candidates, the potential therapeutic benefits and economic value of our product candidates, the timing and results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, the expected impact of macroeconomic conditions, including inflation, increasing interest rates and volatile market conditions, current or potential bank failures, as well as global events, including military conflicts and geopolitical tensions on our operations, and the receipt and timing of potential regulatory designations, approvals and commercialization of product candidates. Forward-looking statements generally relate to future events or our future financial or operating performance. Forward-looking statements generally relate to future events or our future financial or operating performance. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “potentially,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “target,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “project,” “plan,” “expect,” and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Factors that might cause such a difference are disclosed in the sections titled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” You should evaluate all forward-looking statements made in this prospectus in the context of these risks and uncertainties. We caution you that the risks, uncertainties and other factors referred to in this prospectus may not contain all of the risks, uncertainties and other factors that may affect our future results and operations.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this prospectus. While we believe that such information provides a reasonable basis for these statements, such information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely on these statements.

All subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this prospectus or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable U.S. securities laws. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements.

RISK FACTORS

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history on which to assess our business; we have not completed any clinical trials, have no products approved for commercial sale, have historically incurred losses, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. Moreover, we have never generated revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We will need to raise substantial additional capital to continue to fund our operations in the future. We have based our estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and could exhaust our available financial resources sooner than we currently anticipate. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to identify, acquire, and develop our product candidates, organizing and staffing our company, and providing general and administrative support for our operations.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We expect our losses to increase as our product candidates enter advanced clinical trials. It may be several years, if ever, before we complete pivotal clinical trials or have a product candidate approved for commercialization. We expect to invest significant funds into the research and development of our programs to determine the potential to advance product candidates to regulatory approval. If we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenue will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates may receive approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, pricing, coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets. Even if we obtain adequate market share for our product candidates, we may never become profitable despite obtaining such market share and acceptance of our products.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future and our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

If we are unable to raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may be required to curtail our product development activities and other activities commensurate with the magnitude of the shortfall and our product development activities may cease altogether, which could materially harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations. To the extent that the costs of our activities exceed our current estimates and we are unable to raise sufficient additional capital to cover such costs, we will need to reduce operating expenses, sell assets, enter into strategic transactions, or effect a combination of the above. No assurance can be given that we will be able to enter into any of such transactions on acceptable terms, if at all. Any of the following events could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and prospects:

Even if we are successful in raising new capital, we could be limited in the amount of capital we raise due to investor demand restrictions placed on the amount of capital we raise, or other reasons.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations, or require us to relinquish rights.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of holders of our common stock. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends. For example, in September 2024, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with certain new institutional and accredited investors, whereby the investors purchased an aggregate of 5,600,000 shares of common stock, 2,439 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and pre-funded warrants to purchase an aggregate of 680,000 shares of common stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $200.5 million. Each share of Series A Preferred Stock is convertible into 1,000 shares of common stock.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to our research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. Debt financing, if available, would likely involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, making additional product acquisitions, or declaring dividends.

Risks Related to Clinical Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization 

We face competition from entities that have developed or may develop programs for the diseases addressed by our product candidates.

The development and commercialization of drugs is highly competitive. Product candidates developed by us, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration. We compete with a variety of biopharmaceutical companies as well as academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions, among others. Many of the companies with which we are currently competing or will compete against in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, clinical trials, regulatory approvals, and marketing than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in establishing clinical trial sites, recruiting participants for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our product candidates.

Our competitors have developed, are developing or will develop programs and processes competitive with our programs and processes. Competitive therapeutic treatments include those that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community and any new treatments. Our success will depend partially on our ability to develop and commercialize products that have a competitive safety, efficacy, dosing and/or presentation profile. Our commercial opportunity and success will be reduced or eliminated if competing products are safer, more effective, have a more attractive dosing profile or presentation or are less expensive than the products we develop, or if biosimilars enter the market and are able to gain market acceptance more quickly than we do or at wider scale.

Our product candidates may fail in development or suffer delays. We depend on the successful initiation and completion of clinical trials for our product candidates to advance our product development plans.

We have no products on the market, and all of our programs are in preclinical or clinical stages of development. As a result, we expect it will be many years before we can obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize any product candidate, if ever. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, and can take years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for their products. It may be difficult for us to raise additional capital if we experience any issues that delay or prevent the regulatory approval or the ability to commercialize our product candidates.

We may experience a number of unforeseen events affecting our product development timeline, including the following:

If our clinical trials do not produce favorable results, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates will be adversely impacted. Moreover, the combined data from our trials may be inconclusive or may not be sufficient to ultimately gain marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities. There are equivalent processes and risks applicable to clinical trial applications in other countries outside of the United States.

In addition, because of the competitive landscape for immunology and inflammation (commonly referred to as “I&I”) indications, we may also face competition for clinical trial enrollment. Clinical trial enrollment will depend on many factors, including if potential clinical trial participants choose to undergo treatment with approved products or enroll in competitors’ ongoing clinical trials for programs that are under development for the same indications as our programs. An increase in the number of approved products for the indications we are targeting with our programs may further exacerbate this competition. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of participants could, among other things, delay our development timeline, which may further harm our competitive position and have an adverse effect on our business and operations.

We are substantially dependent on the success of our two most advanced programs, ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, and our clinical trials of such programs may not be successful.

Our future success is substantially dependent on our ability to develop and timely obtain marketing approval for, and then successfully commercialize, our two most advanced programs, ORKA-001 and ORKA-002. We are investing a majority of our efforts and financial resources into the research and development of these programs. We have initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of ORKA-001 in healthy volunteers and anticipate initiating a Phase 1 clinical trial of ORKA-002 in healthy volunteers in the second half of 2025, subject to the filing of an IND or foreign equivalent and regulatory approval. Currently, we believe that the success of our programs is dependent on observing a longer half-life of our product candidates in humans than monoclonal antibodies (“mAbs”) currently marketed and in development as we believe this longer half-life has the potential to result in a more favorable dosing schedule for our product candidates, assuming they successfully complete clinical development and obtain marketing approval. This is based in part on the assumption that the longer half-life we have observed in NHPs will translate into an extended half-life of our product candidates in humans. To the extent we do not observe this extended half-life in humans, it would significantly and adversely affect the clinical and commercial potential of our product candidates.

If we do not achieve our projected development goals in the time frames we announce and expect, the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed and our expenses may increase and, as a result, our business may be materially harmed and our stock price may decline.

From time to time, we estimate the timing of the anticipated accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials, such as the expected timing of our clinical trials in our target indications, anticipated data analysis and results from our clinical trials, as well as the submission of regulatory filings. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones. All of these milestones are and will be based on numerous assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary dramatically compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. If we do not meet these milestones as publicly announced, or at all, the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed or never achieved and, as a result, our business may be materially harmed and our stock price may decline. Additionally, delays relative to our projected timelines are likely to cause overall expenses to increase, which may require us to raise additional capital sooner than expected and prior to achieving targeted development milestones. 

Any drug delivery device that we may use to deliver our product candidates may have its own regulatory, development, supply and other risks.

We expect to deliver our product candidates via a drug delivery device, such as an injector or other delivery system. There may be unforeseen technical complications related to the development activities required to bring such a product to market, including primary container compatibility and/or dose volume requirements. If our product candidates are intended to be used with drug delivery devices, we expect to utilize drug delivery devices authorized for marketing under clearances of approvals held by third parties. Our product candidates may not be approved or may be substantially delayed in receiving approval if the devices that we choose to develop do not gain and/or maintain their own regulatory approvals or clearances. Where approval of the drug product and device is sought under a single application, the increased complexity of the review process may delay approval. In addition, some drug delivery devices are provided by single-source third-party companies. We may be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of those third-party companies both to supply the devices and, in some cases, to conduct the studies required for approval or other regulatory clearance of the devices. Even if approval is obtained for our products, we may also be dependent on those third-party companies continuing to maintain such approvals or clearances, if required, for their drug delivery devices once they have been received. Failure of third-party companies to supply the devices on time and in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications, to successfully complete studies on the devices in a timely manner, or to obtain or maintain required approvals or clearances of the devices could result in increased development costs, delays in or failure to obtain regulatory approval and delays in product candidates reaching patients.

Our approach to the discovery and development of our programs is unproven, and we may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of programs with commercial value.

Our approach to the discovery and development of the research programs with respect to which we have signed a license agreement, exercised the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to or have the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to the Option Agreements, leverages clinically validated mechanisms of action and incorporates advanced antibody engineering to optimize half-life and other properties designed to overcome limitations of existing therapies. Our programs are purposefully designed to improve upon existing product candidates and products while maintaining the same, well-established mechanisms of action. However, the scientific research that forms the basis of our efforts to develop programs using half-life extension technologies is ongoing and may not result in viable programs. There is limited clinical data available on product candidates utilizing half-life extension technologies, especially in I&I indications, demonstrating whether they are safe or effective for long-term treatment in humans. The long-term safety and efficacy of these technologies and the extended half-lives and exposure profiles of our programs compared to currently approved products are unknown.

We may ultimately discover that utilizing half-life extension technologies for our specific targets and indications and any programs resulting therefrom does not possess certain properties required for therapeutic effectiveness. In addition, programs using half-life extension technologies may demonstrate different chemical and pharmacological properties in human participants than they do in laboratory studies or preclinical studies. This technology and any programs resulting therefrom may not demonstrate the same chemical and pharmacological properties in humans and may interact with human biological systems in unforeseen, ineffective or harmful ways.

In addition, we may in the future seek to discover and develop programs that are based on novel targets and technologies that are unproven. If our discovery activities fail to identify novel targets or technologies for drug discovery, or such targets prove to be unsuitable for treating human disease, we may not be able to develop viable additional programs. We and our existing or future collaborators may never receive approval to market and commercialize any product candidate. Even if we or an existing or future collaborator obtains regulatory approval, the approval may be for targets, disease indications or patient populations that are not as broad as we intended or desired or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. If the products resulting from the research programs with respect to which we have signed license agreements with Paragon, exercised the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to or have the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to the Option Agreements prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, such programs would have little, if any, value, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Preclinical and clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process that is subject to delays and uncertain outcomes, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results. If our preclinical studies and clinical trials are not sufficient to support regulatory approval of any of our product candidates, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development of such product candidate.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical studies and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of such product candidate in humans. Our clinical trials may not be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all, and failure can occur at any time during the preclinical study or clinical trial process.

Furthermore, a failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Clinical data is often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and in addition, we expect to rely on participants to provide feedback on measures such as measures of quality of life, which are subjective and inherently difficult to evaluate. These measures can be influenced by factors outside of our control, and can vary widely from day-to-day for a particular participant, and from participant to participant and from site to site within a clinical trial.

We cannot be sure that the FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as applicable, will agree with our clinical development plan. We plan to use the data from our Phase 1 trials of our ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 programs in healthy volunteers to support Phase 2 trials in PsO and potentially other I&I indications. If the FDA and/or comparable foreign regulatory authority requires us to materially modify our proposed trial designs, conduct additional trials or enroll additional participants, our development timelines may be delayed. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND, Clinical Trial Application or similar application will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, as applicable, allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials begin, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include: inability to generate sufficient preclinical, toxicology or other in vivo or in vitro data to support the initiation or continuation of clinical trials; delays in reaching a consensus with regulatory authorities on study design or implementation of the clinical trials; delays or failure in obtaining regulatory authorization to commence a trial; delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites; recruiting and training suitable clinical investigators; delays in obtaining required IRB approval at each clinical trial site; delays in manufacturing, testing, releasing, validating or importing/exporting sufficient stable quantities of our product candidates for use in clinical trials or the inability to do any of the foregoing; failure by our CROs, other third parties or us to adhere to clinical trial protocols; failure to perform in accordance with the FDA’s or any other regulatory authority’s current GCP requirements or applicable regulatory guidelines in other countries; changes to the clinical trial protocols; clinical sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial; delays or failure by our third party vendors or us in the manufacturing, packaging, labeling and proper delivery of clinical trial materials; and third parties being unwilling or unable to satisfy their contractual obligations to us.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is required to be materially modified or suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, if any, or by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend, put on clinical hold or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including not aligning with or supporting our clinical trial designs or our failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical trial protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from the programs, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates, if the results of these trials are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected and we may need to adjust or abandon our business plans and we may incur significant additional costs.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling participants in our current and future clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. We depend on the successful completion of clinical trials for our product candidates.

We may experience difficulties in patient participant enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of participants who remain in the trial until conclusion. The enrollment of participants in future trials for any of our programs will depend on many factors, including if participants choose to enroll in clinical trials, rather than using approved products, or if our competitors have ongoing clinical trials for programs that are under development for the same indications as our programs, and participants instead enroll in such clinical trials. Even if we are able to enroll a sufficient number of participants for our clinical trials, it may have difficulty maintaining participants in our clinical trials. Our inability to enroll or maintain a sufficient number of participants would result in significant delays in completing clinical trials and increased development costs or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether.

Preliminary, “topline” or interim data from our clinical trials may change as more participant data becomes available and are subject to audit and verification procedures, and should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose preliminary or topline data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of these data without the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate complete data. As a result, the preliminary or topline results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated or subsequently made subject to audit and verification procedures.

From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as participant enrollment continues and more participant data become available or as participants from our clinical trials continue other treatments. Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular product candidate, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular preclinical study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. If the preliminary, topline or interim data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Our clinical trials may reveal significant adverse events, undesirable side effects or patient intolerance not seen in our preclinical studies or earlier clinical trials, and may result in a safety profile that could halt clinical development, inhibit regulatory approval or limit commercial potential or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or patient intolerance, adverse events or unexpected characteristics, and any of these occurrences could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. If significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting participants to such trials, participants may drop out of the trials, or we may have to suspend, materially modify or abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more programs altogether. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities, or an IRB, may suspend or require the material modification of any clinical trials of any program at any time for various reasons, including a belief that participants in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Moreover, negative or inconclusive results could cause the FDA or other regulatory agencies to require that we repeat or conduct additional clinical trials. If our clinical trials do not produce favorable results, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates may be adversely impacted.

Even if side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to their tolerability versus other therapies. In addition, an extended half-life could prolong the duration of undesirable side effects, which could also affect our clinical trials or inhibit market acceptance. Potential side effects associated with our product candidates may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, as toxicities resulting from our product candidates may not be normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel.

In addition, even if we successfully advance our product candidates through clinical trials, such trials will only include a limited number of participants and limited duration of exposure to our product candidates. As a result, we cannot be assured that adverse effects of our product candidates will not be uncovered when a significantly larger number of participants are exposed to the product candidate after approval. Further, any clinical trials may not be sufficient to determine the effect and safety consequences of using our product candidates over a multi-year period.

If any of the foregoing events occur or if one or more of the research programs with respect to which we have signed a licensed agreement for or exercised the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to or have the Option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to the Option Agreements prove to be unsafe, our pipeline could be affected, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. 

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

We are initially focused on our most advanced programs, ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, and as a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other programs that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may be in a position where we may have to relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other arrangements in cases in which we would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

Any approved products resulting from our programs may not achieve adequate market acceptance among clinicians, patients, healthcare third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success and we may not generate any future revenue from the sale or licensing of such products. 

Even if regulatory approval is obtained for a product candidate resulting from one of our current or future programs, it may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, healthcare payors or the medical community. Market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on many factors, including factors that are not within our control. While there are several approved products and product candidates in later stages of development for the treatment of PsO, our programs incorporate advanced antibody engineering to optimize the half-life and formulation of antibodies, and to date, no such antibody has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of PsO. Market participants with influence over acceptance of new treatments, such as clinicians and third-party payors, may not adopt a biologic that incorporates half-life extension for our targeted indications, and we may not be able to convince the medical community and third-party payors to accept and use, or to provide favorable reimbursement for, any programs developed by us or our existing or future collaborators. Moreover, an extended half-life may make it more difficult for patients to change treatments and there may be a perception that half-life extension could exacerbate side effects, each of which may adversely affect our ability to gain market acceptance.

Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of healthcare providers to prescribe the treatment, and if any of our product candidates is approved but does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate or derive sufficient revenue from that product candidate and may not become or remain profitable. 

Certain of our programs may compete with our other programs, which could negatively impact our business and reduce our future revenue.

We are developing product candidates for the same indication, PsO, and may in the future develop our programs for other I&I indications. Each such program targets a different mechanism of action. However, developing multiple programs for a single indication may negatively impact our business if the programs compete with each other. For example, if multiple programs are conducting clinical trials at the same time, they could compete for the enrollment of participants. In addition, if multiple product candidates are approved for the same indication, they may compete for market share, which could limit our future revenue.

We may conduct clinical trials for programs at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations. Moreover, conducting clinical trials outside of the U.S. presents additional risks that may delay our clinical trials.

We may choose to conduct one or more of our future clinical trials outside the United States. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of this data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and would delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates. Even if the FDA accepted such data, it could impose additional conditions, such as requiring us to modify our planned clinical trials to receive clearance to initiate such trials in the United States or to continue such trials once initiated.

Further, conducting clinical trials outside of the U.S. presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the failure of investigators or enrolled participants in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs that could restrict or limit our ability to conduct our clinical trials, the administrative burdens of conducting clinical trials under multiple sets of foreign regulations, potential restrictions, such as local privacy restrictions, on data generated from the clinical trial, diminished protection of intellectual property in some countries, as well as political and economic risks relevant to foreign countries.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to commercialize, or may be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue may be materially impaired.

The lengthy regulatory approval process as well as the unpredictability of clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain or be delayed in obtaining approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is unpredictable, expensive and typically takes many years following commencement of clinical trials. Approval may never be obtained and the approval process can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for each targeted indication. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the drug manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Further, our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other data. Our product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval for many reasons, including: the failure to demonstrate that a product candidate’s benefits outweigh safety risks; regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of clinical data or the data collected may not be acceptable or sufficient to support submission; or the results may not meet the level of statistical significance required for approval by the relevant regulatory authorities or otherwise considered insufficient by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, such as black box or other warnings or contraindications that could diminish the usage of the product or otherwise limit the commercial success of the affected product.

Moreover, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, including failing to approve the most commercially promising indications, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

We may not be able to meet requirements for the chemistry, manufacturing and control of our programs.

In order to receive approval of our products by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we must show that we and our CMO partners are able to characterize, control and manufacture our drug products safely and in accordance with regulatory requirements. This includes manufacturing the active ingredient, developing an acceptable formulation, manufacturing the drug product, performing tests to adequately characterize the formulated product, documenting a repeatable manufacturing process, and demonstrating that our drug products meet stability requirements. As noted above, we may deliver our product candidates via a drug delivery device, which also requires us to meet certain chemistry, manufacturing and control requirements set forth by the FDA and other foreign regulatory authorities. Meeting these chemistry, manufacturing and control requirements is a complex task that requires specialized expertise. If we are not able to meet the chemistry, manufacturing and control requirements, we may not be successful in getting our products approved.

Our product candidates for which we intend to seek approval as biologics may face competition sooner than anticipated.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act (the “ACA”), includes a subtitle called the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a highly similar or “biosimilar” product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first approved by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first approved. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as biologics under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will be subject to extensive ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review and may result in restrictions on the use of the product, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will require the submission of reports to regulatory authorities and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate, may contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, and may include burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. For example, the FDA may require a REMS in order to approve our product candidates. In addition, even if our product candidates receive approval, our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, distribution, import and export will be subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable foreign regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as on-going compliance with current CGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct following approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic, unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with CGMPs.

If we or a regulatory authority discover previously unknown problems with a product or problems with the facilities where the product is manufactured, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions on that product, the manufacturing facility or us, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing, restrictions on our ability to conduct clinical trials, including full or partial clinical holds on ongoing or planned trials, restrictions on the manufacturing process, warning or untitled letters, civil and criminal penalties, injunctions, product seizures, detentions or import bans, voluntary or mandatory publicity requirements and imposition of restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements.

Disruptions at the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies and regulatory authorities caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review regulatory filings and our ability to commence human clinical trials can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC, and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, may also slow the time necessary for the review and approval of applications for clinical trial or marketing authorization, which would adversely affect our business. For example, in recent years, including in 2018 and 2019, the U.S. government shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Additionally, action by the new Trump Administration to limit federal agency budgets or personnel may result in reductions to the FDA’s budget, employees, and operations, which may lead to slower response times and longer review periods, potentially affecting our ability to progress development of our product candidates or obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if 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.

We may face difficulties from legislative or regulatory reform measures.

We may be faced with additional or changing regulatory and governmental regulations that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, the Trump Administration has discussed several changes to the reach and oversight of the FDA, which could affect its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, transparency in decision making and ultimately the cost and availability of prescription drugs. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. 

The price of pharmaceuticals has been a topic of considerable public discussion that could lead to price controls or other price-limiting strategies by payors 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 IRA. 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 payors to make coverage and payment decisions. 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.

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 business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, including conflicts of interest rules, which could expose us to penalties. 

Our business operations and current and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our product candidates, if approved. Principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us or may be affiliated with our other service providers, including CROs or site management organizations, and from time to time may receive cash compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site or in the applicable trial may be questioned or jeopardized.

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve costs and management attention. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to it, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly and time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, due to unfavorable pricing regulations and/or third-party coverage and reimbursement policies, we may not be able to offer such product candidates at competitive prices, which would seriously harm our business.

We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions, and we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions where we obtain approval. Our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidates that we may develop will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these product candidates and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. In some jurisdictions, government authorities and other third-party payors decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels, and have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. These entities may create preferential access policies for a competitor’s product, including a branded or generic/biosimilar product, over our products in an attempt to reduce their costs, which may reduce our commercial opportunity. Additionally, if any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those product candidates, we may become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We are subject to U.S. and certain foreign export and import controls, sanctions, embargoes, anti-corruption laws, and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. We can face criminal liability and other serious consequences for violations, which can harm our business.

We are subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, the U.S. Physician Payments Sunshine Act and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the countries in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to or from recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties to sell our products outside the United States, to conduct clinical trials, and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors, and other collaborators, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. Any violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences.

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

In some countries, particularly member states of the EU (“EU Member States”), the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a therapeutic. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced EU Member States, can further reduce prices. To obtain coverage and reimbursement or pricing approvals in some countries, we or current or future collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of any product candidate approved for marketing is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially and adversely affected. If the UK or EU Member States were to significantly alter their regulations affecting the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals, we could face significant new costs.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our ability to obtain and protect our patents and other proprietary rights is uncertain, exposing us to the possible loss of competitive advantage.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements and the Option and License Agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our programs and technologies and to prevent third parties from competing unfairly with it. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection for our programs and our product candidates and their uses, as well as our ability to operate without infringing on or violating the proprietary rights of others. Paragon has filed, on our behalf, provisional patent applications and we have filed non-provisional patent applications directed to antibodies that target IL-23, including applications covering composition of matter, pharmaceutical formulations, and methods of using such antibodies, including ORKA-001. In addition, Paragon has filed, on our behalf, provisional patent applications and we intend to file one or more additional provisional patent applications directed to antibodies that target IL-17, including applications covering composition of matter, pharmaceutical formulations, and methods of using such antibodies, including ORKA-002. However, we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world and the legal systems in certain countries may not favor enforcement or protection of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on programs worldwide is expensive and our intellectual property rights in some foreign jurisdictions can be less extensive than those in the United States; the reverse may also occur. As such, we may not have patents in all countries or all major markets and may not be able to obtain patents in all jurisdictions even if we apply for them. Our competitors may operate in countries where we do not have patent protection and can freely use our technologies and discoveries in such countries to the extent such technologies and discoveries are publicly known or disclosed in countries where we do have patent protection or pending patent applications.

Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued. Any issued patents may not afford sufficient protection of our programs or their intended uses against competitors, nor can there be any assurance that the patents issued will not be infringed, designed around, invalidated by third parties, or effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products or programs. Even if these patents are granted, they may be difficult to enforce. Further, any issued patents that we may license or own covering our programs could be narrowed or found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials or delays in obtaining regulatory approval, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. Thus, the patents that we may own and license may not afford us any meaningful competitive advantage.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and programs, we may also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. Any disclosure, either intentional or unintentional, by our employees, the personnel of third parties with whom we share our facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market. In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we rely in part on agreements, such as confidentiality agreements, with our vendors, collaborators, employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. We may need to share our proprietary information, including trade secrets, with future business partners, collaborators, contractors and others located in countries at heightened risk of theft of trade secrets, including through direct intrusion by private parties or state actors and those affiliated with or controlled by state actors. In addition, while we undertake efforts to protect our trade secrets and other confidential information from disclosure, others may independently discover trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases, we may not be able to assert any trade secret rights against such party. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets is challenging and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside of the U.S. may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

Lastly, if our trademarks and trade names are not registered or adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

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

Because our development programs currently do and may in the future require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license, or use these third-party proprietary rights. It is possible that we may be unable to obtain licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our programs. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we do obtain, we may have to abandon development of the relevant program, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

While we plan to obtain the right to control prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of the patents relating to our programs, there may be times when the filing and prosecution activities for patents and patent applications relating to our programs are controlled by our current and future licensors or collaboration partners. If any of our current and future licensors or collaboration partners fail to prosecute, maintain and enforce such patents and patent applications in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, we could lose our rights to the intellectual property or our exclusivity with respect to those rights, our ability to develop and commercialize those product candidates may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products. In addition, even where we have the right to control patent prosecution of patents and patent applications we have licensed to and from third parties, we may still be adversely affected or prejudiced by actions or inactions of our licensees, our future licensors and our counsel that took place prior to the date upon which we assumed control over patent prosecution. Moreover, if other third parties have ownership rights to our future in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology.

Failure to obtain licenses at a reasonable cost or terms may require us to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, programs, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Disputes may arise between us and our future licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including: the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues; whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement; our right to sublicense patents and other rights to third parties; our right to transfer or assign the license; the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our future licensors and us and our partners; and the priority of invention of patented technology.

We may be subject to patent infringement claims or may need to file claims to protect our intellectual property, which could result in substantial costs and liability and prevent us from commercializing our potential products. 

Because the intellectual property landscape in the biopharmaceutical industry is rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate and guarantee that we can operate without infringing on or violating third-party rights. Third party patent rights, if found to be valid and enforceable, could be alleged to render one or more of our product candidates infringing. If a third party successfully brings a claim against us, we may be required to pay substantial damages, be forced to abandon any affected product candidate and/or seek a license from the patent holder. Any intellectual property claims brought against us, whether or not successful, may cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from other business concerns. We cannot be certain that patents owned or licensed by us will not be challenged by others in the course of litigation. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations, including our ability to raise funds.

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or other violations, we may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming, and any such claims could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court or administrative body may decide that one or more of the patents we assert is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to prevent the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court or administrative body may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In such a case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such marks. In any intellectual property litigation, even if we are successful, any award of monetary damages or other remedy we receive may not be commercially valuable.

Further, we may be required to protect our patents through procedures created to attack the validity of a patent at the USPTO. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action.

In addition, if our programs are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, these third parties may assert infringement claims against our future licensees and other parties with whom we have business relationships and we may be required to indemnify those parties for any damages they suffer as a result of these claims, which may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation on behalf of licensees and other parties regardless of the merits of such claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages on behalf of those parties or may be required to obtain licenses for the products they use.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or other proceedings.

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties. 

As is common in the biopharmaceutical industry, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our programs. Many of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies including our competitors or potential competitors. We could in the future be subject to claims that we, our employees or our consultants have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed alleged intellectual property, such as trade secrets, or other confidential information of former employers or competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the intellectual property, proprietary information, know-how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may become subject to claims that we caused an individual to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement, or that we or these individuals have, inadvertently or otherwise, used or disclosed the alleged trade secrets or other proprietary information of a former employer or competitor.

While we may litigate to defend ourselves against these claims, even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial costs and could be a distraction to management. If our defenses to these claims fail, in addition to requiring us to pay monetary damages, a court could prohibit us from using technologies or features that are essential to our programs, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of the former employers. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. 

Changes to patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the United States and foreign jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our owned and in-licensed issued patents. Additionally, there have been proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our patent rights and our ability to protect, defend and enforce our patent rights in the future. In addition, geopolitical instability could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of issued patents.

The patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations, including in the antibody arts. For example, the United States Supreme Court in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (Amgen) stated that if patent claims are directed to an entire class of compositions of matter, then the patent specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class of compositions. This decision makes it unlikely that we will be granted U.S. patents with composition of matter claims directed to antibodies functionally defined by their ability to bind a particular antigen. Even if we are granted claims directed to functionally defined antibodies, it is possible that a third party may challenge our patents, when issued, relying on the reasoning in Amgen or other recent precedential court decisions.

In addition, a European Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) entered into force on June 1, 2023. The UPC is a common patent court that hears patent infringement and revocation proceedings effective for EU Member States. This could enable third parties to seek revocation of a European patent in a single proceeding at the UPC rather than through multiple proceedings in each of the jurisdictions in which the European patent is validated.

Although we do not currently own any European patents or applications, if we obtain such patents and applications in the future, any such revocation and loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and products. Moreover, the controlling laws and regulations of the UPC will develop over time, and may adversely affect our ability to enforce or defend the validity of any European patents we may obtain. We may decide to opt out from the UPC any future European patent applications that we may file and any patents we may obtain. If certain formalities and requirements are not met, however, such European patents and patent applications could be challenged for non-compliance and brought under the jurisdiction of the UPC. We cannot be certain that future European patents and patent applications will avoid falling under the jurisdiction of the UPC, if we decide to opt out of the UPC.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuities fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or patent applications are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent and/or patent application. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies also require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our programs, our competitive position would be adversely affected.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

In addition, because some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our issued patents or our pending applications, or that we were the first to invent the technology. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering products or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications or patents, which could require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies.

We may become subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our programs or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect the competitive position of our product candidates for an adequate amount of time. 

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest United States non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product 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 technology licensed from various third parties may be subject to retained rights.

Our future licensors may retain certain rights under the relevant agreements with us, including the right to use the underlying technology for noncommercial academic and research use, to publish general scientific findings from research related to the technology, and to make customary scientific and scholarly disclosures of information relating to the technology. It is difficult to monitor whether our licensors limit their use of the technology to these uses, and we could incur substantial expenses to enforce our rights to our licensed technology in the event of misuse.

In addition, our future licensors may rely on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that our licensors would not be the sole and exclusive owners of any patents we in-license. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We currently rely on licensing arrangements with Paragon through the License Agreements. If we are unable to maintain collaborations or licensing arrangements, or if our collaborations or licensing arrangements are not successful, our business could be negatively impacted. 

We currently rely on our licensing arrangements with Paragon through the License Agreements for a substantial portion of our in-licenses.

Collaborations or licensing arrangements that we enter into may not be successful, and any success will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of such collaborators or licensors. If any of our current or future collaborators or licensors experience delays in performance of, or fails to perform our obligations under their agreement with us, disagrees with our interpretation of the terms of such agreement or terminates their agreement with us, the research programs with respect to which we have the option to acquire intellectual property license rights to pursuant to the Option Agreements, the licensing agreements we have pursuant to the License Agreements and our development timeline could be adversely affected. If we fail to comply with any of the obligations under our collaborations or license agreements, including payment terms and diligence terms, our collaborators or licensors may have the right to terminate such agreements, in which event we may lose intellectual property rights and may not be able to develop, manufacture, market or sell the products covered by our agreements or may face other penalties under our agreements. Our collaborators and licensors may also fail to properly maintain or defend the intellectual property we have licensed from them, if required by our agreement with them, or even infringe upon, our intellectual property rights, leading to the potential invalidation of our intellectual property or subjecting us to litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. In addition, collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our programs and products if the collaborators believe that the competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than ours.

As part of our strategy, we plan to evaluate additional opportunities to enhance our capabilities and expand our development pipeline or provide development or commercialization capabilities that complement ours. We may not realize the benefits of such collaborations, alliances or licensing arrangements. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business.

We may face significant competition in attracting appropriate collaborators, and more established companies may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we consider attractive. These companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend upon, among other things, our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document and execute. In addition, consolidation among large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies has reduced the number of potential future collaborators. We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market.

We currently rely, and plan to rely in the future, on third parties to conduct and support our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not properly and successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates. 

We have utilized and plan to continue to utilize and depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as medical institutions, CROs, contract testing labs, CMOs and strategic partners, to supply, conduct and support our preclinical studies and clinical trials under agreements with us. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. As a result, we will have less direct control over the conduct, timing and completion of these preclinical studies and clinical trials and the management of data developed through preclinical studies and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies and trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third-party contractors and CROs are required to comply with GCP regulations, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our programs in clinical development. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications or refuse to approve our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

Any third parties conducting our clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether they devote sufficient time and resources to our programs. These third parties may have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product development activities, which could negatively affect their performance on our behalf and the timing thereof and could lead to products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. 

We currently rely and expect to rely in the future on the use of manufacturing suites in third-party facilities or on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and we may rely on third parties to produce and process our products, if approved. Our business could be adversely affected if we are unable to use third-party manufacturing suites or if the third-party manufacturers encounter difficulties in production.

We do not currently own any facility that may be used as our clinical or commercial manufacturing and processing facility and must currently rely on CMOs to manufacture our product candidates. We have not yet caused any product candidates to be manufactured on a commercial scale and may not be able to do so for any of our product candidates, if approved. We currently have a sole source relationship for our supply of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 programs. If there should be any disruption in such supply arrangement, including any adverse events affecting our sole supplier, it could have a negative effect on the clinical development of our programs and other operations while we work to identify and qualify an alternate supply source. We may not control the manufacturing process of, and may be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP requirements and any other regulatory requirements of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for the manufacture of our product candidates. Beyond periodic audits, we have limited control over the ability of our CMOs to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would require the incurrence of significant additional costs, delays, and materially adversely affect our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Similarly, our failure, or the failure of our CMOs, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or drugs and harm our business and results of operations.

Moreover, our CMOs may experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints, supply chain issues, proposed or actual legislative changes or requirements, or as a result of labor disputes or unstable political environments. If any CMOs on which we will rely fail to manufacture quantities of our product candidates at quality levels necessary to meet regulatory requirements and at a scale sufficient to meet anticipated demand at a cost that allows us to achieve profitability, our business, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, our CMOs are responsible for transporting temperature-controlled materials that can be inadvertently degraded during transport due to several factors, rendering certain batches unsuitable for trial use for failure to meet, among others, our integrity and purity specifications. We and any of our CMOs may also face product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of products. Our business could be materially adversely affected by business disruptions to our third-party providers that could materially adversely affect our anticipated timelines, potential future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. Each of these risks could delay or prevent the completion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials or the approval of any of our product candidates by the FDA, result in higher costs or adversely impact commercialization of our product candidates.

Foreign CMOs may be subject to U.S. legislation, including the proposed BIOSECURE bill, trade restrictions and other foreign regulatory requirements, which could increase the cost or reduce the supply of material available to us, delay the procurement or supply of such material or have an adverse effect on our ability to secure significant commitments from governments to purchase our potential therapies. We currently rely on foreign CROs and CMOs, including WuXi Biologics (Hong Kong) Limited and its affiliates (“WuXi Biologics”) and will likely continue to rely on foreign CROs and CMOs in the future. WuXi Biologics is identified in the U.S. legislation known as the BIOSECURE Act, which was proposed in the 118^th Congress, as a “biotechnology company of concern.” The version of the BIOSECURE Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 118^th Congress would prohibit federal agencies from entering into procurement contracts with, as well as providing grants and loans to, an entity that uses biotechnology equipment or services from a biotechnology company of concern, and includes a grandfathering provision allowing biotechnology equipment and services provided or produced by named “biotechnology companies of concern” under a contract or agreement entered into before the effective date until January 1, 2032. The pathway and timing for the BIOSECURE Act or its provisions to become law are uncertain. Depending on whether the BIOSECURE Act becomes law, what the final language of the BIOSECURE Act includes, and how the law is interpreted by U.S. federal agencies, we could be potentially restricted from pursuing U.S. federal government business or grants in the future if we continue to use WuXi or other parties identified as “biotechnology companies of concern” beyond the grandfathering period.

Furthermore, our operations and financial condition may be negatively impacted as a result of any delays or increased costs arising from the trade restrictions and other foreign regulatory requirements affecting such collaborators. In addition, while we have established relationships with CROs and CMOs outside of China, moving to those suppliers in the event of geopolitical instability affecting our collaborators in China could introduce delays into the development program.

Risks Related to Employee Matters, Managing Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

In order to successfully implement our plans and strategies, we will need to grow the size of our organization and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

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

We are highly dependent on our key personnel and anticipate hiring new key personnel. If we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited if we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel. We have been and will continue to be highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business development expertise of our executive officers, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Any of our management team members may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Attracting and retaining qualified personnel will also be critical to our success, including with respect to any strategic transaction that we may pursue. The loss of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, facilitate regulatory approval of and commercialize product candidates. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel, as well as from universities and research institutions.

In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors to assist us in formulating our discovery and nonclinical and clinical development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to operate in foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties. 

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in foreign markets and receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business will be adversely affected. Moreover, even if we obtain approval of our product candidates and ultimately commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to the risks and uncertainties, including the burden of complying with complex and changing foreign regulatory, tax, accounting and legal requirements and reduced protection of intellectual property rights in some foreign countries.

Our estimates of market opportunity and forecasts of market growth may prove to be inaccurate, and even if the markets in which we compete achieve the forecasted growth, our business may not grow at similar rates, or at all. 

Our market opportunity estimates and growth forecasts are subject to significant uncertainty and are based on assumptions and estimates that may not prove to be accurate. Even if the markets in which we compete meet our size estimates and growth forecasts, our business may not grow at similar rates, or at all.

Our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to obtain coverage and reimbursement and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, suppliers and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, suppliers and vendors acting for or on our behalf may engage in misconduct or other improper activities. We have adopted a code of conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by these parties and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations.

Our internal information technology systems, or those of any of our third-party service providers, or potential future collaborators, may fail or suffer security or data privacy breaches or other unauthorized or improper access to, use of, or destruction of our proprietary or confidential data, employee data or personal data, which could result in additional costs, loss of revenue, significant liabilities, harm to our brand and material disruption of our operations.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and the third parties upon which we rely collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) proprietary, confidential, and sensitive data, including personal data, intellectual property, trade secrets, and other sensitive data (collectively, sensitive information). If we (or a third party upon whom we rely) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences. While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. Further, cybersecurity breaches or other cybersecurity incidents may allow hackers access to our preclinical compounds, strategies, discoveries, trade secrets, and/or other confidential information. Additionally, sensitive data could be leaked, disclosed, or revealed as a result of or in connection with our employees’, personnel’s, vendors’ or partners’ use of generative AI technologies. Our ability to monitor third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate security measures in place. We may be unable in the future to detect vulnerabilities in our information technology systems because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature, and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred. Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address any such identified vulnerabilities. Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders of security incidents. Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. Moreover, while we may be entitled to damages if our third-party service providers fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient or we may be unable to recover such award. Security incidents and attendant consequences may negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business. The risk of a cybersecurity incident or other informational technology disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased.

To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in loss, destruction, unavailability, alteration or dissemination of, or damage to, our data (including clinical trial data) or applications, or for it to be believed or reported that any of these occurred, we could incur liability, including under laws and regulations governing the protection of protected health information and other personal data, and reputational damage and the development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed. Further, our insurance policies may not be adequate to compensate us for the potential losses arising from any such disruption in, or failure or security breach of, our systems or third-party systems where information important to our business operations or commercial development is stored.

Despite the implementation of security measures in an effort to protect systems that store our information, given their size and complexity and the increasing amounts of information maintained on our internal information technology systems and those of our third-party CROs, contractors (including sites performing our clinical trials), third-party service providers and supply chain companies, and consultants, these systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown or other damage or interruption from service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties, or ransomware attacks, which, in each case, may compromise our system infrastructure or lead to the loss, destruction, alteration or dissemination of, or damage to, our data.

Our hybrid-remote workforce may create additional risks for our information technology systems and data because our employees work remotely and utilize network connections, computers, and devices working at home, while in transit and in public locations.

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

We are subject to stringent and changing laws, regulations and standards, and contractual obligations relating to privacy, data protection, and data security. The actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), fines and sanctions, private litigation and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. 

We and third parties who we work with are or may become subject to numerous domestic and foreign laws, regulations, and standards relating to privacy, data protection, data transfer, and data security, the scope of which is changing, subject to differing applications and interpretations, and may be inconsistent among countries, or conflict with other rules. We are or may become subject to the terms of contractual obligations related to privacy, data protection and data security. Our obligations may also change or expand as our business grows. The actual or perceived failure by us or third parties related to us to comply with such laws, regulations and obligations could increase our compliance and operational costs, expose us to regulatory scrutiny, actions, fines and penalties, result in reputational harm, lead to a loss of customers, result in litigation and liability, and otherwise cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

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

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or commercialization efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could negatively impact our financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which may have retroactive application) could adversely affect our stockholders or us. We continue to assess the impact of various tax reform proposals and modifications to existing tax treaties in all jurisdictions where we have operations or employees to determine the potential effect on our business and any assumptions we make about our future taxable income. We cannot predict whether any specific proposals will be enacted, the terms of any such proposals or what effect, if any, such proposals would have on our business if they were to be enacted. For example, the United States enacted the IRA, which implements, among other changes, a 1% excise tax on certain stock buybacks. In addition, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the previously available option to deduct research and development expenditures and requires taxpayers to amortize them generally over five years for research activities conducted in the United States and over 15 years for research activities conducted outside the United States. Such changes, among others, may adversely affect our effective tax rate, results of operation and general business condition.

We may acquire businesses or products, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

We may acquire additional businesses or products, form strategic alliances, or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new product candidates or products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. There is no assurance that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the synergies expected in order to justify the transaction, which could result in a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

We maintain our cash at financial institutions, often in balances that exceed federally-insured limits. The failure of financial institutions could adversely affect our ability to pay our operational expenses or make other payments.

Our cash held in non-interest-bearing and interest-bearing accounts exceeds the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. If such banking institutions were to fail, we could lose all or a portion of those amounts held in excess of such insurance limitations. In addition, even if account holders are ultimately made whole with respect to a future bank failure, account holders’ access to their accounts and assets held in their accounts may be substantially delayed. Any material loss that we may experience in the future or inability for a material time period to access our cash and cash equivalents could have an adverse effect on our ability to pay our operational expenses or make other payments, which could adversely affect our business. 

General Risk Factors 

Our estimates of market opportunity and forecasts of market growth may prove to be inaccurate, and even if the markets in which we compete achieve the forecasted growth, our business may not grow at similar rates, or at all. 

Our market opportunity estimates and growth forecasts are subject to significant uncertainty and are based on assumptions and estimates that may not prove to be accurate. Even if the markets in which we compete meet our size estimates and growth forecasts, our business may not grow at similar rates, or at all. Our growth is subject to many factors, including our success in implementing our business strategy, which is subject to many risks and uncertainties.

Our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to obtain coverage and reimbursement and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of our addressable patients is not as significant as we estimate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect or the treatment population is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved.

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

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing, and use of pharmaceutical products. The use of a product candidate in clinical trials and the sale of any approved products in the future may expose us to liability claims. An individual or group of individuals may bring a liability claim against us if one of our product candidates causes, or merely appears to have caused, an injury. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially and adversely affect our business. While we carry product liability insurance for our clinical trials, it is possible that any liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage or that in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action or individual lawsuits. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and our business operations could be impaired.

Litigation costs and the outcome of litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business. 

From time to time we may be subject to litigation claims through the ordinary course of our business operations regarding, but not limited to, employment matters, security of patient and employee personal information, contractual relations with collaborators and intellectual property rights. Litigation to defend ourselves against claims by third parties, or to enforce any rights that we may have against third parties, may continue to be necessary, which could result in substantial costs and diversion of our resources, causing a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our business could be adversely affected by economic downturns, inflation, fluctuation in interest rates, natural disasters, public health crises, political crises, geopolitical events or other macroeconomic conditions, which could have a material and adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The global economy, including credit and financial markets, has experienced and may experience in the future extreme volatility and disruptions, including, among other things, diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, supply chain shortages, new or increased tariffs and other barriers to trade, trade and other international disputes, increases in inflation rates, fluctuation in interest rates, slower growth or recession, tighter credit, volatility in financial markets, high unemployment, labor availability constraints, public health crises, significant natural disasters, including as a result of climate change, changes to fiscal and monetary policy or government budget dynamics (particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotech areas), particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotech areas, political and military conflict, and uncertainty about economic stability. Fluctuation in interest rates, coupled with reduced government spending and volatility in financial markets, may increase economic uncertainty and affect consumer spending. Similarly, the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and in the Middle East and rising tensions with China have created extreme volatility in the global capital markets and may have further global economic consequences, including disruptions of the global supply chain. Any such volatility and disruptions may adversely affect our business or the third parties on whom we rely. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, including as a result of political unrest or war, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more costly, more dilutive, or more difficult to obtain in a timely manner or on favorable terms, if at all. Increased inflation rates can adversely affect us by increasing our costs, including materials, operational, labor and employee benefit costs.

We may in the future experience disruptions as a result of such macroeconomic conditions, including delays or difficulties in initiating or expanding clinical trials and manufacturing sufficient quantities of materials. Any one or a combination of these events could have a material and adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Geopolitical events and global economic conditions may also affect the ability of the FDA and other regulatory authorities to perform routine functions. If such 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.

Risks Related to Owning Our Stock

The market price of our common stock has been, and may continue to be volatile.

The market price of our common stock has been and is likely to be highly volatile and is subject to significant fluctuations. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include:

Moreover, the stock markets in general have experienced substantial volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of individual companies. These broad market fluctuations may also adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. In addition, a recession, depression or other sustained adverse market event could materially and adversely affect our business and the value of our common stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, stockholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against such companies. 

Furthermore, market volatility may lead to securities litigation or increased stockholder activism if we experience a market valuation that activists believe is not reflective of our intrinsic value. Activist campaigns that contest or conflict with our strategic direction or seek changes in the composition of our board of directors could have an adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and cash flows.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions under Delaware law, could make an acquisition of the company more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove management.

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

Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), which prohibits stockholders owning more than 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us. Although we believe these provisions collectively will provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirors to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

Our governing documents provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, certain designated courts will be the sole and exclusive forum for certain legal actions between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents.

Our governing documents provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for state law claims for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of or based on a breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers, or other employees or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, the certificate of incorporation or the bylaws, (iv) any action to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, or (v) any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine, in each case subject to the Court of Chancery having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants therein, which for purposes of this risk factor refers to herein as the “Delaware Forum Provision.” Our governing documents further provide that, unless we consent in writing to an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, which for purposes of this risk factor refers to herein as the “Federal Forum Provision.” Neither the Delaware Forum Provision nor the Federal Forum Provision will apply to any causes of action arising under the Exchange Act. In addition, any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock will be deemed to have notice of and consented to the foregoing Delaware Forum Provision and Federal Forum Provision; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

The Delaware Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision may impose additional litigation costs on our stockholders in pursuing any such claims, particularly if such stockholders do not reside in or near the State of Delaware. Additionally, these forum selection clauses may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders.

Future sales of shares by existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline.

If our stockholders sell, or indicate an intention to sell, substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market after legal restrictions on resale lapse, the trading price of our common stock could decline. In addition, shares of our common stock that are subject to our outstanding options will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting agreements and Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act.

We do not anticipate that we will pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We do not anticipate that we will pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. The current expectation is that we will retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain, if any, for the foreseeable future.

Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders have the ability to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval.

Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders beneficially own a significant percentage of our outstanding common stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these stockholders, if they choose to act together, would control or significantly influence the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. This concentration of voting power could delay or prevent our acquisition on terms that other stockholders may desire.

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports, or publish unfavorable research or reports about us, our business or our market, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. Equity research analysts may elect to not provide research coverage of our common stock, and such lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. If we do have equity research analyst coverage, we will not have any control over the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. The price of our common stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our stock or issue other unfavorable commentary or research. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

USE OF PROCEEDS

We are not selling any securities under this prospectus and we will not receive any proceeds from the sale of the Resale Shares covered hereby. The net proceeds from the sale of the Resale Shares offered by this prospectus will be received by the Selling Stockholders. Some of the shares of Common Stock offered hereby are issuable upon the exercise of the Pre-Funded Warrants. Upon exercise of such Pre-Funded Warrants for cash, we will receive the nominal cash exercise price paid by the holders of the Pre-Funded Warrants. We intend to use those proceeds, if any, for general corporate purposes.

Subject to limited exceptions, the Selling Stockholders will pay any underwriting discounts and commissions and expenses incurred by the Selling Stockholders for brokerage, accounting, tax or legal services or any other expenses incurred by the Selling Stockholders in disposing of any of the Resale Shares. We will bear the costs, fees and expenses incurred in effecting the registration of the Resale Shares covered by this prospectus, including all registration and filing fees, Nasdaq listing fees and fees and expenses of our counsel and our independent registered public accounting firm.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto and other financial information included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion contains forward-looking statements based upon current beliefs, plans and expectations related to future events and our future financial performance that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed below and elsewhere in this prospectus, particularly in the section titled “Risk Factors.” Please also see the section titled “Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements.” As used in this prospectus, unless the context suggests otherwise, “we”, “us”, “our”, “the Company”, or “Oruka” refers to Oruka Therapeutics, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Oruka Therapeutics Operating Company, LLC.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel monoclonal antibody therapeutics for psoriasis (“PsO”) and other inflammatory and immunology (“I&I”) indications. Our name is derived from or, for “skin,” and arukah, for “restoration,” and reflects our mission to deliver therapies for chronic skin diseases that provide patients the most possible freedom from their condition. Our strategy is to apply antibody engineering and format innovations to validated modes of action, which we believe will enable us to improve meaningfully upon the efficacy and dosing regimens of standard-of-care medicines while significantly reducing technical and biological risk. Our programs aim to treat and potentially modify disease by targeting mechanisms with proven efficacy and safety involved in disease pathology and the activity of pathogenic tissue-resident memory T cells (“TRMs”).

Our lead program, ORKA-001, is designed to target the p19 subunit of interleukin-23 (“IL-23p19”) for the treatment of PsO. Our co-lead program, ORKA-002, is designed to target interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F (“IL-17A/F”) for the treatment of PsO, psoriatic arthritis (“PsA”), and other conditions. These programs each bind their respective targets at high affinity and incorporate half-life extension technology with the aim to increase exposure and decrease dosing frequency. We believe that our focused strategy, differentiated portfolio, and deep expertise position us to set a new treatment standard in large I&I markets with continued unmet need.

Since our inception in February 2024, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to raising capital, organizing and staffing the company, business and scientific planning, conducting discovery and research activities, establishing arrangements with third parties for the manufacture of our programs and component materials, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We do not have any programs approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. To date, we have funded our operations primarily with proceeds from the issuance of convertible preferred stock, common stock, a convertible note, pre-funded warrants, and the proceeds from the reverse recapitalization and merger with ARCA biopharma, Inc., our Pre-Closing Financing and subsequent PIPE Financing (as defined and further described in “Recent developments” below). 

Since our inception, we have incurred significant losses and negative cash flows from our operations. Our ability to generate product revenue sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of any programs we may develop. We generated net losses of $83.7 million for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024. For the period from February 6 (inception) to December 31, 2024, we have used net cash of $57.8 million for our operating activities.

We had cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities of $393.7 million as of December 31, 2024. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operating plans for at least twelve months from the date of filing of this prospectus. We expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future, and our transition to profitability will depend upon successful development, approval and commercialization of our product candidates and upon achievement of sufficient revenues to support our cost structure.

ORKA-001

ORKA-001 is a high affinity, extended half-life monoclonal antibody (“mAb”) designed to target IL-23p19. IL-23 is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that plays a critical role in the proliferation and development of T helper 17 (“Th17”) cells, which are the primary drivers of several autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, including PsO. IL-23 is composed of two subunits: a p40 subunit that is shared with IL-12 and a p19 subunit that is specific to IL-23. First-generation IL-23 antibodies bound p40 and inhibited both IL-12 and IL-23 signaling, while more recent IL-23 antibodies targeting the p19 subunit have shown improved efficacy and safety. Based on preclinical evidence, we believe that ORKA-001 could achieve higher response rates than established therapies in PsO while requiring less frequent dosing and maintaining the favorable safety profile of therapies targeting IL-23p19.

ORKA-001 is engineered with YTE half-life extension technology, a specific three amino acid change in the fragment crystallizable (“Fc”) domain to modify the pH-dependent binding to the neonatal Fc receptor. As a result, it has a pharmacokinetic profile designed to support a subcutaneous (“SQ”) injection as infrequently as once or twice a year. In addition, emerging evidence suggests that IL-23 blockade can modify the disease biology of PsO, possibly leading to durable remissions and preventing the development of PsA. We believe that the expected characteristics of ORKA-001 increase its potential to deliver these disease-modifying benefits.

We initiated the dosing of healthy volunteers in a Phase 1 trial of ORKA-001 in the fourth quarter of 2024. We expect to share interim data from the first-in-human trial in healthy volunteers, including initial pharmacokinetic data, in the second half of 2025 and initial efficacy data in PsO patients in the second half of 2026. Based on recent precedent for PsO, we anticipate that the entire development program from first-in-human to biologics license application (“BLA”) filing could take as little as six to seven years based on the averages for recently approved medicines. However, we have no control over the length of time needed for United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) review, and this timeline could vary.

ORKA-002

ORKA-002 is a high affinity, extended half-life mAb designed to target IL-17A and IL-17F (“IL-17A/F”). IL-17 inhibition has become central to the treatment of psoriatic diseases, including PsO and PsA, and has also shown efficacy in other I&I indications, such as hidradenitis suppurativa and axial spondyloarthritis. More recently, the importance of inhibiting the IL-17F isoform along with IL-17A has become appreciated, and dual blockade with the recently approved therapy Bimzelx (bimekizumab) has led to higher response rates in patients than blockade of IL-17A alone. ORKA-002 is designed to bind IL-17A/F at similar epitopes, or binding sites, and affinity ranges as bimekizumab, but incorporates half-life extension technology that could enable more convenient dosing intervals. We plan to initiate the dosing of healthy volunteers in a Phase 1 trial of ORKA-002 in the third quarter of 2025. We expect to share interim data from the first-in-human trial in healthy volunteers, including initial pharmacokinetic data, in the first half of 2026.

We view ORKA-002 and ORKA-001 as highly complementary. Patients with moderate-to-severe PsO that have purely skin manifestations are most often treated with IL-23 inhibitors due to the high efficacy and tolerability of this mechanism. However, for patients who also have joint involvement, or signs and symptoms of PsA, an IL-17 inhibitor is typically used due to its efficacy in addressing both skin and joint symptoms. In addition, IL-17 inhibitors are often used in patients with highly resistant skin symptoms that do not adequately resolve through treatment with an IL-23 inhibitor. Furthermore, we have the potential opportunity to administer ORKA-002 and ORKA-001 sequentially, called ORKA-021, to combine two features of each program: the rapid response of an IL-17 inhibitor with the ideal maintenance profile of an IL-23 inhibitor. We believe that ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 provide the potential to offer a highly compelling product profile for most patients with PsO and/or PsA, as well as the opportunity to address additional I&I indications.

Additional Pipeline Program

We have a third mAb program, ORKA-003, designed to target an undisclosed pathway. Our strategy as a company is to remain highly focused on I&I diseases, and specifically on inflammatory dermatology conditions. Our third program provides the potential for indication expansion beyond PsO and may create combination opportunities with our more advanced programs.

Recent Developments

Acquisition of Pre-Merger Oruka

On August 29, 2024 (the “Merger Closing”), we completed our acquisition (the “Merger”) of Oruka Therapeutics, Inc. (“Pre-Merger Oruka”) pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of April 3, 2024 (the “Merger Agreement”). Following the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, Pre-Merger Oruka merged with and into Atlas Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCA biopharma, Inc. (“ARCA”) and following that, Pre-Merger Oruka then merged with and into Atlas Merger Sub II, LLC (“Second Merger Sub”), with Second Merger Sub being the surviving entity. Second Merger Sub changed its corporate name to “Oruka Therapeutics Operating Company, LLC.” Pre-Merger Oruka was a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company that was incorporated on February 6, 2024 under the direction of Peter Harwin, a Managing Member of Fairmount Funds Management LLC (“Fairmount”), for the purposes of holding rights to certain intellectual property being developed by Paragon Therapeutics, Inc. (“Paragon”). On August 29, 2024, we changed our name from “ARCA biopharma, Inc.” (“ARCA”) to “Oruka Therapeutics, Inc.” and our Nasdaq ticker symbol from “ABIO” to “ORKA”.

Pre-Closing Financing

Immediately prior to the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement on April 3, 2024, certain new and existing investors of Pre-Merger Oruka entered into a subscription agreement with Pre-Merger Oruka (the “Subscription Agreement”), pursuant to which, and on the terms and subject to the conditions of which, immediately prior to the Closing, those investors purchased shares of common stock of Pre-Merger Oruka (“Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock”) and Pre-Merger Oruka pre-funded warrants for gross proceeds of approximately $275.0 million (which includes $25.0 million of proceeds previously received from the issuance of the Convertible Note (refer to Note 7 in our consolidated financial statements included in this prospectus for additional details) and accrued interest on such note which converted to shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock) (the “Pre-Closing Financing”). We incurred transaction costs of $20.5 million, which was recorded as a reduction to additional paid-in capital in the consolidated financial statements. At the Closing, the shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock and Pre-Merger Oruka pre-funded warrants issued pursuant to the Subscription Agreement were converted into shares of Company Common Stock and pre-funded warrants of Company Common Stock in accordance with the Exchange Ratio (defined below).

In accordance with an Exchange Ratio determined by terms of the Merger Agreement and upon the effective time of the First Merger (the “First Effective Time”), (i) each then-issued and outstanding share of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock including outstanding and unvested Pre-Merger Oruka restricted stock and shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock issued in connection with the Subscription Agreement, were converted into the right to receive a number of shares of Company Common Stock, equal to the exchange ratio of 6.8569 shares of Company Common Stock (the “Exchange Ratio”), which were subject to the same vesting provisions as those immediately prior to the Merger, (ii) each share of Pre-Merger Oruka Series A convertible preferred stock, par value $0.0001 (“Pre-Merger Oruka Series A Preferred Stock”), outstanding immediately prior to the First Effective Time was converted into the right to receive a number of shares of ARCA Series B non-voting convertible preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share, which are convertible into shares of Company Common Stock at a conversion ratio of approximately 83.3332:1 after the reverse stock split discussed below, (iii) each outstanding option to purchase Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock was converted into an option to purchase shares of Company Common Stock, (iv) each outstanding warrant to purchase shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock was converted into a warrant to purchase shares of Company Common Stock, and (v) each share of Company Common Stock issued and outstanding at the First Effective Time remain issued and outstanding in accordance with its terms and such shares. Subsequent to the close of the merger, the common stock shares were then, subject to a reverse stock split of 1-for-12 effected on September 3, 2024 (“Reverse Stock Split”).

As part of the Pre-Closing Financing and the Closing, the investors in the Pre-Closing Financing received 22,784,139 shares of Company Common Stock in exchange for 39,873,706 shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock (which includes the issuance of 2,722,207 shares of Company Common Stock in exchange for 4,764,032 shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock on the conversion of Convertible Note along with the accrued interest through the conversion date) and 5,522,207 Company pre-funded warrants in exchange for 9,664,208 Pre-Merger pre-funded warrants.

The Merger was accounted for as a reverse recapitalization in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Under this method of accounting, Pre-Merger Oruka was deemed to be the accounting acquirer for financial reporting purposes. This determination was primarily based on the fact that, immediately following the Merger: (i) Pre-Merger Oruka stockholders own a substantial majority of the voting rights in the combined company; (ii) Pre-Merger Oruka’s largest stockholders retain the largest interest in the combined company; (iii) Pre-Merger Oruka designated a majority of the initial members of the board of directors of the combined company; and (iv) Pre-Merger Oruka’s executive management team became the management team of the combined company. Accordingly, for accounting purposes: (i) the Merger was treated as the equivalent of Pre-Merger Oruka issuing stock to acquire the net assets of ARCA; (ii) the reported historical operating results of the combined company prior to the Merger are those of Pre-Merger Oruka; and (iii) Pre-Merger Oruka was not a variable interest entity as it had sufficient equity at risk in order to fund its next development milestones at the time of the reverse recapitalization. Additional information regarding the Merger is included in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included in this prospectus.

Reverse Stock Split

On September 3, 2024, we effected the Reverse Stock Split, a 1-for-12 reverse stock split of Company Common Stock. The par value per share and the number of authorized shares were not adjusted as a result of the Reverse Stock Split. The shares of Company Common Stock underlying outstanding stock options, common stock warrants and other equity instruments were proportionately reduced and the respective exercise prices, if applicable, were proportionately increased in accordance with the terms of the agreements governing such securities. All references to common stock, options to purchase common stock, outstanding common stock warrants, common stock share data, per share data, and related information contained in the consolidated financial statements have been retrospectively adjusted to reflect the effect of the Reverse Stock Split for all periods presented, unless otherwise specifically indicated or the context otherwise requires.

PIPE Financing

On September 11, 2024, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement for a private placement (the “PIPE Financing”) with certain institutional and accredited investors. The closing of the PIPE Financing occurred on September 13, 2024.

Pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement, the investors purchased an aggregate of 5,600,000 shares of Company Common Stock at a purchase price of $23.00 per share, an aggregate of 2,439 shares of the Company’s Series A non-voting convertible preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Company Series A Preferred Stock”), at a purchase price of $23,000.00 per share (each Company Series A Preferred Stock is convertible into 1,000 shares of Company Common Stock), and pre-funded warrants to purchase an aggregate of 680,000 shares of Company Common Stock at a purchase price of $22.999 per pre-funded warrant, for aggregate net proceeds of approximately $188.7 million (net of issuance costs of $11.9 million).

Components of Results of Operations

Revenue

To date, we have not generated revenue from any sources, including product sales, and do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the foreseeable future. If our development efforts for our product candidates are successful and result in regulatory approval, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales or payments from future collaboration or license agreements that we may enter into with third parties, or any combination thereof. We cannot predict if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of our product candidates. We may never succeed in obtaining regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

Operating Expenses

Research and Development

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs incurred in connection with the development and research of our programs. These expenses include:

We expense research and development costs as incurred. Non-refundable advance payments that we make for goods or services to be received in the future for use in research and development activities are recorded as prepaid expenses. The prepaid amounts are expensed as the related goods are delivered or the services are performed, or when it is no longer expected that the goods will be delivered or the services rendered. Our primary focus since inception has been the identification and development of our pipeline programs. Our research and development expenses primarily consist of external costs, such as fees paid to Paragon under the Option Agreements. See “—Contractual Obligations and Commitments” below for further details on the Option Agreements.

We expect our research and development expenses will increase substantially for the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in research and development activities related to the continued development of our programs, developing any future programs, including investments in manufacturing, as we advance any program we may identify and continue to conduct clinical trials. The success of programs we may identify and develop will depend on many factors, including the following:

Any changes in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of programs that we may identify could mean a significant change in the costs and possible delays in timing associated with the development of such programs. For example, if the FDA or another regulatory authority were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate will be required for the completion of clinical development of a program, or if we experience significant delays in our clinical trials due to patient enrollment or other reasons, we would be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development. We may never obtain regulatory approval for any of our programs.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel-related expenses, including salaries, bonuses, employee benefits, travel, and stock-based compensation, for our executive and other administrative personnel. Other significant general and administrative expenses include legal services, including intellectual property and corporate matters; professional fees for accounting, auditing, tax, insurance, and allocated human resource costs, information technology costs, and facility-related costs, including rent, utilities, maintenance, and depreciation for our leased office space.

We expect our general and administrative expenses will increase substantially for the foreseeable future as we anticipate an increase in our personnel headcount to support the expansion of research and development activities, as well as to support our operations generally. We also expect to continue to incur significant expenses associated with being a public company, including costs related to accounting, audit, legal, regulatory, and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with applicable Nasdaq and SEC requirements; director and officer insurance costs; and investor and public relations costs. We also expect to incur additional intellectual property-related expenses as we file patent applications to protect innovations arising from our research and development activities. 

Other Income, Net

Other income, net consists of interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities; interest expense on the convertible note from a related party (see discussion herein); and foreign currency transactions gains and losses. Interest expense relates to a convertible note (the “Convertible Note”) issued to Fairmount Healthcare Fund II, L.P. (“Fairmount”), a related party, in March 2024. At the effective time of the Merger, the Convertible Note, along with the accrued interest, was automatically converted into Company Common Stock. 

Income Taxes

No provision for income taxes was recorded for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) through December 31, 2024. Deferred tax assets generated from our net operating losses have been fully offset by the valuation allowance as we believe it is not more likely than not that the benefit will be realized due to our cumulative losses generated to date.

Results of Operations for the Period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the period presented (in thousands):

Research and Development Expenses

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses for the period presented (in thousands):

Research and development expenses were $75.1 million for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024 and consisted primarily of the following:

General and Administrative Expenses

The following table summarizes our general and administrative expenses for the period presented (in thousands):

General and administrative expenses were $13.1 million for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024 and consisted primarily of the following:

Total Other Income, Net

Interest income from cash equivalents and marketable securities was $5.9 million for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024. 

Interest expense was $1.5 million for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024 relating to the Convertible Note from Fairmount.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2024, we had $393.7 million of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flow from operations. We expect to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future as we continue the pre-clinical and clinical development of our programs and our early-stage research activities. We have not yet commercialized any products, and we do not expect to generate revenue from sales of products for several years, if at all. Through December 31, 2024, we had funded our operations primarily with proceeds from issuances of convertible preferred stock, common stock, a convertible note, and pre-funded warrants. In March 2024, we received $2.9 million in net proceeds from the issuance of Pre-Merger Oruka Series A Preferred Stock and $25.0 million in gross proceeds from the issuance of the Convertible Note, both of which were related party transactions. In August 2024, we raised approximately $228.0 million in net proceeds from Pre-Closing Financing and received $4.9 million in cash from ARCA upon consummation of the Merger. In September 2024, we received approximately $188.7 million in net proceeds from the issuance of common stock, Company Series A Preferred Stock, and pre-funded warrants in connection with the PIPE Financing.

Our primary use of cash is to fund the development of our product candidates and advance our pipeline. This includes both the research and development costs and the general and administrative expenses required to support those operations. Since we are a clinical stage biotechnology company, we have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and we anticipate such losses, in absolute dollar terms, to increase as we continue to pursue clinical development of our product candidates, prepare for the potential commercialization of our product candidates, and expand our development efforts in our pipeline of nonclinical candidates. We expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our operating plans for at least twelve months from the date of filing of this prospectus. We will need to secure additional financing in the future to fund additional research and development, and before a commercial drug can be produced, marketed, and sold. If we are unable to obtain additional financing or generate license or product revenue, the lack of liquidity could have a material adverse effect on our company.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our cash flows for the period presented (in thousands):

Operating Activities

From February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, net cash used in operating activities was $57.8 million, which was primarily attributable to a net loss of $83.7 million, offset by net non-cash charges of $14.3 million and net changes in operating activities of $11.6 million. Non-cash charges primarily consisted of $14.9 million in stock-based compensation expense (including $10.4 million related to the Paruka warrant) and $1.5 million of non-cash interest expense, partially offset by net accretion of premiums and discounts on marketable securities of $2.2 million. Net changes in our operating activities primarily consisted of a $3.5 million increase in accounts payable, a $3.3 million increase in accrued expenses and other current liabilities, a $6.0 million increase in related parties accounts payable and other current liabilities, partially offset by a $1.1 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets. The increase in amounts due to related parties, accounts payable, and accrued expenses and other current liabilities was primarily due to an increase in our business activity, as well as vendor invoicing and payments. The increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets was primarily due to prepaid research and development expenses with our contract research organization.

Investing Activities

From February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, net cash used in investing activities was $330.1 million, which was primarily attributable to purchases of marketable securities. 

Financing Activities

From February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, net cash provided by financing activities was $449.5 million, consisting of $228.0 million of net proceeds from the Pre-Closing Financing, $188.7 million of net proceeds from the PIPE Financing, $25.0 million of net proceeds from the issuance of notes payable to related parties, $4.9 million of cash acquired in connection with the reverse recapitalization and $2.9 million of net proceeds from issuance of the Pre-Merger Oruka Series A Preferred Stock.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

We enter into contracts in the normal course of business with CROs, CMOs and with other vendors for preclinical research studies, clinical trials, manufacturing, and other services and products for operating purposes. These contracts generally provide for termination on notice or may have a potential termination fee if a purchase order is cancelled within a specified time, and therefore, are cancelable contracts. We do not expect any such contract terminations and did not have any non-cancellable obligations under these agreements as of December 31, 2024.

Paragon Therapeutics - Option Agreements

In March 2024, we entered into two antibody discovery and option agreements (“Option Agreements”) with Paragon and Paruka Holding, LLC (“Paruka”). Under the terms of each agreement, Paragon identifies, evaluates, and develops antibodies directed against certain mutually agreed therapeutic targets of interest to us. From time to time, we can choose to add additional targets to the collaboration upon agreement with Paragon and Paruka. Under the Option Agreements, we have the exclusive option to, on a research program-by-research program basis, be granted an exclusive, worldwide license to all of Paragon’s right, title, and interest in and to the intellectual property resulting from the applicable research program to develop, manufacture, and commercialize the antibodies and products directed to the selected target(s) (each, an “Option”). We have initiated certain research programs with Paragon that generally focus on discovering, generating, identifying and/or characterizing antibodies directed to a particular target (each, a “Research Program”), including for IL-23 and IL-17A/F for ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, respectively. Our exclusive option with respect to each Research Program is exercisable at our sole discretion at such time as specified in the Option Agreements (the “Option Period”). There is no payment due upon exercise of an Option pursuant to the Option Agreements. For each of these agreements, once we enter into the corresponding license agreements, we will be required to make non-refundable milestone payments to Paragon of up to $12.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain clinical development milestones, up to $10.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones, as well as a low single-digit percentage royalty for antibody products beginning on the first commercial sale in each program.

We may terminate any Option Agreement or any Research Program at any time for any or no reason upon 30 days’ prior written notice to Paragon, provided that we must pay certain unpaid fees due to Paragon upon such termination, as well as any non-cancellable obligations reasonably incurred by Paragon in connection with its activities under any terminated Research Program. Paragon may terminate any Option Agreement or a Research Program immediately upon written notice to us if, as a result of any action or failure to act by us or our affiliates, such Research Program or all material activities under the applicable Research Plan are suspended, discontinued or otherwise delayed for a certain consecutive number of months. Each party has the right to terminate the Option Agreements or any Research Program upon material breach that remains uncured or the other party’s bankruptcy.

Additionally, as part of the Option Agreements, on December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2025, we granted and will grant, respectively, Paruka a warrant to purchase a number of shares equal to 1.00% of outstanding shares as of the date of the grant on a fully-diluted basis, with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the underlying shares on the grant date.

The warrant is liability-classified and after the initial recognition, the liability is adjusted to fair value at the end of each reporting period, with changes in fair value recorded in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss as stock-based compensation expenses under research and development expenses. On issuance of the December 31, 2024 warrant to Paruka, the change in fair value of the warrant immediately prior to issuance was recorded in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss and the resultant carrying value of the liability was reclassified to equity on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024.

Pursuant to the Option Agreements, on a research program-by-research program basis following the finalization of the research plan for each respective research program, we were required to pay Paragon a one-time, nonrefundable research initiation fee of $0.8 million related to the ORKA-001 program. This amount was recognized as a research and development expense during the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024. In June 2024, pursuant to the Option Agreements with Paragon, we completed the selection process of our development candidate for IL-23 antibody for ORKA-001 program. We were responsible for 50% of the development costs incurred through the completion of the IL-23 selection process. We received the rights to at least one selected IL-23 antibody in June 2024. During the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, we exercised our option for ORKA-001 and recorded a $1.5 million milestone payment related to the achievement of development candidate as research and development expense in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. In addition, during the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, we recorded a $2.5 million milestone payment related to the first dosing of a human subject in a Phase 1 trial of ORKA-001 in December 2024 as research and development expense in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. Our share of development costs incurred for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024 was $13.5 million, which was recorded as research and development expenses. An amount of $2.8 million related to ORKA-001 is included in related party accounts payable and other current liabilities as of December 31, 2024.

We were also required to reimburse Paragon $3.3 million for development costs related to ORKA-002 incurred by Paragon through December 31, 2023 and certain other development costs incurred by Paragon between January 1, 2024 and March 6, 2024 as stipulated by the Option Agreements. This amount was recognized as a research and development expense during the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024. We are also responsible for the development costs incurred by Paragon from January 1, 2024 through the completion of the IL-17 selection process. We recognized an amount of $0.8 million payable to Paragon for the research initiation fee related to ORKA-002 following the finalization of the ORKA-002 research plan. This was recognized as research and development expenses in the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024. During the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, we exercised our option for ORKA-002 and recorded a $1.5 million milestone payment related to the achievement of development candidate as research and development expense in our consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. We accounted for development costs of $7.8 million for the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024 as research and development expenses. An amount of $2.7 million related to ORKA-002 is included in related party accounts payable and other current liabilities as of December 31, 2024.

We expense the service fees as the associated costs are incurred when the underlying services are rendered. Such amounts are classified within research and development expenses in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. 

We concluded that the rights obtained under the Option Agreements represent an asset acquisition whereby the underlying assets comprise in-process research and development assets with no alternative future use. The Option Agreements did not qualify as a business combination because substantially all of the fair value of the assets acquired was concentrated in the exclusive license options, which represent a group of similar identifiable assets. The research initiation fee represents a one-time cost on a research program-by-research program basis for accessing research services or resources with benefits that are expected to be consumed in the near term, therefore the amounts paid are expensed as part of research and development costs immediately. Amounts paid as reimbursements of on-going development cost, monthly development cost fee and additional development expenses incurred by Paragon due to work completed for selected targets prior to the effective date of the Option Agreements that is associated with services being rendered under the related Research Programs are recognized as research and development expense when incurred.

For the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024, we recognized $42.0 million of expenses in connection with services provided by Paragon and Paruka under the Option Agreements.

Paragon Therapeutics – License Agreements

In September 2024, we exercised the Option to acquire certain rights to ORKA-001, and in December 2024, we entered into the corresponding license agreement with Paragon (the “ORKA-001 License Agreement”), pursuant to which Paragon granted us a royalty-bearing, world-wide, exclusive license to develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit certain antibodies and products targeting IL-23 in all fields other than the field of inflammatory bowel disease (“ORKA-001 Field”). In December 2024, we exercised the Option with respect to ORKA-002 for the IL-17A/F program, and in February 2025, we entered into the corresponding license agreement with Paragon (the “ORKA-002 License Agreement” and together with the ORKA-001 License Agreement, the “License Agreements”), pursuant to which Paragon granted us a royalty-bearing, world-wide, exclusive license to develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit certain antibodies and products targeting IL-17A/F in all fields (“ORKA-002 Field” and together with the ORKA-001 Field, the “Fields”).

The License Agreements provide us with exclusive licenses in the Fields to Paragon’s patent applications covering the related antibodies, their method of use and their method of manufacture and Paragon has agreed not to conduct any new campaigns that generate anti-IL-23 monospecific antibodies or anti-IL-17A/F monospecific antibodies for the ORKA-001 Field or the ORKA-002 Field, respectively, for at least five years. Each of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 License Agreements may be terminated on 60 days’ notice to Paragon, on material breach without cure, and on a party’s insolvency or bankruptcy to the extent permitted by law.

Pursuant to the terms of each of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 License Agreements, we are obligated to pay Paragon non-refundable milestone payments of up to $12.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain clinical development milestones and up to $10.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones, including a $1.5 million fee for nomination of a development candidate (or initiation of an IND-enabling toxicology study) and a further milestone payment of $2.5 million upon the first dosing of a human patient in a Phase 1 trial for each of ORKA-001 and ORKA-002. In addition, we are obligated to pay Paragon a low single-digit percentage royalty for antibody products for each of ORKA-001 and ORKA-002. For each of the License Agreements, the royalty term ends on the later of (i) the last-to-expire licensed patent or our patent directed to the manufacture, use or sale of a licensed antibody in the country at issue or (ii) 12 years from the date of first sale of a Company product. There is also a royalty step-down if there is no Paragon patent in effect during the royalty term for each program.

Cell Line License Agreement

In March 2024, we entered into the Cell Line License Agreement (the “Cell Line License Agreement”) with WuXi Biologics Ireland Limited (“WuXi Biologics”). Under the Cell Line License Agreement, we received a non-exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to certain of WuXi Biologics’ know-how, cell line, biological materials (the “WuXi Biologics Licensed Technology”) and media and feeds to make, have made, use, sell and import certain therapeutic products produced through the use of the cell line licensed by WuXi Biologics under the Cell Line License Agreement (the “WuXi Biologics Licensed Products”). Specifically, the WuXi Biologics Licensed Technology is used in certain manufacturing activities in support of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 programs.

In consideration for the license, we agreed to pay WuXi Biologics a non-refundable license fee of $150,000, which was recognized as a research and development expense during the period from February 6, 2024 (inception) to December 31, 2024. Additionally, to the extent that we manufacture our commercial supplies of bulk drug product with a manufacturer other than WuXi Biologics or its affiliates, we are required to make royalty payments to WuXi Biologics at a rate of less than one percent of net sales of WuXi Biologics Licensed Products manufactured by the third-party manufacturer. Pursuant to an amendment to the Cell Line License Agreement effective in November 2024, a provision was added that permits the royalties owed under the agreement to be bought out on a product-by-product basis for a lump-sum payment.

The Cell Line License Agreement will continue indefinitely unless terminated (i) by us upon six months’ prior written notice and our payment of all undisputed amounts due to WuXi Biologics through the effective date of termination, (ii) by WuXi Biologics for a material breach by us that remains uncured for 60 days after written notice, (iii) by WuXi Biologics if we fail to make a payment and such failure continues for 30 days after receiving notice of such failure, or (iv) by either party upon the other party’s bankruptcy.

Note Payable with Related Party

In March 2024, we entered into a Series A Preferred Stock and Convertible Note Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Fairmount, whereby we issued the Convertible Note, with an initial principal amount of $25.0 million that, at the time of issuance, could be converted into Pre-Merger Oruka Series A Preferred Stock (or a series of preferred shares that is identical in respect to the shares of preferred shares issued in its next equity financing) or shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock in exchange for aggregate proceeds of $25.0 million. The Convertible Note accrued interest at a rate of 12.0% per annum. At issuance, the Convertible Note required all unpaid interest and principal to mature on December 31, 2025 (the “Maturity Date”) and prepayment was not permitted without prior written consent of Fairmount. At issuance, the principal payment along with the accrued interest on the Convertible Note was due in full on the Maturity Date. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, we had the right to sell and issue additional convertible notes up to an aggregate principal amount equal to $30.0 million, in addition to the $25.0 million initial principal amount of the Convertible Note.

Immediately prior to the completion of the Merger, the Convertible Note was converted into shares of Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock based on the aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million, plus unpaid accrued interest of $1.5 million divided by the conversion price, which was determined based upon the Company’s fully-diluted capitalization immediately prior to the Merger. At the effective time of the Merger, the Pre-Merger Oruka Common Stock issued upon the conversion of the Convertible Note (including accrued interest) automatically converted into shares of Company Common Stock. 2,722,207 shares of Company Common Stock were issued on conversion of the Convertible Note and accrued interest. As of December 31, 2024, there is no note payable to a related party.

Lease Agreement

Our contractual obligations include minimum lease payments under our operating lease obligation for our headquarters in Menlo Park, California. See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements elsewhere in this report for additional information.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations is based on its financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported revenues recognized and expenses incurred during the reporting periods. Our estimates are based on its historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. 

While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus, we believe the following accounting policies used in the preparation of our financial statements require the most significant judgments and estimates. 

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred in performing research and development activities, including salaries and bonuses, overhead costs, contract services and other related costs. The value of goods and services received from contract research organizations and contract manufacturing organizations in the reporting period are estimated based on the level of services performed, and progress in the period in cases when we have not received an invoice from the supplier. In circumstances where amounts have been paid in excess of costs incurred, we record a prepaid expense. When billing terms under these contracts do not coincide with the timing of when the work is performed, we are required to make estimates of outstanding obligations to those third parties as of period end. Any accrual estimates are based on a number of factors, including our knowledge of the progress towards completion of the specific tasks to be performed, invoicing to date under the contracts, communication from the vendors of any actual costs incurred during the period that have not yet been invoiced and the costs included in the contracts. Significant judgments and estimates may be made in determining the accrued balances at the end of any reporting period. Actual results could differ from the estimates made by us.

Stock-Based Compensation

We measure stock options granted to employees and non-employees based on the estimated fair values of the awards as of the grant date using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The model requires management to make a number of assumptions, including common stock fair value, expected volatility, expected term, risk-free interest rate and expected dividend yield. For restricted stock awards and restricted stock units, the estimated fair value is the fair market value of the underlying stock on the grant date. We expense the fair value of our equity-based compensation awards on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, which is the period in which the related services are received. We account for award forfeitures as they occur. The expense for stock-based awards with performance conditions is recognized when it is probable that a performance condition is met during the vesting period. 

Determination of Fair Value of Common Stock 

A public trading market for Company Common Stock has been established in connection with the completion of the Merger. As such, it is no longer necessary for our board of directors to estimate the fair value of our stock-based awards in connection with its accounting for granted stock-based awards or other such awards we may grant, as the fair value of Company Common Stock and share-based awards is determined based on the quoted market price of Company Common Stock.

Prior to the merger, Pre-Merger Oruka’s common stock valuations were prepared using a hybrid method, including an option pricing method (“OPM”). The OPM treats common stock and preferred stock as call options on the total equity value of a company, with exercise prices based on the value thresholds at which the allocation among the various holders of a company’s securities changes. Under this method, the common stock has value only if the funds available for distribution to stockholders exceed the value of the preferred stock liquidation preferences at the time of the liquidity event, such as a strategic sale or a merger. The hybrid method is a probability-weighted expected return method (“PWERM”), where the equity value in one or more of the scenarios is calculated using an OPM. The PWERM is a scenario-based methodology that estimates the fair value of common stock based upon an analysis of future values for the Company, assuming various outcomes. The common stock value is based on the probability-weighted present value of expected future investment returns considering each of the possible outcomes available as well as the rights of each class of stock. The future value of the common stock under each outcome is discounted back to the valuation date at an appropriate risk-adjusted discount rate and probability weighted to arrive at an indication of value for the common stock. A discount for lack of marketability of the common stock is then applied to arrive at an indication of value for the common stock.

The assumptions underlying these valuations represented management’s best estimate, which involved inherent uncertainties and the application of management’s judgment. As a result, if Pre-Merger Oruka had used significantly different assumptions or estimates, the fair value of Pre-Merger Oruka’s incentive shares and its stock-based compensation expense could have been materially different.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included in this prospectus for more information regarding recently issued accounting pronouncements.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2024, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC.

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) served as the independent registered public accounting firm of ARCA prior to the consummation of the Merger. On August 30, 2024, KPMG was dismissed as the independent registered public accounting firm of the Company. The decision to dismiss KPMG was approved by the Audit Committee (the “Audit Committee”) of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”).

The reports of KPMG on the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

During the Company’s two most recent fiscal years and the subsequent period from January 1, 2024 to August 30, 2024, there were (i) no disagreements (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions thereto) with KPMG on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreement, if not resolved to the satisfaction of KPMG, would have caused it to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement in connection with its report and (ii) no reportable events (as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

The Company provided KPMG with a copy of the disclosures made in this section and requested KPMG to furnish the Company with a letter addressed to the SEC stating whether it agrees with the statements made by the Company and, if not, stating the respects in which it does not agree. A copy of KPMG’s letter to the SEC dated September 5, 2024 regarding these statements was filed as Exhibit 16.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 5, 2024.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) served as the independent registered public accounting firm of Oruka prior to the consummation of the Merger. On August 30, 2024, following the consummation of the Merger, the Audit Committee engaged PwC as the independent registered public accounting firm of the Company.

During ARCA’s two most recent fiscal years and the subsequent period from January 1, 2024 to August 30, 2024, neither ARCA nor anyone on its behalf consulted PwC regarding: (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on ARCA’s financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to the ARCA that PwC concluded was an important factor considered by ARCA in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was the subject of a disagreement (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions thereto) or a reportable event (as described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K).

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

We are a smaller reporting company, as defined by Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act and in Item 10(f)(1) of Regulation S-K, and are not required to provide the information under this item.

BUSINESS

Acquisition of Pre-Merger Oruka

On August 29, 2024 (the “Merger Closing”), we completed our acquisition (the “Merger”) of Oruka Therapeutics, Inc. (“Pre-Merger Oruka”) pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of April 3, 2024 (the “Merger Agreement”). Following the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, Pre-Merger Oruka merged with and into Atlas Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ARCA biopharma, Inc. (“ARCA”) and following that, Pre-Merger Oruka then merged with and into Atlas Merger Sub II, LLC (“Second Merger Sub”), with Second Merger Sub being the surviving entity. Second Merger Sub changed its corporate name to “Oruka Therapeutics Operating Company, LLC.” Pre-Merger Oruka was a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company that was incorporated on February 6, 2024 under the direction of Peter Harwin, a Managing Member of Fairmount Funds Management LLC (“Fairmount”), for the purposes of holding rights to certain intellectual property being developed by Paragon Therapeutics, Inc. (“Paragon”). On August 29, 2024, we changed our name from “ARCA biopharma, Inc.” (“ARCA”) to “Oruka Therapeutics, Inc.” and our Nasdaq ticker symbol from “ABIO” to “ORKA”.

Company Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel monoclonal antibody therapeutics for psoriasis (“PsO”) and other inflammatory and immunology (“I&I”) indications. Our name is derived from or, for “skin,” and arukah, for “restoration,” and reflects our mission to deliver therapies for chronic skin diseases that provide patients the most possible freedom from their condition. Our strategy is to apply antibody engineering and format innovations to validated modes of action, which we believe will enable us to improve meaningfully upon the efficacy and dosing regimens of standard-of-care medicines while significantly reducing technical and biological risk. Our programs aim to treat and potentially modify disease by targeting mechanisms with proven efficacy and safety involved in disease pathology and the activity of pathogenic tissue-resident memory T cells (“TRMs”).

Our lead program, ORKA-001, is designed to target the p19 subunit of interleukin-23 (“IL-23p19”) for the treatment of PsO. Our co-lead program, ORKA-002, is designed to target interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F (“IL-17A/F”) for the treatment of PsO, psoriatic arthritis (“PsA”), and other conditions. These programs each bind their respective targets at high affinity and incorporate half-life extension technology with the aim to increase exposure and decrease dosing frequency. We believe that our focused strategy, differentiated portfolio, and deep expertise position us to set a new treatment standard in large I&I markets with continued unmet need.

Our Pipeline

ORKA-001 

ORKA-001 is a high affinity, extended half-life monoclonal antibody (“mAb”) designed to target IL-23p19. IL-23 is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that plays a critical role in the proliferation and development of T helper 17 (“Th17”) cells, which are the primary drivers of several autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, including PsO. IL-23 is composed of two subunits: a p40 subunit that is shared with IL-12 and a p19 subunit that is specific to IL-23. First-generation IL-23 antibodies bound p40 and inhibited both IL-12 and IL-23 signaling, while more recent IL-23 antibodies targeting the p19 subunit have shown improved efficacy and safety. Based on preclinical evidence, we believe that ORKA-001 could achieve higher response rates than established therapies in PsO while requiring less frequent dosing and maintaining the favorable safety profile of therapies targeting IL-23p19. ORKA-001 is engineered with YTE half-life extension technology, a specific three amino acid change in the fragment crystallizable (“Fc”) domain to modify the pH-dependent binding to the neonatal Fc receptor (“FcRn”). As a result, it has a pharmacokinetic profile designed to support a subcutaneous (“SQ”) injection as infrequently as once or twice a year. In addition, emerging evidence suggests that IL-23 blockade can modify the disease biology of PsO, possibly leading to durable remissions and preventing the development of PsA. We believe that the expected characteristics of ORKA-001 increase its potential to deliver these disease-modifying benefits. 

We initiated dosing of healthy volunteers in a Phase 1 trial of ORKA-001 in the fourth quarter of 2024. We expect to share interim data from the first-in-human trial in healthy volunteers, including initial pharmacokinetic data, in the second half of 2025 and initial efficacy on patients with PsO in the second half of 2026. Based on recent precedent for PsO, we anticipate that the entire development program from first-in-human to biologics license application (“BLA”) filing could take as little as six to seven years based on the averages for recently approved medicines. However, we have no control over the length of time needed for FDA review, and this timeline could vary.

ORKA-002

ORKA-002 is a high affinity, extended half-life mAb designed to target IL-17A and IL-17F (“IL-17A/F”). IL-17 inhibition has become central to the treatment of psoriatic diseases, including PsO and PsA, and has also shown efficacy in other I&I indications, such as hidradenitis suppurativa (“HS”) and axial spondyloarthritis (“axSpA”). More recently, the importance of inhibiting the IL-17F isoform along with IL-17A has become appreciated, and dual blockade with the recently approved therapy Bimzelx (bimekizumab) has led to higher response rates in patients than blockade of IL-17A alone. ORKA-002 is designed to bind IL-17A/F at similar epitopes, or binding sites, and affinity ranges as bimekizumab, but incorporates half-life extension technology that could enable more convenient dosing intervals. We plan to initiate dosing of healthy volunteers in a Phase 1 trial of ORKA-002 in the third quarter of 2025. We expect to share interim data from the first-in-human trial in healthy volunteers, including initial pharmacokinetic data, in the first half of 2026. 

We view ORKA-002 and ORKA-001 as highly complementary. Patients with moderate-to-severe PsO that have purely skin manifestations are most often treated with IL-23 inhibitors due to the high efficacy and tolerability of this mechanism. However, for patients who also have joint involvement or signs and symptoms of PsA, an IL-17 inhibitor is typically used due to its efficacy in addressing both skin and joint symptoms. In addition, IL-17 inhibitors are often used in patients with highly resistant skin symptoms that do not adequately resolve through treatment with an IL-23 inhibitor. Furthermore, we have the potential opportunity to administer ORKA-002 and ORKA-001 sequentially, called ORKA-021, to combine two attractive features of each program: the rapid response of an IL-17 inhibitor with the ideal maintenance profile of an IL-23 inhibitor. We believe that ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 provide the potential to offer a highly compelling product profile for most patients with PsO and/or PsA, as well as the opportunity to address additional I&I indications.

Additional Pipeline Program

We have a third mAb program, ORKA-003, designed to target an undisclosed pathway. Our strategy as a company is to remain highly focused on I&I diseases, and specifically on inflammatory dermatology conditions. Our third program provides the potential for indication expansion beyond PsO and may create combination opportunities with our more advanced programs.

Our Team, Investors, and Paragon Collaboration 

We are led by a management team with significant experience in developing novel treatments for patients at biopharmaceutical companies such as CRISPR Therapeutics, Celgene, Novartis, CymaBay Therapeutics and Protagonist Therapeutics. Together, our team has a proven track record of building successful biotech organizations in high-growth environments.

Pre-Merger Oruka was founded in February 2024 by leading healthcare investor Fairmount. Fairmount founded Paragon in 2021 to conduct biologics discovery and optimization, including acting as the firm’s discovery engine for biologics that potentially overcome limitations of existing therapies. We have entered into license agreements with Paragon pursuant to which Paragon granted us a royalty-bearing, world-wide, exclusive license to develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit certain antibodies and products targeting IL-23 outside of the field of inflammatory bowel disease for ORKA-001 and for ORKA-002, certain antibodies and products targeting IL-17A/F.

Our Strategy

To achieve our goal of developing leading therapeutic antibodies for patients with inflammatory skin diseases, we are applying antibody engineering to validated modes of action. We believe this approach will enable us to improve meaningfully upon the efficacy and convenience of standard-of-care medicines while significantly reducing technical and biological risk. The key elements of our strategy include:

We believe that pursuing the focused strategy outlined above will help us to succeed in our mission of offering patients living with PsO, PsA, and other dermatologic and inflammatory diseases the greatest possible freedom from their condition.

Targeting IL-23 and IL-17 to Treat Multiple I&I Indications

Our programs benefit from significant advances in the understanding of the biology of I&I diseases over the past four decades. ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 are designed to target two key cytokines that play a related role in multiple indications. IL-23 is an upstream regulator of Th17 cells, a pro-inflammatory subset of T helper cells characterized by their production of IL-17. IL-23 has a critical role in maintaining Th17 cells in the tissue as well as activating these cells to secrete IL-17, which acts downstream to trigger inflammation and other disease symptoms. Th17 cells are involved in PsO, PsA, HS, axSpA, and many other diseases. They play a particularly central role in PsO and PsA. The diagram below depicting the immunopathogenesis of PsO provides an example of how Th17 cells can mediate disease and how blocking IL-23 or IL-17 can break the inflammatory cycle that drives disease.

Immunopathogenesis of PsO and the role of IL-23 and IL-17

PsO develops when environmental triggers and a genetic predisposition combine to cause activation of an inflammatory cycle in the skin that leads to the formation of plaques and other disease manifestations. This process begins with the aberrant activation of the dendritic cells (“DCs”), specifically those producing IL-23 and other cytokines like IL-1β, IL-21, TNF-α, and IL-12. These cytokines induce the differentiation of Th17 cells, as well as other cell types, such as T helper type 1 (“Th1”) cells that produce IFNγ and TNF-α and T helper type 22 (“Th22”) cells that produce IL-22. IL-23 plays a key role in the differentiation and activation of Th17 cells to secrete IL-17, as well as Th22 cells to produce IL-22. IL-17 and these other cytokines induce keratinocyte hyperproliferation leading to plaque formation and a feedforward inflammatory response, with changes in gene expression in keratinocytes, the production of antimicrobial peptides, and neutrophil recruitment driving further inflammation. While many cytokines and cell types contribute to the pathogenesis of PsO, the IL-23/IL-17 axis plays an important role, as supported by the success of therapies targeting this axis.

While the successful treatment of PsO — for instance, with mAbs targeting IL-23 or IL-17 — can result in lesional skin returning to an apparently normal state, disease tends to recur at previously affected sites following cessation of therapy, suggesting a mechanism of “immunological memory” that predisposes individuals to recurrence in the same locations. Evidence suggests that pathogenic TRMs play a critical role in this memory. TRMs may arise from the Th17 cells and other cells that drove disease in the first place and remain in their resident tissue, in this case the epidermis and dermis, for long periods of time. Upon a disease trigger, these TRMs can actively produce proinflammatory cytokines, causing disease recurrence. IL-23 appears to play an important role in maintaining and potentiating TRMs, as indicated by the depletion of TRMs following treatment with an IL-23 inhibitor but not an IL-17 inhibitor, which may explain the longer remissions observed with IL-23 inhibitors following withdrawal of therapy. This type of data has raised the prospect that efficient IL-23 blockade could modify the disease biology of PsO, possibly leading to durable remissions.

The scientific discoveries that refined our understanding of the immunopathogenesis of PsO have led to waves of therapeutic advances, ultimately leading to today’s standard of care. Before the 1980s, PsO was not even thought of as an immunologic disease, but rather a disease of keratinocyte dysfunction, leading to treatments such as phototherapy, methotrexate, and retinoids. The discovery in the 1980s that PsO results from immune dysfunction led to the use of broad immunosuppressants like cyclosporine. From 1990 to 2008, it was believed that Th1 cells were the predominant mediators of the disease, which led to the use of biologics targeting TNF-α such as Enbrel (etanercept) and Humira (adalimumab). Finally, the revelation that PsO is driven principally by Th17 cells resulted in the development of the primary therapies used today, which target IL-23 and IL-17. This increasingly refined understanding of the disease has narrowed the standard of care from broad immunosuppressive agents (such as cyclosporine) to more specific immunomodulators (TNF-α inhibitors) to precise biologic therapies targeting the key cytokines involved in disease pathology (IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors), with each new therapeutic class raising the bar on both safety and efficacy.

Biologic therapies, especially mAbs, are now mainstays in the treatment of a wide variety of I&I diseases, including PsO and PsA. Therapies that have improved upon efficacy and/or reduced dosing frequency have achieved the most commercial success, even when launched many years after other biologics. Enbrel was first approved for PsO in 2004 with a weekly maintenance dosing schedule. Four years later, Humira was approved for PsO with an every-other-week (Q2W) dosing schedule. Stelara (ustekinumab) was approved a year later with similar Phase 3 data to Humira, but with a significantly improved dosing schedule of every twelve weeks (Q12W). Several drugs for PsO have been approved since 2009 that demonstrated higher efficacy in their pivotal studies compared to Stelara, but with more burdensome dosing schedules, including Tremfya (guselkumab), which has a dosing schedule of every eight weeks (Q8W), and Cosentyx (secukinumab) and Taltz (ixekizumab), which have dosing schedules of every four weeks (Q4W). While these therapies have all become generally successful products, the most commercially successful drug in the PsO market today is Skyrizi (risankizumab), which combines Stelara’s Q12W dosing schedule with improvements in efficacy, as evidenced by a higher psoriasis area severity index (PASI) score of PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates (i.e., a 90% improvement in PASI score and a 100% improvement in PASI score (complete clearance), respectively) in clinical trials. In addition, Bimzelx (bimekizumab), approved by the FDA in 2023, has shown evidence of efficacy that exceeds even Skyrizi, though with a less convenient Q8W dosing schedule. Although many biologics have entered the PsO market over the past two decades, new entrants have had significant commercial success when they have improved upon efficacy and/or dosing frequency, and room remains to improve in both areas to set a new standard for the treatment of PsO.

Biologics have raised the bar on the standard of care in PsO, but leave room for improvement

The biology driving PsO and PsA is well understood today, and the standard of care has progressed dramatically. We believe that it is unlikely that a novel mechanism will emerge that is as safe and efficacious as targeting the IL-23/IL-17 axis. Therefore, we believe that innovation now should be focused on optimizing the product profile that can be offered to patients. While much effort is being directed toward daily oral formats to inhibit this axis, oral medicines have yet to match the efficacy of biologics. We believe that a better biologic with a longer dosing interval and the potential for improved efficacy will present a more attractive product profile for most patients.

Overview of Psoriasis (PsO)

PsO is a chronic autoimmune skin disorder that affects an estimated 125 million people worldwide with steadily increasing prevalence, estimated to be around 2 – 3% of the population currently, according to the World Psoriasis Day consortium. It is the largest pharmaceutical market within dermatology, with annual sales of approximately $25.0 billion in 2022, which is estimated to grow to $32 billion by 2028. The most common form of PsO is plaque psoriasis. Patients with chronic plaque psoriasis have well-demarcated, erythematous plaques with overlying, coarse, silvery-scaled patches. These plaques can occur anywhere on the body, though are typically found on the scalp, extensor areas of the knees and elbows, and gluteal cleft. Involvement of the palms, soles, or nails, and intertriginous areas, including the genitals, can also occur and can be particularly difficult to treat. Between one-quarter and one-half of PsO patients have moderate disease, defined as having 3% to 10% of the body surface area (“BSA”) involved, or severe disease, defined as having more than 10% BSA involvement. The chronic inflammation in PsO is associated with multiple comorbidities, including PsA, obesity, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

As discussed earlier, PsO is a complex immune-mediated disease driven primarily by Th17 cells and the cytokines IL-23 and IL-17. The interplay of environmental and behavioral risk factors and genetics is believed to trigger PsO. Multiple lines of evidence support a genetic component to the disease, including the observation that approximately 40% of patients with PsO and PsA have a family history of the disease and the identification of multiple susceptibility loci, many containing genes related to the regulation of the immune system, in genome-wide association studies.

Current PsO Treatments and Limitations

While patients with mild PsO typically rely on topical corticosteroids or oral therapies like Otezla (apremilast), these agents often do not provide an adequate response for patients with moderate-to-severe PsO. As a result, the American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation recommends biologics as first-line therapy for moderate-to-severe PsO. 

Several classes of biologic therapies have been approved for PsO over the past 20 years, resulting in progressively more complete symptom relief. Efficacy in PsO is typically measured via the PASI scoring system. The first biologics approved for PsO were tumor necrosis alpha (“TNF-α”) inhibitors such as Enbrel (etanercept), Humira (adalimumab), and Remicade (infliximab), which achieved a PASI score of PASI 90 at 16 weeks in around 25 – 50% of patients and a PASI score of PASI 100 in around 5 – 20% of patients. Stelara (ustekinumab), which targets the p40 subunit of IL-23 that is shared with IL-12, was approved next and achieved efficacy on par with Humira. IL-17 inhibitors Cosentyx (secukinumab), Taltz (ixekizumab), and Siliq (brodalumab) followed and achieved responses of PASI 90 in around 70% of patients and PASI 100 in around 40% of patients with some risk of certain side effects such as oral candidiasis. Most recently, IL-23p19 inhibitors such as Ilumya (tildrakizumab), Tremfya (guselkumab), and Skyrizi (risankizumab) have achieved responses of PASI 90 in around 70 – 80% of patients and PASI 100 in around 30 – 50% of patients with highly tolerable profiles. Finally, IL-17A/F inhibitors such as Bimzelx (bimekizumab) have recently shown even higher response rates than IL-23 inhibitors, but with slightly less tolerable profiles.

Treatment expectations in PsO have evolved progressively with this continued innovation. A 75% improvement in PASI score was previously thought to be an adequate depth of response, and weekly SQ dosing was viewed as acceptable. With each subsequent generation of innovation, patient and caregiver expectations have advanced. Today, Skyrizi (risankizumab) is widely viewed as the leader in PsO biologic therapy. In Phase 3 clinical trials, 43% and 58% of patients achieved PASI 100 at 16 and 52 weeks, respectively, with SQ maintenance dosing every three months. Most recently, Bimzelx (bimekizumab) has shown evidence of efficacy that exceeds even Skyrizi, achieving a 64% PASI 100 rate at 16 weeks in Phase 3 trials. However, the increased efficacy comes with a less convenient Q8W dosing schedule and an increased risk of certain side effects, most notably oral candidiasis. While agents like Skyrizi and Bimzelx reflect the remarkable advancement in PsO treatment, there remains significant unmet need. Approximately half of moderate-to-severe PsO patients do not achieve full skin clarity, and while early signs are present, the promise of disease modifying therapy remains unrealized. In addition, a continued desire for more convenient dosing options has driven significant interest in orally delivered medicines targeting these same pathways. However, oral therapies have yet to match the efficacy and safety profile of biologics. We believe that ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 could represent the next step in biologic innovation in PsO, with the potential for higher rates of complete skin clearance, more durable remissions, and markedly more convenient dosing regimens.

Overview of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA)

PsA is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects both the skin and joints, and often coexists with PsO. Around a quarter to a third of patients with moderate-to-severe PsO also have PsA. Most individuals develop PsO before being diagnosed with PsA, with a median gap of seven to eight years between the diagnosis of skin and joint disease, though in up to 30% of patients with PsA, joint symptoms appear before or simultaneously with skin manifestations. Patients with PsA present with joint pain, stiffness, and swelling affecting the peripheral joints, axial skeleton, or both. Enthesitis, dactylitis, nail lesions, fatigue, and ocular inflammation all occur commonly. PsA can lead to irreversible joint damage, including bony fusion across a joint (ankylosis). The pathogenesis of PsA is likely to be closely related to the mechanisms that underlie PsO. Like PsO, the exact cause of PsA remains unknown, but environmental triggers, including infection and trauma, and genetic factors play a role.

Current PsA Treatments and Limitations

Effective treatment of PsA requires a coordinated approach to address the unique combination of disease manifestations each patient has, which can include peripheral and axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin and nail involvement. Many patients with milder disease symptoms will start with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDs”) and/or local treatments to address specific disease manifestations. However, those with more moderate or severe disease and/or multidomain involvement will typically receive a biologic therapy targeting TNF-α or IL-17, or less commonly an oral Janus kinase (“JAK”) inhibitor. Comorbid conditions can also influence treatment selection. For example, an IL-17 inhibitor would be preferred for a patient with significant skin involvement, but not for patients with IBD or ocular symptoms, where a TNF-α inhibitor would be preferred. The most common endpoint used to measure the efficacy of TNF-α or IL-17 inhibitors in PsA is ACR response, or the proportion of patients achieving a specified percent improvement in American College of Rheumatology (“ACR”) score, which measures peripheral joint disease. Approved TNF-α inhibitors, including Humira (adalimumab) and Cimzia (certolizumab), achieved a placebo-adjusted ACR50 response of around 30 – 35% at 24 weeks with Q2W dosing. Approved IL-17 inhibitors, including Cosentyx (secukinumab) and Taltz (ixekizumab), achieved a slightly lower placebo-adjusted ACR50 response of around 25 – 30% at 24 weeks, but with more convenient Q4W dosing. Bimzelx (bimekizumab), which was recently approved in the United States for PsA, achieved a placebo-adjusted ACR50 response of approximately 35% at 16 weeks with Q4W dosing. A significant fraction of patients with PsA still do not achieve a satisfactory response with available therapies, and even the most convenient regimens require monthly SQ dosing.

Overview of additional opportunities

In addition to PsO and PsA, inhibition of IL-23 or IL-17 has demonstrated efficacy in a number of additional I&I indications, including HS and axSpA.

HS is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by lesions that include deep-seated nodules and abscesses, draining tracts, and fibrotic scars that occur most commonly in intertriginous areas, such as the armpits and groin. Due to the associated pain, sensitive locations, drainage, odor, and scarring, this condition can have a particularly negative psychosocial impact on affected individuals. HS is believed to be underdiagnosed and could have a prevalence well above 1% worldwide. Treatment varies depending on severity and can include topical and systemic antibiotics, hormone therapy, immune modulators, and surgery. Humira (adalimumab) was the only FDA-approved medication for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS from its approval in 2015 until the approval of Cosentyx (secukinumab) in October 2023 and Bimzelx (bimekizumab) in November 2024. Now multiple other biologics are advancing through development and have demonstrated encouraging data in Phase 2 clinical trials, though a significant fraction of patients still do not achieve adequate responses.

axSpA is a chronic inflammatory disease that primarily affects the spine and sacroiliac joints that comprise the axial skeleton. The disease causes severe pain, stiffness, and fatigue, and can have additional clinical manifestations like uveitis, enthesitis, peripheral arthritis, and PsO. Patients with axSpA may develop further structural damage in their spine, which can lead to the fusion of vertebra (spinal ankylosis), which has a massive negative impact on mobility, physical function, and quality of life. The overall prevalence of axSpA is estimated to be around 1% in the United States. Treatment of axSpA starts with physical therapy and NSAIDs. If patients do not have an adequate response to NSAIDs, a TNF-α inhibitor is typically used, followed by an IL-17 inhibitor, such as Cosentyx (secukinumab), Taltz (ixekizumab), or Bimzelx (bimekizumab), or less frequently a JAK inhibitor. Patients often need to cycle through therapies over time due to inadequate responses or loss of response.

Our Solution: Half-Life Extension and Antibody Engineering Technologies

Our antibody engineering campaigns are designed to optimize multiple attributes in parallel: binding affinity, potency in a variety of assays, developability, and consistently extended serum half-life in non-human primates (“NHPs”). Half-life extension is possible by modifying the pH-dependent binding affinity of the antibody Fc domain for FcRn. A primary mechanism of elimination of antibodies from the serum is through pinocytosis and degradation in the lysosomes of cells. Throughout this process, antibodies can be recycled back into the serum by binding to FcRn while they are in endosomes. The interior of the endosome is acidic, and therefore the efficiency of this recycling process depends on the ability of the antibody Fc domain to bind to FcRn at low pH. If this low pH binding is efficient enough, antibody recycling can be favored over degradation, potentially resulting in a much longer serum half-life.

Antibody engineers have discovered methods of modifying the Fc domain to optimize the efficiency of recycling via FcRn binding. Several engineering strategies have been identified over the past two decades, with the so-called “YTE” mutations (M252Y/S254T/T256E) and “LS” mutations (M428L/N434S) being the most frequently used. Importantly, while these strategies have been known for some time, it was only relatively recently that enough clinical precedent was established to provide confidence in how these mutations perform in humans. Two products incorporating YTE modification were approved in 2023 by the FDA, Beyfortus (nirsevimab) and Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab), and several more candidates are in clinical trials. Two products using LS mutations were approved in 2021 and 2022, Xevudy (sotrovima) and Ultomiris (ravulizumab), respectively, and several more candidates are in clinical trials. Based on clinical data in humans, antibodies with YTE mutations typically have a half-life that is two to four times longer than wildtype antibodies. In addition, preclinical data in NHPs can be used to predict the approximate half-life in humans, with the human half-life equaling around two to four times the NHP half-life.

Clinical experience with YTE-modified mAbs predicts significant half-life extension over wildtype mAbs

While this increasing body of clinical precedent serves to validate half-life extension, we do not yet have clinical data showing that the introduction of these amino acid substitutions in our programs leads to a longer serum half-life. However, we aim to establish this favorable pharmacokinetic profile early in the clinical development of our product candidates.

ORKA-001

Summary

ORKA-001 is a high affinity, extended half-life mAb designed to target the p19 subunit of IL-23. Based on preclinical data generated to date, we believe ORKA-001 has the potential to become the leading IL-23 inhibitor and achieve an optimal product profile in PsO consisting of the following:

We believe that this target profile for ORKA-001 could offer improved freedom from disease to many patients affected by PsO and represent a step forward in the standard of care.

Preclinical Data

We evaluated ORKA-001 in numerous preclinical studies for several key features: 

Potency that matches or exceeds Skyrizi (risankizumab) in vitro

We have tested the potency of ORKA-001 in vitro in multiple assays, including assays evaluating the inhibition of IL-17 release from human peripheral mononuclear blood cells, in comparison to risankizumab generated recombinantly based on amino acid sequences from patent filings. Based on the results of these experiments, we believe ORKA-001 binds a similar epitope as risankizumab with similar potency.

ORKA-001 binds to a similar epitope as risankizumab with similar potency

Significant half-life extension in NHPs that could enable a maintenance dosing interval of once or twice a year in humans

We assessed ORKA-001 in NHPs in comparison to risankizumab generated recombinantly based on amino acid sequences from patent filings. ORKA-001 had a significantly longer half-life, reaching over 30 days with SQ administration. Based on clinical experience with YTE-modified mAbs and pharmacokinetic modeling, we believe that this half-life extension could enable dosing once or twice per year, as shown in the figure below.

The incorporation of YTE mutations significantly extends half-life in NHPs, which could enable once or twice yearly dosing

In addition to enabling less frequent dosing, an extended half-life would increase the exposure of ORKA-001, which has the potential to increase efficacy. Based on published literature, Skyrizi (risankizumab) demonstrates a clear relationship between antibody exposure and efficacy, with higher average serum antibody concentration correlating with higher PASI 90 and PASI 100 rates short-term (at 16 weeks) and long-term (at 52 weeks), as shown for PASI 100 in the figure below. In addition, the KNOCKOUT study, which evaluated two- and four-times higher doses of Skyrizi than the approved regimen, yielded some of the highest PASI 100 rates observed to date, reaching 67% at 16 weeks. Based on our pharmacokinetic modeling, ORKA-001 could achieve four-fold higher average exposures than the approved Skyrizi regimen over the first 16 weeks and over two-fold higher average exposures at steady-state, exceeding even the exposures in KNOCKOUT. Based on the exposure-response relationship observed with other IL-23 inhibiting antibodies, we believe that these increased exposures could result in higher efficacy.

ORKA-001 is projected to extend the exposure-response relationship established by studies of Skyrizi

Safety in vitro and in vivo

We have evaluated ORKA-001 in several in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies to assess safety. In addition, we have a nonclinical program to characterize the toxicology, toxicokinetics, and anti-drug antibody profile of ORKA-001 in NHPs. Our nonclinical program supported the initiation of our Phase 1 clinical trial for ORKA-001 and our continuing clinical development.

Characteristics that support ease of manufacturing and potentially enable high-concentration formulations

Finally, we have assessed a variety of attributes essential for manufacturability and high-concentration formulation, including viscosity, solubility, and stability, among others. ORKA-001 shows evidence of desirable properties across these characteristics, which we believe will enhance our ability to manufacture ORKA-001 successfully and consistently and to deliver high doses of ORKA-001 subcutaneously using convenient, low-volume presentations.

Clinical Development

ORKA-001

We dosed the first participants in a Phase 1 clinical trial of ORKA-001 in healthy volunteers in the fourth quarter of 2024. This trial is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study evaluating the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of ORKA-001 in healthy volunteers. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 24 healthy volunteers across three subcutaneous dose cohorts. We expect to share interim data from this trial in the second half of 2025. We believe this data has the potential to provide key validation of initial safety and pharmacokinetics data, including half-life, to support extended dosing intervals.

We plan to initiate a Phase 2a proof-of-concept study of ORKA-001 in moderate-to-severe PsO in the second half of 2025. We believe that several aspects of PsO facilitate clinical development, including well-established, reproducible endpoints based on PASI scores, low placebo rates, particularly with PASI 90 and PASI 100, a rapid efficacy readout at 16 weeks, and potentially rapid enrollment due to the large patient population. Our Phase 2a clinical trial is anticipated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a single dose level of ORKA-001 versus placebo in approximately 80 subjects, followed by randomization to one of two maintenance dosing arms. In one maintenance arm, subjects will receive ORKA-001 every six months. In the other, subjects will receive only induction dosing to assess the length of time patients maintain clear skin, which could support once-yearly dosing or even longer-term durability in some patients. The anticipated primary endpoint is PASI 100 at Week 16. After completing the trial, subjects may have the option to roll over to an open-label extension study. We expect to share initial data from the Phase 2a trial in the second half of 2026. We believe this data has the potential to inform efficacy at Week 16, as well as later timepoints, and provide us information on preliminary durability, including the potential for extended dosing intervals and longer-term remissions.

ORKA-002

 Summary

ORKA-002 is a high affinity, extended half-life mAb designed to target IL-17A/F. Dual inhibition of both IL-17A and IL-17F has shown superior efficacy compared to IL-17A inhibition alone in PsO and other indications, as shown by the performance of Bimzelx (bimekizumab) compared to Cosentyx (secukinumab) and Taltz (ixekizumab) in Phase 3 trials. These therapies all utilize Q4W maintenance dosing in PsO and PsA, except Bimzelx, where Q8W maintenance dosing in PsO patients <120 kg is recommended. By binding IL-17A/F at similar epitopes and affinity ranges as Bimzelx while incorporating half-life extension technology to potentially enable dosing two to three times a year in PsO and PsA, we believe that ORKA-002 could become the leading therapy in the IL-17 class.

Preclinical Data

The preclinical program we are conducting for ORKA-002 mirrors that for ORKA-001 and spans potency, pharmacokinetics, safety, and manufacturing characteristics. Based on the results of these experiments, we believe ORKA-002 has the potential for comparable potency to bimekizumab, but with a significantly longer half-life, which we believe could support dosing two or three times per year based on extrapolation from clinical precedent and pharmacokinetic modeling. 

Clinical Development Plans

We plan to initiate dosing of healthy volunteers in a Phase 1 trial of ORKA-002 in the third quarter of 2025. As with ORKA-001, initial data on ORKA-002 in healthy volunteers has the potential to provide key validation of both early safety and pharmacokinetics to support extended dosing intervals. Though clinical development of ORKA-002 will initially focus on one lead indication, we plan to evaluate ORKA-002 in a range of indications over time. We see ORKA-002 as highly complementary to ORKA-001, with the potential to provide an optimal therapy for the approximately one-quarter to one-third of moderate-to-severe PsO patients who have PsA, as well as for PsO patients with highly resistant skin symptoms that do not respond adequately to an IL-23 inhibitor. Furthermore, ORKA-002 could address indications beyond PsO, including PsA with limited skin involvement, HS, axSpA, and additional I&I diseases.

ORKA-021

The IL-17 and IL-23 classes each have distinct advantages. IL-17 inhibitors tend to have the fastest onset and highest peak response, while IL-23 inhibitors have less frequent dosing and better durability and safety. Combining the two mechanisms sequentially has the potential to provide two attractive features of each program: the rapid response of an IL-17 inhibitor with the ideal maintenance profile of an IL-23 inhibitor. As a result, following ORKA-002 and ORKA-001, we plan to explore a sequential combination regimen of ORKA-002 and ORKA-001, called “ORKA-021.”

Additional Pipeline Program

We have a third mAb program, ORKA-003, that targets an undisclosed pathway. A core tenet of our strategy is to remain highly focused on I&I diseases, and specifically on inflammatory dermatology conditions. ORKA-003 provides the potential for indication expansion beyond PsO as well as combination opportunities with our more advanced programs. In the future, we may add additional programs to our portfolio beyond ORKA-001, ORKA-002, ORKA-021 and ORKA-003 that fit our strategic focus.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary programs and technologies that we believe are important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patent protection intended to cover the composition of matter of our programs, their methods of use and manufacture, related technologies, diagnostics, and other inventions.

Paragon has filed, on our behalf, provisional patent applications, and we have filed non-provisional patent applications, and may file additional patent applications directed to antibodies that target IL-23, including applications covering composition of matter, pharmaceutical formulations, and methods of using such antibodies, including ORKA-001. In addition, Paragon has filed, on our behalf, provisional patent applications, and we may file additional patent applications directed to antibodies that target IL-17, including applications covering composition of matter, pharmaceutical formulations, and methods of using such antibodies, including ORKA-002. We have exclusive rights to ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 and the corresponding IL-23 and IL-17 patent applications pursuant to license agreements with Paragon. If the patent applications mature into one or more issued patents covering ORKA-001 or ORKA-002, we would expect those patents to expire in 2045, absent any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions.

Commercial

Should any of our product candidates be approved for commercialization, we intend to develop a plan to commercialize them in the United States and other key markets, through internal infrastructure and/or external partnerships in a manner that will enable us to realize the full commercial value of our programs. Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization or distribution capabilities. We have exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 pursuant to license agreements with Paragon.

Manufacturing

We do not currently own or operate facilities for product manufacturing, testing, storage, and distribution. We have contracted and expect to continue to contract with third parties for the manufacture and distribution of our product candidates. Because we rely on contract manufacturers, we employ personnel with extensive technical, manufacturing, analytical, and quality experience. Our team has deep knowledge and understanding of the regulations that govern manufacturing, documentation, quality assurance, and quality control of drug supply that are required to support our regulatory filings.

Competition

The biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries are characterized by continuing technological advancement and significant competition. While we believe that our programs, technology, development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions, among others. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and therapies that may become available in the future. Many of the companies with which we are currently competing or will compete against in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites, patient enrollment for clinical trials as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Key competitive factors affecting the success of all our product candidates that we develop, if approved, are likely to be efficacy, safety, convenience, presentation, price, the level of generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our competitors may also obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Specifically, there are several companies developing or marketing treatments that may be approved for the same indications and/or diseases as our two most advanced programs, ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, including major pharmaceutical companies. We do not yet have clinical data for any of our programs and there can be no assurance that our programs will have similar or comparable results.

There are several approved biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe PsO. These include mAbs targeting IL-23, such as Skyrizi (risankizumab) from AbbVie, Tremfya (guselkumab) from Janssen, and Ilumya (tildrakizumab) from Sun Pharma, also marketed as Ilumetri by Almirall in Europe, which all target the p19 subunit, and Stelara (ustekinumab) from Janssen, which targets the p40 subunit; mAbs targeting IL-17, such as Bimzelx (bimekizumab) from UCB, which targets IL-17A/F, Cosentyx (secukinumab) from Novartis and Taltz (ixekizumab) from Eli Lilly, which both target IL-17A, and Siliq (brodalumab) from Ortho Dermatologics, also marketed as Kyntheum by LEO Pharma in Europe, which targets IL-17 receptor/A; and biologics targeting TNF-α, such as Humira (adalimumab) from AbbVie, Enbrel (etanercept) from Amgen, and Remicade (infliximab) from Janssen, and various biosimilar versions of each. In addition, there are several approved oral medicines in these indications, including the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor Otezla (apremilast) from Amgen and the tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor Sotyktu (deucravacitinib) from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Many of these therapies also are approved or in development for PsA, HS, axSpA, and other I&I indications.

In addition, we are aware of several product candidates in clinical development for moderate-to-severe PsO, along with PsA, HS, axSpA, and other indications. These include the biologics picankibart from Innovent Biologics targeting IL-23p19 and sonelokimab from MoonLake Immunotherapeutics targeting IL-17A/F. Also, there are several oral agents in development, including JNJ-2113 from Janssen targeting the IL-23 receptor, DC-853 from Eli Lilly targeting IL-17A, and TAK-279 from Takeda and ESK-001 from Alumis, both targeting TYK2.

Significant Agreements 

Paragon Therapeutics – Option Agreements

In March 2024, we entered into two antibody discovery and option agreements (“Option Agreements”) with Paragon and Paruka Holding, LLC (“Paruka”). Paruka is an entity formed by Paragon as a vehicle to hold equity in our Company in order to share profits with certain employees of Paragon. Under the terms of each agreement, Paragon identifies, evaluates, and develops antibodies directed against certain mutually agreed therapeutic targets of interest to us. From time to time, we can choose to add additional targets to the collaboration upon agreement with Paragon and Paruka. Under the Option Agreements, we have the exclusive option to, on a research program-by-research program basis, be granted an exclusive, worldwide license to all of Paragon’s right, title, and interest in and to the intellectual property resulting from the applicable research program to develop, manufacture, and commercialize the antibodies and products directed to the selected target(s) (each, an “Option”). We have initiated certain research programs with Paragon that generally focus on discovering, generating, identifying and/or characterizing antibodies directed to a particular target (each, a “Research Program”), including for IL-23 and IL-17A/F for ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, respectively. Our exclusive option with respect to each Research Program is exercisable at our sole discretion at such time as specified in the Option Agreements (the “Option Period”). There is no payment due upon exercise of an Option pursuant to the Option Agreements. For each of these agreements, once we enter into the corresponding license agreements, we will be required to make non-refundable milestone payments to Paragon of up to $12.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain clinical development milestones, up to $10.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones, as well as a low single-digit percentage royalty for antibody products beginning on the first commercial sale in each program.

We may terminate any Option Agreement or any Research Program at any time for any or no reason upon 30 days’ prior written notice to Paragon, provided that we must pay certain unpaid fees due to Paragon upon such termination, as well as any non-cancellable obligations reasonably incurred by Paragon in connection with its activities under any terminated Research Program. Paragon may terminate any Option Agreement or a Research Program immediately upon written notice to us if, as a result of any action or failure to act by us or our affiliates, such Research Program or all material activities under the applicable Research Plan are suspended, discontinued or otherwise delayed for a certain consecutive number of months. Each party has the right to terminate the Option Agreements or any Research Program upon material breach that remains uncured or the other party’s bankruptcy.

Additionally, as part of the Option Agreements, on December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2025, we granted and will grant, respectively, Paruka a warrant to purchase a number of shares equal to 1.00% of outstanding shares as of the date of the grant on a fully-diluted basis, with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the underlying shares on the grant date.

Paragon Therapeutics – License Agreements

In September 2024, we exercised the Option to acquire certain rights to ORKA-001, and in December 2024, we entered into the corresponding license agreement with Paragon (the “ORKA-001 License Agreement”), pursuant to which Paragon granted us a royalty-bearing, world-wide, exclusive license to develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit certain antibodies and products targeting IL-23 in all fields other than the field of inflammatory bowel disease (“ORKA-001 Field”). In December 2024, we exercised the Option with respect to ORKA-002 for the IL-17A/F program, and in February 2025, we entered into the corresponding license agreement with Paragon (the “ORKA-002 License Agreement” and together with the ORKA-001 License Agreement, the “License Agreements”), pursuant to which Paragon granted us a royalty-bearing, world-wide, exclusive license to develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit certain antibodies and products targeting IL-17A/F in all fields (“ORKA-002 Field” and together with the ORKA-001 Field, the “Fields”).

The License Agreements provide us with exclusive licenses in the Fields to Paragon’s patent applications covering the related antibodies, their method of use and their method of manufacture and Paragon has agreed not to conduct any new campaigns that generate anti-IL-23 monospecific antibodies or anti-IL-17A/F monospecific antibodies for the ORKA-001 Field or the ORKA-002 Field, respectively, for at least five years. Each of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 License Agreements may be terminated on 60 days’ notice to Paragon, on material breach without cure, and on a party’s insolvency or bankruptcy to the extent permitted by law.

Pursuant to the terms of each of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 License Agreements, we are obligated to pay Paragon non-refundable milestone payments of up to $12.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain clinical development milestones and up to $10.0 million under each respective agreement upon the achievement of certain regulatory milestones, including a $1.5 million fee for nomination of a development candidate (or initiation of an investigational new drug (“IND”) enabling toxicology study) and a further milestone payment of $2.5 million upon the first dosing of a human patient in a Phase 1 trial for each of ORKA-001 and ORKA-002. In addition, we are obligated to pay Paragon a low single-digit percentage royalty for antibody products for each of ORKA-001 and ORKA-002. For each of the License Agreements, the royalty term ends on the later of (i) the last-to-expire licensed patent or our patent directed to the manufacture, use or sale of a licensed antibody in the country at issue or (ii) 12 years from the date of first sale of a Company product. There is also a royalty step-down if there is no Paragon patent in effect during the royalty term for each program.

Cell Line License Agreement

In March 2024, we entered into the Cell Line License Agreement (the “Cell Line License Agreement”) with WuXi Biologics Ireland Limited (“WuXi Biologics”). Under the Cell Line License Agreement, we received a non-exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to certain of WuXi Biologics’ know-how, cell line, biological materials (the “WuXi Biologics Licensed Technology”) and media and feeds to make, have made, use, sell and import certain therapeutic products produced through the use of the cell line licensed by WuXi Biologics under the Cell Line License Agreement (the “WuXi Biologics Licensed Products”). Specifically, the WuXi Biologics Licensed Technology is used in certain manufacturing activities in support of the ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 programs.

In consideration for the license, we agreed to pay WuXi Biologics a non-refundable license fee of $150,000. Additionally, to the extent that we manufacture our commercial supplies of bulk drug product with a manufacturer other than WuXi Biologics or its affiliates, we are required to make royalty payments to WuXi Biologics at a rate of less than one percent of net sales of WuXi Biologics Licensed Products manufactured by the third-party manufacturer. Pursuant to an amendment to the Cell Line License Agreement effective in November 2024, a provision was added that permits the royalties owed under the agreement to be bought out on a product-by-product basis for a lump-sum payment.

The Cell Line License Agreement will continue indefinitely unless terminated (i) by us upon six months’ prior written notice and our payment of all undisputed amounts due to WuXi Biologics through the effective date of termination, (ii) by WuXi Biologics for a material breach by us that remains uncured for 60 days after written notice, (iii) by WuXi Biologics if we fail to make a payment and such failure continues for 30 days after receiving notice of such failure, or (iv) by either party upon the other party’s bankruptcy.

Government Regulation

The FDA and other regulatory authorities at federal, state and local levels, as well as in foreign countries, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, import, export, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, marketing, post-approval monitoring and post-approval reporting of biologics such as those we are developing. We, along with our third-party contractors, will be required to navigate the various preclinical, clinical and commercial approval requirements of the governing regulatory agencies of the countries in which we wish to conduct studies or seek approval or licensure of our product candidates. Generally, before a new therapeutic product can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating a biological product candidate’s quality, safety, purity and potency, or a small molecule drug candidate’s quality, safety and efficacy, must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. For biological product candidates, potency is similar to efficacy and is interpreted to mean the specific ability or capacity of the product, as indicated by appropriate laboratory tests or by adequately controlled clinical data obtained through the administration of the product in the manner intended, to effect a given result.

Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or post-marketing may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications from the sponsor, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our company and our products or product candidates.

United States Biologics Regulation

In the United States, biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) and other federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires 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 following approval may subject an applicant to administrative action and judicial sanctions. The process required by the FDA before biologic product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical and Clinical Development

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

 In addition to the IND submission process, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an institutional biosafety committee (“IBC”), a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site, and must monitor the study until completed.

Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and clinical study results to public registries.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.

In some cases, the FDA may require, or companies may voluntarily pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved to gain more information about the product. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be made a condition to approval of the BLA. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product, or for biologics, the safety, purity and potency. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all IND requirements must be met unless waived. When the foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the study complies with certain FDA regulatory requirements in order to use the study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval or licensure, including that the study was conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee and use of proper procedures for obtaining informed consent from subjects, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the FDA deems such inspection necessary. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical studies.

BLA Submission and Review

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, nonclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must include all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical studies intended to test the safety and effectiveness of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated and sponsored by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial application user fee to the FDA, unless a waiver or exemption applies.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”), a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial pediatric study plan within sixty days after an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. Once a BLA has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after the filing date, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. In both standard and priority reviews, the review process may also be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

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

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a product and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. 

Combination Therapy

Combination therapy is a treatment modality that involves the use of two or more drugs to be used in combination to treat a disease or condition. If those drugs are combined in one dosage form, such as one pill, that is known as a fixed dose combination product and it is reviewed pursuant to the FDA’s Combination Rule at 21 CFR 300.50. The rule provides that two or more drugs may be combined in a single dosage form when each component contributes to the claimed effects and the dosage of each component (amount, frequency, duration) is such that the combination is safe and effective for a significant patient population requiring such concurrent therapy as defined in the labeling for the drug. But not all combination therapy falls under the category of a fixed dose combination. For example, the FDA recognizes that two drugs in separate dosage forms and in separate packaging, that otherwise might be administered as monotherapy for an indication, also may be used in combination for the same indication. In 2013, the FDA issued guidance to assist sponsors that were developing the range of combination therapies that fall outside the category of fixed dose combinations. That guidance provides recommendations and advice on such topics as: (1) assessment at the outset whether two or more therapies are appropriate for use in combination; (2) guiding principles for nonclinical and clinical development of the combination; (3) options for regulatory pathways to seek marketing approval of the combination; and (4) post-marketing safety monitoring and reporting obligations. Given the wide range of potential combination therapy variations, the FDA indicated it intends to assess each potential combination on a case-by case basis and encouraged sponsors to engage in early and regular consultation with the relevant review division at the agency throughout the development process for its proposed combination.

Regulation of Combination Products

Certain therapeutic products are comprised of multiple components, such as drug components, biologic components, and device components, that would normally be subject to different regulatory frameworks by the FDA and frequently regulated by different centers at the FDA. These products are known as combination products. Under the FDCA, the FDA is charged with assigning a center with primary jurisdiction, or a lead center, for review of a combination product. The determination of which center will be the lead center is based on the “primary mode of action” of the combination product. Thus, if the primary mode of action of drug/biologic-device combination product is attributable to the drug or biological product, the FDA center responsible for premarket review of the drug or biological product would have primary jurisdiction for the combination product. The FDA has also established the Office of Combination Products to address issues surrounding combination products and provide more certainty to the regulatory review process. That office serves as a focal point for combination product issues for agency reviewers and industry. It is also responsible for developing guidance and regulations to clarify the regulation of combination products, and for assignment of the FDA center that has primary jurisdiction for review of combination products where the jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute. A combination product with a primary mode of action attributable to the drug or biologic component generally would be reviewed and approved pursuant to the drug or biologic approval processes set forth in the FDCA. In reviewing the new drug application or BLA for such a product, however, FDA reviewers would consult with their counterparts in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health to ensure that the device component of the combination product met applicable requirements regarding safety, effectiveness, durability and performance. In addition, under FDA regulations, combination products are subject to cGMP requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the Quality System Regulation applicable to medical devices.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. After a BLA is approved for a biological product, the product also may be subject to official lot release. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA also may perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, and potency or effectiveness of biologics. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing user fee requirements, under which the FDA assesses an annual program fee for each product identified in an approved BLA. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMPs and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

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

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Biosimilars and Reference Product Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act (the “ACA”) includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are highly similar, or “biosimilar,” to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, is generally shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. A product shown to be biosimilar or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product may rely in part on the FDA’s previous determination of safety and effectiveness for the reference product for approval, which can potentially reduce the cost and time required to obtain approval to market the product. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA. The FDA has issued guidance documents intended to inform prospective applicants and facilitate the development of proposed biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, as well as to describe the FDA’s interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCIA.

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

A reference biologic is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against other biologics submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing, (ii) 18 months after approval if there is no legal challenge, (iii) 18 months after the resolution in the applicant’s favor of a lawsuit challenging the biologics’ patents if an application has been submitted, or (iv) 42 months after the application has been approved if a lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study. The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In July 2018, the FDA announced an action plan to encourage the development and efficient review of biosimilars, including the establishment of a new office within the agency that will focus on therapeutic biologics and biosimilars. On December 20, 2020, Congress amended the PHSA as part of the COVID-19 relief bill to further simplify the biosimilar review process by making it optional to show that conditions of use proposed in labeling have been previously approved for the reference product, which used to be a requirement of the application. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to significant uncertainty.

As discussed below, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) is a significant new law that intends to foster generic and biosimilar competition and to lower drug and biologic costs.

Patent Term Extension

In the United States, after a BLA is approved, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory process. The allowable patent term extension is typically calculated as one-half the time between, the latter of the effective date of an IND and issue date of the patent for which extension is sought, and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between BLA submission date and the BLA approval date up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue licensure with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of product licensure. Only one patent applicable to a licensed biological product is eligible for extension and only those claims covering the product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Some, but not all, foreign jurisdictions possess patent term extension or other additional patent exclusivity mechanisms that may be more or less stringent and comprehensive than those of the United States.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”); the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”); the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and similar foreign, federal and state fraud, abuse and transparency laws.

The AKS prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase or recommendation of an item or service for which payment may be made under any federal healthcare program. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value.

The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand, and prescribers and purchasers on the other. The government often takes the position that to violate the AKS, only one purpose of the remuneration need be to induce referrals, even if there are other legitimate purposes for the remuneration. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from AKS prosecution, but they are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration, such as consulting agreements, that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Civil and criminal false claims laws, including the FCA, and civil monetary penalty laws, which can be enforced through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment of federal government funds, including in federal healthcare programs, that are false or fraudulent. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for engaging in a variety of different types of conduct that “caused” the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs. Under the AKS, for example, a claim resulting from a violation of the AKS is deemed to be a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and making false statements relating to healthcare matters. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the healthcare fraud statute implemented under HIPAA or specific intent to violate the statute in order to have committed a violation.

The FDCA addresses, among other things, the design, production, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and testing of drugs, biologics and medical devices, and prohibits such acts as the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded drugs or devices. The PHSA also prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of unlicensed or mislabeled biological products.

The U.S. federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to annually report to the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value to various healthcare professionals including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, certified nurse-midwives, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning on January 1, 2023, California Assembly Bill 1278 requires California physicians and surgeons to notify patients of the Open Payments database established under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act.

We are also subject to federal price reporting laws and federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Federal price reporting laws require manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement and/ or discounts on approved products. Federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

We are also subject to additional similar U.S. state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, which, in some cases, differ from each other in significant ways, and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Data Privacy and Security

Numerous state, federal, and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality, and security of personal information, including health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. For example, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations imposes data privacy, security, and breach notification obligations on certain health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates and their covered subcontractors that perform certain services that involve using, disclosing, creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting individually identifiable protected health information (“PHI”) for or on behalf of such covered entities. These requirements imposed by HIPAA and the HITECH Act on covered entities and business associates include entering into agreements that require business associates protect PHI provided by the covered entity against improper use or disclosure, among other things; following certain standards for the privacy of PHI, which limit the disclosure of a patient’s past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition or information about a patient’s receipt of health care if the information identifies, or could reasonably be used to identify, the individual; ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all PHI created, received, maintained, or transmitted in electronic form, to identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats or impermissible uses or disclosures to the security and integrity of such PHI; and reporting of breaches of PHI to individuals and regulators. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. A covered entity or business associate is also liable for civil money penalties for a violation that is based on an act or omission of any of its agents, which may include a downstream business associate, as determined according to the federal common law of agency. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties applicable to covered entities and business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. To the extent that we submit electronic healthcare claims and payment transactions that do not comply with the electronic data transmission standards established under HIPAA and HITECH, payments to us may be delayed or denied.

In addition, state health information privacy laws, such as California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Washington’s My Health My Data Act, govern the privacy and security of health-related information, specifically, may apply even when HIPAA does not and impose additional requirements.

Even when HIPAA and state health information privacy laws do not apply, according to the FTC and state Attorneys General, violating consumers’ privacy rights or failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and state consumer protection laws.

In addition, certain state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CCPA”), govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA in various ways. Numerous other states have passed similar laws, but many differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. The CCPA applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and imposes obligations on certain businesses that do business in California, including to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices, and affords rights to California residents in relation to their personal information. Health information falls under the CCPA’s definition of personal information where it identifies, relates to, describes, or is reasonably capable of being associated with or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household - unless it is subject to HIPAA - and is included under a new category of personal information, “sensitive personal information,” which is offered greater protection. The numerous other comprehensive privacy laws that have passed or are being considered in other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, also exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials; but others exempt covered entities and business associates subject to HIPAA altogether, further complicating compliance efforts, and increasing legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties upon whom we rely. Additionally, our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning may be subject to laws and evolving regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence/machine learning, controlling for data bias, and antidiscrimination.

Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Adequate coverage and reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow it to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on its investment. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any pharmaceutical or biological product for which we obtain regulatory approval. Sales of any product, if approved, depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state, and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement, if any, for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding whether to cover any of our product candidates, if approved, the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, and coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost effectiveness of pharmaceutical or biological products, medical devices and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product that receives approval. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product.

For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. In addition, companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. The IRA provides CMS with significant new authorities intended to curb drug costs and to encourage market competition. For the first time, CMS will be able to directly negotiate prescription drug prices and to cap out-of-pocket costs. Each year, CMS will select and negotiate a preset number of high-spend drugs and biologics that are covered under Medicare Part B and Part D that do not have generic or biosimilar competition. On August 29, 2023, HHS announced the list of the first ten drugs subject to price negotiations. These price negotiations occurred in 2024. In January 2025, CMS announced a list of 15 additional Medicare Part D drugs that will be subject to price negotiations. The IRA also provides a new “inflation rebate” covering Medicare patients that took effect in 2023 and is intended to counter certain price increases in prescriptions drugs. The inflation rebate provision requires drug manufacturers to pay a rebate to the federal government if the price for a drug or biologic under Medicare Part B and Part D increases faster than the rate of inflation. To support biosimilar competition, beginning in October 2022, qualifying biosimilars may receive a Medicare Part B payment increase for a period of five years. Separately, if a biologic drug for which no biosimilar exists delays a biosimilar’s market entry beyond two years, CMS will be authorized to subject the biologics manufacturer to price negotiations intended to ensure fair competition. Notwithstanding these provisions, the IRA’s impact on commercialization and competition remains largely uncertain.

In addition, net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we may commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. In addition, many pharmaceutical manufacturers must calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as average sales price and best price. Penalties may apply in some cases when such metrics are not submitted accurately and timely. Further, these prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs.

Finally, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union (“EU”) provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our product candidates. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of reform proposals to change the healthcare system. There is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by federal and state legislative initiatives, including those designed to limit the pricing, coverage, and reimbursement of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, especially under government-funded health care programs, and increased governmental control of drug pricing.

The ACA, which was enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States, and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions of particular import to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including, but not limited to, those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, the IRA, among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and creating a new manufacturer discount program.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including automatic aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of on average 2% per fiscal year as part of the federal budget sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032 unless additional action is taken by Congress.

In addition, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare Act (as amended by the ACA) to increase the point-of-sale discounts that manufacturers must agree to offer under the Medicare Part D coverage discount program from 50% to 70% off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.

Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state measures designed to, among other things, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, in May 2019, CMS adopted a final rule allowing Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs, permitting Medicare Part D plans to apply certain utilization controls to new starts of five of the six protected class drugs, and requiring the Explanation of Benefits for Part D beneficiaries to disclose drug price increases and lower cost therapeutic alternatives, which went into effect on January 1, 2021. In response to the Biden administration’s October 2022 executive order, on February 14, 2023, HHS released a report outlining three new models for testing by the CMS Innovation Center which will be evaluated on their ability to lower the cost of drugs, promote accessibility, and improve quality of care. It is unclear whether the models will be utilized in any health reform measures in the future. Further, on December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced an initiative to control the price of prescription drugs through the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

Notwithstanding the IRA, continued legislative and enforcement interest exists in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, we expect regulators to continue pushing for transparency to drug pricing, reducing the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, reviewing the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reforming government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

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

Other Government Regulation Outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, research and development, clinical trials, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, record keeping, distribution, reporting, export and import, advertising, marketing and other promotional practices involving biological products as well as authorization, approval as well as post-approval monitoring and reporting of our products. Because biologically sourced raw materials are subject to unique contamination risks, their use may be restricted in some countries.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials.  

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, including requirements to conduct additional clinical trials, product licensing, safety reporting, post-authorization requirements, marketing and promotion, interactions with healthcare professionals, pricing and reimbursement may vary widely from country to country. No action can be taken to market any product in a country until an appropriate approval application has been approved by the regulatory authorities in that country. The current approval process varies from country to country, and the time spent in gaining approval varies from that required for FDA approval. In certain countries, the sales price of a product must also be approved. The pricing review period often begins after market approval is granted. Even if a product is approved by a regulatory authority, satisfactory prices may not be approved for such product, which would make launch of such products commercially unfeasible in such countries.

Regulation in the European Union

European Data Laws

The collection and use of personal health data and other personal data in the EU is governed by the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”), which came into force in May 2018, and related data protection laws in individual EU Member States. The GDPR imposes a number of strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to process, including collecting, analyzing and transferring, personal data of individuals, in particular with respect to health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR includes requirements relating to the legal basis of the processing (such as consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates), the information provided to the individuals prior to processing their personal data, the personal data breaches which may have to be notified to the national data protection authorities and data subjects, the measures to be taken when engaging processors, and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. EU Member States may also impose additional requirements in relation to health, genetic and biometric data through their national legislation.

In addition, the GDPR imposes specific restrictions on the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) that are not considered by the European Commission (“EC”) to provide an adequate level of data protection. Appropriate safeguards are required to enable such transfers. Among the appropriate safeguards that can be used, the data exporter may use the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”). When relying on SCCs, data exporters are also required to conduct a transfer risk assessment to verify if anything in the law and/or practices of the third country may impinge on the effectiveness of the SCCs in the context of the transfer at stake and, if so, to identify and adopt supplementary measures that are necessary to bring the level of protection of the data transferred to the EU standard of essential equivalence. Where no supplementary measure is suitable, the data exporter should avoid, suspend or terminate the transfer. With regard to the transfer of data from the EEA to the United States, on July 10, 2023, the EC adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. On the basis of the new adequacy decision, personal data can flow from the EEA to U.S. companies participating in the framework. With regard to the transfer of data from the EU to the United Kingdom (“UK”), personal data may freely flow from the EEA to the UK since the UK is deemed to have an adequate data protection level. However, the adequacy decisions include a ‘sunset clause’ which entails that the decisions will automatically expire four years after their entry into force, unless renewed.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EU Member States may result in significant monetary fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater, other administrative penalties and a number of criminal offenses for organizations and, in certain cases, their directors and officers, as well as civil liability claims from individuals whose personal data was processed. Data protection authorities from the different EU Member States may still implement certain variations, enforce the GDPR and national data protection laws differently, and introduce additional national regulations and guidelines, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in the EU.

Furthermore, there are specific requirements relating to processing health data from clinical trials, including public disclosure obligations provided in the EU Clinical Trials Regulation No. 536/2014 (“CTR”), European Medical Agency (“EMA”) disclosure initiatives and voluntary commitments by industry. Failure to comply with these obligations could lead to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, harm to our reputation, and adversely impact our business and operating results.

Additionally, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the EEA, companies also have to comply with the UK’s data protection laws (including the UK GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) (as supplemented by section 205(4)) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the “DPA 2018”)), the DPA 2018, and related data protection laws in the UK). Separate from the fines that can be imposed by the GDPR, the UK regime has the ability to fine up to the greater of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. Companies are subject to specific transfer rules under the UK regime, which broadly mirror the GDPR rules. On February 2, 2022, the UK Secretary of State laid before the UK Parliament the international data transfer agreement (“IDTA”) and the international data transfer addendum to the EC’s standard contractual clauses for international data transfers (Addendum) and a document setting out transitional provisions. The IDTA and Addendum came into force on March 21, 2022 and replaced the old SCCs for the purposes of the UK regime. Regarding transfers from the UK to the EEA, personal data may flow freely since the EEA is deemed to have an adequate data protection level for purposes of the UK regime. With regard to the transfer of personal data from the UK to the United States, the UK government has adopted an adequacy decision for the United States, the UK-US Data Bridge, which came into force on October 12, 2023. The UK-US Data Bridge recognizes the United States as offering an adequate level of data protection where the transfer is to a U.S. company participating in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework and the UK Extension.

Drug and Biologic Development Process

Regardless of where they are conducted, all clinical trials included in applications for marketing authorization (“MA”) for human medicines in the EU/EEA must have been carried out in accordance with EU regulations. This means that clinical trials conducted in the EU/EEA have to comply with EU clinical trial legislation but also that clinical trials conducted outside the EU/EEA have to comply with ethical principles equivalent to those set out in the EEA, including adhering to international good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The conduct of clinical trials in the EU is governed by the CTR, which entered into force on January 31, 2022. The CTR replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, (“Clinical Trials Directive”) and introduced a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the EU.

Under the former regime, which will expire after a transition period of three years as outlined below in more detail, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each EU member state where there is a site at which the clinical trial is to be conducted. The approval must be obtained from two separate entities: the National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees. The NCA of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial will be conducted must authorize the conduct of the trial, and the independent Ethics Committee must grant a positive opinion in relation to the conduct of the clinical trial in the relevant EU member state before the commencement of the trial. Any substantial changes to the trial protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be submitted to or approved by the relevant NCA and Ethics Committees. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the NCA and to the Ethics Committees of the EU member state where they occur.

A more unified procedure will apply under the new CTR. A sponsor will be able to submit a single application for approval of a clinical trial through a centralized EU clinical trials portal (the Clinical Trials Information System or “CTIS”). One national regulatory authority (the reporting EU member state proposed by the applicant) will take the lead in validating and evaluating the application and consult and coordinate with the other concerned EU Member States. If an application is rejected, it may be amended and resubmitted through the EU clinical trials portal. If an approval is issued, the sponsor may start the clinical trial in all concerned EU Member States. However, a concerned EU member state may in limited circumstances declare an “opt-out” from an approval and prevent the clinical trial from being conducted in such member state. The CTR also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting, and introduces enhanced transparency requirements such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to the EU Database. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. EU Member States will work in CTIS immediately after the system has gone live. Since January 31, 2023, submission of initial clinical trial applications via CTIS is mandatory and CTIS serves as the single entry point for submission of clinical trial-related information and data. By January 31, 2025, all ongoing trials approved under the former Clinical Trials Directive will need to comply with the CTR and have to be transitioned to CTIS. On July 19, 2023, the EC published guidance concerning the steps to be taken in this transition. This guidance provides, among other things, that (i) documentation which was previously assessed will not be reassessed, (ii) templates that were developed and endorsed by the EU Clinical Trials Expert Group to provide compliance with the CTR do not need to be updated and (iii) there is no need to retrospectively create a site suitability form, which are only necessary for new trial sites.

Under both the former regime and the new CTR, national laws, regulations, and the applicable GCP and GLP standards must also be respected during the conduct of the trials, including the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use guidelines on Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

During the development of a medicinal product, the EMA and national regulators within the EU provide the opportunity for dialogue and guidance on the development program. At the EMA level, this is usually done in the form of scientific advice, which is given by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) on the recommendation of the Scientific Advice Working Party. A fee is incurred with each scientific advice procedure, but is significantly reduced for designated orphan medicines. Advice from the EMA is typically provided based on questions concerning, for example, quality (chemistry, manufacturing and controls testing), nonclinical testing and clinical studies, and pharmacovigilance plans and risk-management programs. Advice is not legally binding with regard to any future Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”) of the product concerned.

Drug Marketing Authorization

In the EEA, after completion of all required clinical testing, pharmaceutical products may only be placed on the market after obtaining a MA. To obtain a MA of a drug under EU regulatory systems, an applicant can submit an MAA through, amongst others, a centralized or decentralized procedure.

To be used or sold in the UK, a drug must have an effective MA obtained by a centralized application through EMA or a national application. National applications are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916). Applications are made electronically through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) Submissions Portal. The process from application to authorizations generally takes up to 210 days, excluding time taken to provide any additional information or data required by the MHRA.

On August 30, 2023, the MHRA published detailed guidance on its recently announced new International Reliance Procedure (“IRP”) for MAAs. The IRP applies since January 1, 2024 and replaces existing EU reliance procedures to apply for authorizations from seven international regulators (e.g. Health Canada, Swiss Medic, FDA, EMA, among others). The IRP allows medicinal products approved in other jurisdictions that meet certain criteria to undergo a fast-tracked MHRA review to obtain and/or update a MA in the UK.

Applicants can submit initial MAAs to the IRP but the procedure can also be used throughout the lifecycle of a product for post-authorization procedures including line extensions, variations and renewals.  

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA that is issued by the EC following the scientific assessment of the application by the EMA that is valid for all EU Member States as well as in the three additional EEA Member States (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). The centralized procedure is compulsory for specific medicinal products, including for medicines developed by means of certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (“ATMP”) (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy or tissue engineered medicines) and medicinal products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases (HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases). For medicinal products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA before May 20, 2004 and indicated for the treatment of other diseases, medicinal products that constitute significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovations or for which the grant of a MA through the centralized procedure would be in the interest of public health at EU level, an applicant may voluntarily submit an application for a MA through the centralized procedure.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA, is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a drug. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. Under the centralized procedure, the timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA’s CHMP is, in principle, 210 days from receipt of a valid MAA. However, this timeline excludes clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP, so the overall process typically takes a year or more, unless the application is eligible for an accelerated assessment. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. Upon request, the CHMP can reduce the time frame to 150 days if the applicant provides sufficient justification for an accelerated assessment. The CHMP will provide a positive opinion regarding the application only if it meets certain quality, safety and efficacy requirements. This opinion is then transmitted to the EC, which has the ultimate authority for granting MA within 67 days after receipt of the CHMP opinion.

Decentralized Authorization Procedure

Medicines that fall outside the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure have three routes to authorization: (i) they can be authorized under the centralized procedure if they concern a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or if their authorization would be in the interest of public health; (ii) they can be authorized under a decentralized procedure where an applicant applies for simultaneous authorization in more than one EU member state; or (iii) they can be authorized in an EU member state in accordance with that state’s national procedures and then be authorized in other EU countries by a procedure whereby the countries concerned agree to recognize the validity of the original, national MA (mutual recognition procedure).

The decentralized procedure permits companies to file identical MA applications for a medicinal product to the competent authorities in various EU Member States simultaneously if such medicinal product has not received marketing approval in any EU Member State before. This procedure is available for pharmaceutical products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. The competent authority of a single EU Member State, the reference member state, is appointed to review the application and provide an assessment report. The competent authorities of the other EU Member States, the concerned member states, are subsequently required to grant a MA for their territories on the basis of this assessment. The only exception to this is where the competent authority of an EU Member State considers that there are concerns of potential serious risk to public health, the disputed points are subject to a dispute resolution mechanism and may eventually be referred to the EC, whose decision is binding for all EU Member States.

Risk Management Plan

All new MAAs must include a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. RMPs are continually modified and updated throughout the lifetime of the medicine as new information becomes available. An updated RMP must be submitted: (i) at the request of EMA or a national competent authority, or (ii) whenever the risk-management system is modified, especially as the result of new information being received that may lead to a significant change to the benefit-risk profile or as a result of an important pharmacovigilance or risk-minimization milestone being reached. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Since October 20, 2023, all RMPs for centrally authorized products are published by the EMA, subject only to limited redactions.

MA Validity Period

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may subsequently be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance. Once renewed, the MA is valid for an unlimited period unless the EC or the national competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with only one additional five-year renewal. Applications for renewal must be made to the EMA at least nine months before the five-year period expires.

Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid.

For the UK, the period of three years during which the drug has not been marketed in Great Britain will be restarted from the date of conversion to a Great Britain MA. Conversion refers to the procedure by which, as of January 1, 2021, MAs granted on the basis of a centralized procedure in the EU are only valid in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain, whereas, prior EU authorizations have all been automatically converted into UK MAs effective in Great Britain only.

On the other hand, for the EU, in the case the drug has been marketed in the UK, the placing on the UK market before the end of the period starting when the UK left the EU on January 31, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020 (the “Brexit Transition Period”) will be taken into account. If, after the end of the Brexit Transition Period, the drug is not placed on any other market of the remaining EU Member States, the three-year period will start running from the last date the drug was placed on the UK market before the end of the Brexit Transition Period.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

In the EU, medicinal products, including ATMPs are subject to extensive pre- and post-market regulation by regulatory authorities at both the EU and national levels. ATMPs comprise gene therapy products, somatic cell therapy products and tissue engineered products, which are genes, cells or tissues that have undergone substantial manipulation and that are administered to human beings in order to cure, diagnose or prevent diseases or regenerate, repair or replace a human tissue. Pursuant to the Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) is responsible in conjunction with the CHMP for the evaluation of ATMPs. The CHMP and CAT are also responsible for providing guidelines on ATMPs. These guidelines provide additional guidance on the factors that the EMA will consider in relation to the development and evaluation of ATMPs and include, among other things, the preclinical studies required to characterize ATMPs. Although such guidelines are not legally binding, compliance with them is often necessary to gain and maintain approval for product candidates.

In addition to the mandatory RMP, the holder of a MA for an ATMP must put in place and maintain a system to ensure that each individual product and its starting and raw materials, including all substances coming into contact with the cells or tissues it may contain, can be traced through the sourcing, manufacturing, packaging, storage, transport and delivery to the relevant healthcare institution where the product is used.

Exceptional Circumstances/Conditional Approval

Similar to accelerated approval regulations in the United States, conditional MAs can be granted in the EU in exceptional circumstances. A conditional MA can be granted for medicinal products where, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, a number of criteria are fulfilled: (i) the benefit/risk balance of the product is positive, (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data, (iii) unmet medical needs will be fulfilled by the grant of the MA and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. Once a conditional MA has been granted, the MA holder must fulfil specific obligations within defined timelines. A conditional MA is valid for one year and must be renewed annually, but it can be converted into a standard MA once the MA holder fulfils the obligations imposed and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

Data and Market Exclusivity

As in the United States, it may be possible to obtain a period of market and / or data exclusivity in the EU that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic, hybrid or biosimilar product (even if the pharmaceutical product has already received a MA) and prohibiting another applicant from relying on the MA holder’s pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data in support of another MA for the purposes of submitting an application, obtaining MA or placing the product on the market. Innovative medicinal products, referred to as New Chemical Entities (“NCEs”) approved in the EU qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of marketing exclusivity.

An additional non-cumulative one-year period of marketing exclusivity is possible if during the data exclusivity period (the first eight years of the 10-year marketing exclusivity period), the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications that are deemed to bring a significant clinical benefit compared to existing therapies.

The data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first MA in the EU. After eight years, a generic product application may be submitted and generic companies may rely on the MA holder’s data. However, a generic product cannot launch until two years later (or a total of 10 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product), or three years later (or a total of 11 years after the first MA in the EU of the innovator product) if the MA holder obtains MA for a new indication with significant clinical benefit within the eight-year data exclusivity period. Additionally, another non-cumulative one-year period of data exclusivity can be added to the eight years of data exclusivity where an application is made for a new indication for a well-established substance, provided that significant pre-clinical or clinical studies were carried out in relation to the new indication.

Another year of data exclusivity may be added to the eight years, where a change of classification of a pharmaceutical product has been authorized on the basis of significant pre-trial tests or clinical trials (when examining an application by another applicant for or holder of MA for a change of classification of the same substance the competent authority will not refer to the results of those tests or trials for one year after the initial change was authorized).

Products may not be granted data exclusivity since there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to include an NCE. Even if a compound is considered to be an NCE and the MA applicant is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the medicinal product if such company can complete a full MAA with their own complete database of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain MA of its product.

On April 26, 2023, the EC submitted a proposal for the reform of the European pharmaceutical legislation. The current draft envisages e.g., a shortening of the periods of data exclusivity, however, there is currently neither a final version of this draft nor a date for its entry into force. While the European Parliament adopted its approving position on the reform on April 10, 2024, no further required legislative steps have been taken since.  

Pediatric Development

In the EU, companies developing a new medicinal product are obligated to study their product in children and must therefore submit a PIP together with a request for agreement to the EMA. The EMA issues a decision on the PIP based on an opinion of the EMA’s Pediatric Committee. Companies must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with the PIP approved by the EMA, unless a deferral (e.g. until enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults is available) or waiver (e.g. because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults) has been granted by the EMA. The MAA for the medicinal product must include the results of all pediatric clinical trials performed and details of all information collected in compliance with the approved PIP, unless a waiver or a deferral has been granted, in which case the pediatric clinical trials may be completed at a later date. Medicinal products that are granted an MA on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the approved PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval), or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the approved PIP are developed and submitted. An approved PIP is also required when a MA holder wants to add a new indication, medicinal form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized and covered by intellectual property rights.

In the UK, the MHRA has published guidance on the procedures for UK Paediatric Investigation Plans (“PIPs”) which, where possible, mirror the submission format and requirements of the EU system. EU PIPs remain applicable for Northern Ireland and EU PIPs agreed by the EMA prior to January 1, 2021 have been adopted as UK PIPs.

Post-Approval Regulation

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the EC and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the EU Member States. This oversight applies both before and after grant of manufacturing licenses and MAs. It includes control of compliance with EU good manufacturing practices rules, manufacturing authorizations, pharmacovigilance rules and requirements governing advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, recordkeeping, importing and exporting of medicinal products.

Failure by us or by any of our third-party partners, including suppliers, manufacturers and distributors to comply with EU laws and the related national laws of individual EU Member States governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of MA, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The holder of an MA for a medicinal product must also comply with EU pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products.

These pharmacovigilance rules can impose on holders of MAs the obligation to conduct a labor intensive collection of data regarding the risks and benefits of marketed medicinal products and to engage in ongoing assessments of those risks and benefits, including the possible requirement to conduct additional clinical studies or post-authorization safety studies to obtain further information on a medicine’s safety, or to measure the effectiveness of risk-management measures, which may be time consuming and expensive and could impact our profitability. MA holders must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance, who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of Periodic Safety Update Reports (“PSURs”) in relation to medicinal products for which they hold MAs. The EMA reviews PSURs for medicinal products authorized through the centralized procedure. If the EMA has concerns that the risk benefit profile of a product has varied, it can adopt an opinion advising that the existing MA for the product be suspended, withdrawn or varied. The agency can advise that the MA holder be obliged to conduct post-authorization Phase 4 safety studies. If the EC agrees with the opinion, it can adopt a decision varying the existing MA. Failure by the MA holder to fulfill the obligations for which the EC’s decision provides can undermine the ongoing validity of the MA.

More generally, non-compliance with pharmacovigilance obligations can lead to the variation, suspension or withdrawal of the MA for the product or imposition of financial penalties or other enforcement measures. 

The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products in the EU is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Manufacturing requires a manufacturing authorization, and the manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including Directive 2001/83/EC, Directive 2003/94/EC (repealed by Directive 2017/1572 on January 31, 2022), Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Commission Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”). These requirements include compliance with EU GMP standards when manufacturing pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients outside of the EU with the intention to import the active pharmaceutical ingredients into the EU. Amendments or replacements of at least Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 are part of the reform proposal for European pharmaceutical legislation. Similarly, the distribution of pharmaceutical products into and within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of the EU Member States. The manufacturer or importer must have a qualified person who is responsible for certifying that each batch of product has been manufactured in accordance with GMP, before releasing the product for commercial distribution in the EU or for use in a clinical trial. Manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the competent authorities for compliance with GMP. 

Sales and Marketing Regulations

The advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EU laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In addition, other national legislation of individual EU Member States may apply to the advertising and promotion of medicinal products and may differ from one country to another. These laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s SmPC as approved by the competent regulatory authorities. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians concerning the safe and effective use of the medicinal product. It forms an intrinsic and integral part of the MA granted for the medicinal product. Promotion of a medicinal product that does not comply with the SmPC is considered to constitute off-label promotion. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved SmPC and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Violations of the rules governing the promotion of medicinal products in the EU could be penalized by administrative measures, fines and imprisonment. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on its promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

EU regulation with regards to dispensing, sale and purchase of medicines has generally been preserved in the UK following Brexit, through the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. However, organizations wishing to sell medicines online need to register with the MHRA. Following Brexit, the requirements to display the common logo no longer apply to UK-based online sellers, except for those established in Northern Ireland.

Anti-Corruption Legislation

In the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual EU Member States. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is prohibited in the EU. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is also governed by the national anti-bribery laws of the EU Member States. Violation of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

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

In the UK, the pharmaceutical sector is recognized as being particularly vulnerable to corrupt practices, some of which fall within the scope of the Bribery Act 2010. Due to the Bribery Act 2010’s far-reaching territorial application, the potential penalized act does not have to occur in the UK to become within its scope. If the act or omission does not take place in the UK, but the person’s act or omission would constitute an offense if carried out there and the person has a close connection with the UK, an offense will still have been committed.

The Bribery Act 2010 is comprised of four offenses that cover (i) individuals, companies and partnerships that give, promise or offer bribes, (ii) individuals, companies and partnerships that request, agree to receive or accept bribes, (iii) individuals, companies and partnerships that bribe foreign public officials, and (iv) companies and partnerships that fail to prevent persons acting on their behalf from paying bribes. The penalties imposed under the Bribery Act 2010 depend on the offence committed, harm and culpability and penalties range from unlimited fines to imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years and in some cases both.

Regulations in the UK and Other Markets

The UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020 and EU laws now only apply to the UK in respect of Northern Ireland as laid out in the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and as amended by the Windsor Framework sets out a long-term set of arrangements for the supply of medicines into Northern Ireland. The EU and the UK agreed on a trade and cooperation agreement (“TCA”), which includes provisions affecting the life sciences sector (including on customs and tariffs). There are some specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, including the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP issued documents. The TCA does not, however, contain wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations and product standards. 

The UK government has adopted the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 (the “MMDA”) to enable the UK’s regulatory frameworks to be updated following the UK’s departure from the EU. The MMDA introduces regulation-making, delegated powers covering the fields of human medicines, clinical trials of human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. The MHRA has since been consulting on future regulations for medicines and medical devices in the UK.

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Corporate Information

We were formed as a Delaware corporation in 1992 under the name “Nuvelo, Inc.” and subsequently, in 2009, we completed a business combination with ARCA biopharma, Inc. On August 29, 2024, we completed the Merger with Pre-Merger Oruka and changed our name from “ARCA biopharma, Inc.” to “Oruka Therapeutics, Inc.” Our corporate headquarters are located at 855 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 100, Menlo Park, California 94025. The telephone number at our corporate headquarters is (650) 606-7910. Our corporate website address is www.orukatx.com. We do not incorporate information contained on, or accessible through, our website into this prospectus, and you should not consider it part of this prospectus.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2024 and as of February 28, 2025, we had 28 full-time employees and 36 full-time employees, respectively. We also engage temporary employees and consultants to augment our existing workforce. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

We recognize that attracting, motivating, and retaining talent at all levels is vital to continuing our success. We invest in our employees through high-quality benefits, professional development opportunities, and various health and wellness initiatives and offer competitive compensation packages (base salary and incentive plans), ensuring fairness in internal compensation practices. The principal purposes of our incentive plans (bonus and equity) are to align with the long-term interests of our stakeholders and stockholders.

MANAGEMENT

Executive Officers and Directors

The following table sets forth the names, ages as of March 6, 2025, and positions of the individuals who currently serve as executive officers and directors of the Company.

Our business affairs are managed under the direction of our Board, which currently consists of six members. Our Board is divided into three classes, with members of each class holding office for staggered three-year terms. There are currently two Class I directors, who are up for election at the 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders for a term expiring at the 2028 Annual Meeting of Stockholders; two Class II directors, whose terms expire at the 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders; and two Class III directors, whose terms expire at the 2027 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Each executive officer serves at the discretion of the of the Board and holds office until their successor is duly appointed and qualified or until their earlier resignation or removal.

Biographical and other information regarding our executive officers and directors is set forth below. There are no family relationships among any of our executive officers or directors.

Executive Officers and Employee Director

Lawrence Klein, Ph.D. Dr. Klein has served as Chief Executive Officer and as a member of the board of directors of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka from February 2024 through the Merger Closing. Prior to joining Pre-Merger Oruka, Dr. Klein was a Partner at Versant Venture Management, LLC, a healthcare and biotechnology venture capital firm, from January 2023 to February 2024, where he invested in and helped to grow early-stage biotechnology companies. Prior to Versant, Dr. Klein served in various positions at CRISPR Therapeutics AG (Nasdaq: CRSP), a biopharmaceutical company, including Chief Operating Officer from January 2020 to October 2022, Chief Business Officer from January 2019 to January 2020, Senior Vice President, Business Development and Strategy from November 2017 to December 2018 and as Vice President, Strategy from February 2016 to November 2017, where he helped to initiate and execute on several transformative partnerships, establish the strategic direction of the company, oversee important pipeline programs and led several functions, including program and portfolio management. Before joining CRISPR, Dr. Klein was an Associate Partner at McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, from October 2014 to February 2016. Dr. Klein served as a member of the board of directors of Dyne Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: DYN) from September 2019 to May 2023 and of Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: JSPR) from September 2021 to June 2023. Dr. Klein received his B.S. in biochemistry and physics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University.

We believe Dr. Klein is qualified to serve as a member of the Board because of his business development, operational and senior management experience in the biotechnology industry and his academic expertise and accomplishments.

Joana Goncalves, MBChB. Dr. Goncalves has served as the Chief Medical Officer of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka from April 2024 through the Merger Closing. Prior to joining Pre-Merger Oruka, Dr. Goncalves served as Chief Medical Officer of Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CARA), a biopharmaceutical company, from October 2018 to April 2024, where she was responsible for representing Cara Therapeutics in interactions with regulatory agencies, the investor and scientific communities and the board of directors, building multifunctional terms and developing the clinical development strategy in dermatological conditions. Prior to Cara, Dr. Goncalves held various positions at Celgene Corporation, a pharmaceutical company, which was later acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, from April 2014 to October 2018, where she most recently served as Vice President, Medical Affairs for Dermatology and Neurology and was instrumental in planning and executing medical support activities for a number of programs, including OTEZLA® for psoriasis. Prior to Celgene, Dr. Goncalves served as Vice President, Medical Strategy and Scientific Affairs at LEO Pharma Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of LEO Pharma A/S, a global healthcare company specializing in dermatology and critical care, from February 2012 to April 2014. She began her pharmaceutical career at Novartis Pharmaceuticals, working on a range of products across various therapeutic areas from 2001 to 2012. Dr. Goncalves received her MBChB from the University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Paul Quinlan. Mr. Quinlan has served as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka since April 2024 through the Merger Closing. Prior to joining Pre-Merger Oruka, Mr. Quinlan served as General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and Corporate Secretary of CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from October 2020 to March 2024, where he was responsible for the general supervision of the company’s legal affairs. From December 2017 to February 2020, he served as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of CymaBay, where he was responsible for the general supervision of the company’s legal affairs. Prior to CymaBay, Mr. Quinlan served as General Counsel and Secretary, from 2010 to January 2018, and Chief Legal Officer from 2016 to January 2018, of TerraVia Holdings, Inc., a biotechnology company, where he was responsible for the general supervision of the company’s legal affairs. Prior to joining TerraVia, Mr. Quinlan served as General Counsel of Metabolex, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from 2005 to 2010. Prior to joining Metabolex, Mr. Quinlan held various positions at Maxygen, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from 2000 to 2005. Prior to Maxygen, Mr. Quinlan practiced law at Cooley LLP and Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP. Mr. Quinlan received a law degree from Columbia Law School and an M.Sc. in Medical Biophysics from the University of Toronto.

Arjun Agarwal. Mr. Agarwal has served as the Senior Vice President of Finance of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka from March 2024 through the Merger Closing, where he is responsible for overseeing the company’s finance and accounting functions. Prior to joining Pre-Merger Oruka, Mr. Agarwal served as VP of Finance at Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: JSPR), a biotechnology company, from June 2021 to March 2024, including through multiple financings and the company’s successful transition to become a publicly traded entity. Before joining Jasper, Mr. Agarwal served as Vice President, Corporate Controller at Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: PTGX), a biotechnology company, from August 2019 to June 2021, where he was responsible for overseeing the company’s finance and accounting functions. Prior to joining Protagonist, Mr. Agarwal served in various roles of increasing responsibility at McKesson Corporation (NYSE: MCK), an international healthcare services company, from 2009 to 2019. Prior to McKesson, Mr. Agarwal worked at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, where he managed a portfolio of audit clients. He is a graduate of Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics at Mumbai University, India. He is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and a Chartered Accountant accredited by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

Non-Employee Directors

Samarth Kulkarni, Ph.D. Dr. Kulkarni has served as Chair and a member of the board of directors of the Company since the Merger Closing and as a member of the board of directors of Pre-Merger Oruka from February 2024 through the Merger Closing. Dr. Kulkarni has served as the Chief Executive Officer of CRISPR Therapeutics AG (Nasdaq: CRSP), a biopharmaceutical company, since December 2017, where he has also served as a member and chair of the board of directors since June 2018 and September 2023, respectively. Previously, Dr. Kulkarni served as CRISPR’s President and Chief Business Officer from May 2017 to November 2017 and as Chief Business Officer from August 2015. Prior to joining CRISPR, Dr. Kulkarni was at McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, from 2006 to 2015, with various titles, his most recent being Partner within the Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology practice. Dr. Kulkarni has also served as a member of the boards of directors of Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: BDTX), Repare Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: RPTX), and Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc (Nasdaq: CNTA). Dr. Kulkarni received a Ph.D. in Bioengineering and Nanotechnology from the University of Washington and a B. Tech. from the Indian Institute of Technology. Dr. Kulkarni has authored several publications in leading scientific and business journals.

We believe that Dr. Kulkarni is qualified to serve as a member of the Board because of his experience as a consultant and an executive in the biopharmaceutical industry and his academic expertise and accomplishments.

Kristine Ball. Ms. Ball has served as a member of the board of directors of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka since May 2024 through the Merger Closing. Ms. Ball has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Antiva Biosciences, Inc., a private biopharmaceutical company, since April 2023. Prior to Antiva, Ms. Ball served as Chief Executive Officer of Soteria Biotherapeutics, Inc., a private biotechnology company, from September 2020 to August 2022. Prior to joining Soteria, Ms. Ball served as Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Chief Financial Officer of Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., a Nasdaq-listed biopharmaceutical company, which later became VYNE Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: VYNE), from September 2017 to March 2020, where she was responsible for leading all non-R&D functions, including strategic planning, corporate development, commercial, human resources, legal, finance and information technology. Prior to joining Menlo, Ms. Ball served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Relypsa, Inc., a Nasdaq-listed pharmaceutical company, which was later acquired by Galenica Group, from November 2012 to October 2016. Prior to Relypsa, Ms. Ball held various other finance roles in the life sciences industry, including Senior Vice President of Finance & Administration and Chief Financial Officer of KAI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, and Vice President of Finance at Exelixis, Inc. (Nasdaq: EXEL), a biotechnology company. Prior to that, Ms. Ball served as a senior manager in the life sciences audit practice of Ernst & Young LLP. Ms. Ball has previously served on the boards of directors of Atreca, Inc. (Nasdaq: BCEL), a biopharmaceutical company, from 2020 to 2024, Soteria from 2020 to 2022 and Forty Seven, Inc. (Nasdaq: FTSV), a Nasdaq-listed biotechnology company, which was acquired by Gilead Sciences, Inc., from 2018 to 2020. Ms. Ball received a B.S. from Babson College.

We believe Ms. Ball is qualified to serve as a member of the Board because of her experience as an executive officer and director of life sciences companies and her background in finance, corporate development and strategic planning.

Carl Dambkowski, M.D. Dr. Dambkowski has served as a member of the board of directors of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka from February 2024 through the Merger Closing. Dr. Dambkowski has served as the Chief Medical Officer of Apogee Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: APGE), a biotechnology company, since September 2022. Prior to joining Apogee, Dr. Dambkowski served as a strategic and clinical leader for a variety of companies, including as Chief Medical Officer of QED Therapeutics, Inc., a private biotechnology company, from July 2021 to September 2022; Chief Strategy Officer and EVP of Operations of Origin Biosciences, Inc., a private bioecology company, from March 2018 to June 2021; and Chief Medical Officer of Navire Pharma, Inc., a private biotechnology company, from January 2020 to September 2022, where he served as the clinical lead starting prior to IND for BBP-398 through the out licensing of the compound to Bristol-Myers Squibb based on initial clinical data and for low-dose infigratinib in achondroplasia through initial proof-of-concept data. He was part of the core team that brought TRUSELTIQ® (infigratinib) and NULIBRY® (fosdenopterin) through regulatory review and FDA approval at QED Therapeutics and Origin Biosciences, respectively. From July 2016 to March 2018, Dr. Dambkowski was an associate at McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, where he advised biotech and pharmaceutical companies across the world on a range of research and development activities. Dr. Dambkowski co-founded Novonate, Inc., a private medical device company focused on building life-saving devices for neonates, in January 2015. Dr. Dambkowski has coauthored numerous peer-reviewed publications and scientific abstracts and is a named inventor on multiple published and granted patents. Dr. Dambkowski was trained as a physician at Stanford University, where he also received his M.D. with a concentration in bioengineering. He also received a B.A. (with honors) from Stanford University and an M.A. from Columbia University.

We believe Dr. Dambkowski is qualified to serve as a member of the Board because of his significant experience and innovations in the biotechnology industry and his academic expertise and accomplishments.

Peter Harwin. Mr. Harwin has served as a member of the board of directors of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka from February 2024 through the Merger Closing. Mr. Harwin is a Managing Member at Fairmount Funds Management, a healthcare investment firm he co-founded in April 2016. Prior to Fairmount Funds Management, Mr. Harwin was a member of the investment team at Boxer Capital, LLC, an investment fund that was part of the Tavistock Group, based in San Diego. Mr. Harwin also serves as chairman of the board of directors of Cogent Biosciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: COGT) and is a member of the board of directors of Apogee Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: APGE), Viridian Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRDN) and Spyre Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Aeglea BioTherapeutics, Inc.) (Nasdaq: SYRE). Mr. Harwin received a B.B.A. from Emory University.

We believe Mr. Harwin is qualified to serve as a member of the Board because of his experience serving as a director of biotechnology companies and as a manager of funds specializing in the area of life sciences.

Cameron Turtle, D.Phil. Dr. Turtle has served as a member of the board of directors of the Company since the Merger Closing and of Pre-Merger Oruka from February 2024 through the Merger Closing. Dr. Turtle has served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Spyre Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Aeglea BioTherapeutics, Inc.) (Nasdaq: SYRE), a biotechnology company, since November 2023 and, before that, as Chief Operating Officer from June 2023 to November 2023. Prior to joining Spyre, Dr. Turtle was an advisor to Spyre Therapeutics, Inc., a private biotechnology company, from May 2023 to June 2023. Previously, he served as Venture Partner at Foresite Labs, a life sciences investment firm, from July 2022 to May 2023; Chief Strategy Officer of BridgeBio Pharma (Nasdaq: BBIO), a biotechnology company, from January 2021 to April 2022; and Chief Business Officer of Eidos Therapeutics (Nasdaq: EIDX), a biopharmaceutical company, from November 2018 to January 2021, where he led business development, investor relations, and multiple operational functions as the company advanced an investigational medicine for a form of heart failure. Prior to joining BridgeBio and Eidos, he was a consultant at McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm, where he worked with pharmaceutical and medical device companies on topics including M&A, growth strategy, clinical trial strategy, and sales force optimization. Dr. Turtle received his B.S. with honors in Bioengineering from the University of Washington and his D.Phil. in Cardiovascular Medicine from the University of Oxford, St. John’s College. He is the recipient of several awards, including a Rhodes Scholarship, Goldwater Scholarship, Forbes 30 Under 30, San Francisco Business Times 40 Under 40, and the Biocom Life Sciences Catalyst Award.

We believe Dr. Turtle is qualified to serve as a member of the Board because of his experience as a leader in building, financing, and shaping biopharmaceutical organizations from preclinical development to late-stage clinical trials and commercialization.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that establishes the standards of ethical conduct applicable to all our directors, officers and employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions. It addresses, among other matters, compliance with laws and policies, conflicts of interest, corporate opportunities, regulatory reporting, external communications, confidentiality requirements, insider trading, proper use of assets and how to report compliance concerns. A copy of the code is available on our website located at https://ir.oruka.com/corporate-governance under “Governance Documents.” We intend to disclose any amendments to the code, or any waivers of its requirements, on our website to the extent required by applicable rules. The Audit Committee is responsible for applying and interpreting the code in situations where questions are presented to it. Information contained on, or that can be accessed through, the Company’s website is not incorporated by reference into this report, and you should not consider information on the Company’s website to be part of this report.

Insider Trading Policy

We have adopted insider trading policies and procedures governing the purchase, sale and other transactions in Company securities by our directors, officers and employees, and other covered persons, as well as the Company itself, that we believe are reasonably designed to promote compliance with insider trading laws, rules and regulations, and Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) listing rules, as applicable.

As part of these policies and procedures, we prohibit any employee, director or other covered person from engaging in short sales, transactions involving publicly traded options or other derivative securities based on the Company’s securities, hedging transactions, margin accounts, pledges, or other inherently speculative transactions with respect to the Company’s securities at any time.

Audit Committee and Audit Committee Financial Expert

We have a separately designated standing Audit Committee. The members of our Audit Committee are Ms. Ball, Dr. Dambkowski, and Dr. Turtle, each of whom qualifies as an “independent” director for audit committee purposes as defined under Nasdaq listing rules and the rules and regulations established by the SEC. Ms. Ball chairs the Audit Committee and qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined under the rules and regulations established by the SEC, and all members of the Audit Committee are financially literate under Nasdaq listing rules.

Delinquent Section 16(a) Reports

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, officers and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our common stock and other equity securities. To our knowledge, based solely on our review of Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed with the SEC or written representations that no Form 5 was required, during the year ended December 31, 2024, we believe that all of our directors, officers and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities timely filed all reports required under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act.

Stockholder Proposals and Director Nominations for 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

We will hold our 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) on Monday, June 2, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act, stockholders who wish to submit proposals for inclusion in the proxy statement for the Annual Meeting must send such proposals to our Corporate Secretary at the address 855 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 100, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Such proposals must be received by us a reasonable time before we begin to print and mail our proxy materials and must comply with Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act. The submission of a stockholder proposal does not guarantee that it will be included in the proxy statement.

On August 29, 2024, in connection with the Merger Closing, the Board adopted an amendment and restatement of our Bylaws, effective as of such date, as described in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 5, 2024. As set forth in our Bylaws, if a stockholder intends to make a nomination for director election or present a proposal for other business (other than pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act) at the Annual Meeting, the stockholder’s notice must be received by our Corporate Secretary at the address 855 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 100, Menlo Park, CA 94025 no earlier than the 120th day and no later than the close of business on the 90th day before the anniversary of the last annual meeting; provided, however, that if the date of the annual meeting is more than 30 days before or more than 60 days after such anniversary date, the stockholder’s notice must be delivered not earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to such annual meeting and not later than the close of business on the later of the 90th day prior to such annual meeting or the 10th day following the date on which the first public announcement of the date of such annual meeting is made by the Company. Therefore, notice of proposed nominations or proposals (other than pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act) must be received by our Corporate Secretary no later than the close of business on March 16, 2025. Any such director nomination or stockholder proposal must be a proper matter for stockholder action and must comply with the terms and conditions set forth in our Bylaws (which includes the timing and information required under Rule 14a-19 of the Exchange Act). If a stockholder fails to meet these deadlines or fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 14a-4 of the Exchange Act, we may exercise discretionary voting authority under proxies we solicit to vote on any such proposal as we determine appropriate. We reserve the right to reject, rule out of order or take other appropriate action with respect to any nomination or proposal that does not comply with these and other applicable requirements.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

This section provides information regarding the compensation of our principal executive officer (Dr. Klein), and our two other highest paid executive officers who were serving as executive officers on December 31, 2024 (Dr. Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan). This section also includes compensation information for certain former executives of the Company (then known as ARCA). The individuals listed below are collectively referred to herein as the “NEOs” or “Named Executive Officers.”

A Year of Transition

2024 was a year of transition for the Company as we completed the Merger, shifted our drug candidate pipeline to focus on novel biologics designed to set a new standard for the treatment of chronic skin diseases and transformed our management team. Our mission is to offer patients suffering from chronic skin diseases like plaque psoriasis the greatest possible freedom from their condition by achieving high rates of complete disease clearance with dosing as infrequently as once or twice per year. The compensation described below reflects both compensatory decisions necessary to engage a new leadership team that is critical to lead the advancement of the Company’s pipeline of novel biologics and improve the standard of care for the treatment of chronic skin diseases and compensatory decisions made by ARCA prior to the consummation of the Merger with respect to the former executive officers.

2024 Summary Compensation Table

The following table shows information regarding the compensation earned by the NEOs during the fiscal years ending December 31, 2024 and 2023, by our named executive officers.

Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table

In December 2024, our Compensation Committee adopted a compensation philosophy to frame future compensation decisions for the Company. Under this philosophy, compensation positioning is used to attract and retain key employees for the Company’s continued success and growth. While market data is helpful to the Compensation Committee in setting compensation framework and guiding decisions, other factors such as Company strategy, stockholder feedback, tenure, performance and criticality are also considered. The compensation philosophy serves as the foundation to reinforce the Company’s business strategy and desired culture, while balancing internal and external alignment.

Peer Group

In July 2024, Pre-Merger Oruka, in consultation with Alpine, the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, established a peer group that focuses on U.S.-based, pre-clinical or early clinical biopharma companies (with priority placed on companies with a similar therapeutic focus) with a market capitalization ranging from $250 million to $2 billion and less than 100 employees. The peer group, which was used in making compensation decisions in connection with establishing post-Merger executive compensation for 2024, includes the following companies (the “Peer Group”):

Elements of Compensation

Base Salaries

Our Compensation Committee recognizes the importance of base salary as an element of compensation to provide our executive officers with steady cash flow during the year that is not contingent on short-term variations in our corporate performance. The setting of base salaries also includes an evaluation of each individual’s job duties, responsibilities, performance and experience, as well as internal pay equity among the executive officer team. The Compensation Committee reviews base salaries at least annually and may recommend adjustment from time to time based on the results of that review. The Compensation Committee determines salary increases using a combination of relevant competitive market data, scope of responsibilities and assessment of individual performance.

For 2024, the annual base salaries of Drs. Klein and Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan were established in connection with the consummation of their employment with Pre-Merger Oruka as a result of negotiations in the context of a competitive recruitment process. The annual base salaries as of December 31, 2024 for each of our continuing NEOs were as follows: $600,000 for Dr. Klein and $460,000 for each of Dr. Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan.

Annual Bonus Program

We have an annual cash incentive plan under which cash incentives may be paid to each of our employees, including our executive officers, after the end of each calendar year. The Compensation Committee generally determines target bonuses based on Peer Group practices and each individual’s job duties. For 2024, the target bonuses for each NEO (excluding the former ARCA executive officers), which were established by Pre-Merger Oruka in connection with the consummation of their employment with Pre-Merger Oruka, were as follows: 50% of base salary for Dr. Klein and 40% of base salary for each of Dr. Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan, in each case, pro-rated based on their respective start dates with Pre-Merger Oruka.

Pre-Merger Oruka established the corporate goals and targets for the 2024 bonus program, which were heavily weighted towards the preclinical development of ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, progress towards the commencement of their respective Phase 1 clinical studies and regulatory progress. In addition, the corporate goals included measures designed to ensure adequate funding for the Company.

The Board, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, reviewed our achievement against our 2024 corporate goals and determined the achievement to have been 125% of target, based on the achievement of substantially all the goals, with overperformance on several of the goals.

Based on our corporate performance, the 2024 annual bonuses awarded to our continuing NEOs were as follows: $317,623 for Dr. Klein, $162,132 for Dr. Goncalves and $154,591 for Mr. Quinlan.

Long-Term Incentives

We intend our equity incentive program to reward longer-term performance and to align the interests of our executive officers with those of our stockholders. We also believe that our equity incentive program, which currently consists predominantly of time-based stock options (or, for certain grants by Pre-Merger Oruka, time-based compensatory warrants), is an important retention tool for our employees, including our NEOs. The Compensation Committee believes that stock options, which require increased stock price performance for value realization, create a key connection between the interests of the NEOs and stockholders. Each of the grants described below are presented after giving effect to the share conversion completed in the Merger and the subsequent 1-for-12 reverse stock split.

In connection with his appointment as Chief Executive Officer of Pre-Merger Oruka, Dr. Klein purchased 852,338 shares of restricted stock at fair market value, which vests as to 25% on February 26, 2025 and in equal monthly installments thereafter through February 26, 2028. In accordance with the anti-dilution provisions of his offer letter, as described in more detail below, on July 15, 2024, Dr. Klein received a compensatory warrant to purchase 1,628,513 shares of our common stock, which vests as to 25% on April 3, 2025 and in equal monthly installments thereafter through April 3, 2028.

In connection with her appointment as Chief Medical Officer of Pre-Merger Oruka, Dr. Goncalves was granted stock options to purchase 228,563 shares of our common stock, which vests as to 25% on April 18, 2025 and in equal monthly installments thereafter through April 18, 2028. On July 15, 2024, Dr. Goncalves was granted a compensatory warrant to purchase 199,992 shares of our common stock, which vests on the same schedule as her initial stock option grant.

In connection with his appointment as General Counsel of Pre-Merger Oruka, Mr. Quinlan was granted stock options to purchase 228,563 shares of our common stock, which vests as to 25% on April 30, 2025 and in equal monthly installments thereafter through April 30, 2028. On July 15, 2024, Mr. Quinlan was granted a compensatory warrant to purchase 99,996 shares of our common stock, which vests on the same schedule as his initial stock option grant.

None of the former ARCA executive officers received grants of equity incentive awards during 2024.

Offer Letters

In connection with their appointments, we entered into offer letters with each of Dr. Klein, Dr. Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan, each of which was amended and restated as of October 3, 2024 (for Dr. Klein) or October 1, 2024 (for Dr. Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan) following the Merger (collectively, the “Offer Letters”). The Offer Letters provided for each NEO’s initial base salary, target annual bonus and initial equity incentive award. The Offer Letter with Dr. Klein also provided for periodic grants of stock options sufficient to maintain Dr. Klein’s ownership at approximately 5% on a fully-diluted basis until Oruka raised an aggregate of $200 million in financing, which obligations were fully satisfied prior to the consummation of the Merger through the warrant issued on July 15, 2024. The Offer Letter with Dr. Goncalves also provided for a sign-on bonus of $100,000, which is subject to repayment in the event of a termination for cause or resignation without good reason prior to April 18, 2025.

Under the Offer Letters, the NEOs are eligible for certain payments or benefits upon certain terminations of employment, as described under “Additional Narrative Disclosure—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below. Each of Dr. Klein, Dr. Goncalves and Mr. Quinlan is also party to our standard employee invention assignment, confidentiality and non-competition agreement, which, among other things, provides standard protections regarding our ownership of intellectual property, the confidentiality of our proprietary information, non-competition and non-solicitation.

ARCA Arrangements

Michael Bristow, M.D. Dr. Bristow served as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer through April 3, 2024. In connection with his separation, the Company (then known as ARCA) and Dr. Bristow entered into a separation agreement pursuant to which Dr. Bristow provided a release of claims in favor of the Company and the Company paid Dr. Bristow a lump sum severance payment of $370,000.

The Company and Dr. Bristow also entered into a consulting agreement, effective April 3, 2024, pursuant to which Dr. Bristow provided certain consulting services to the Company through the Merger. Under the consulting agreement, Dr. Bristow continued to vest in his outstanding equity awards during the consulting term.

Thomas A. Keuer and C. Jeffrey Dekker. Mr. Keuer served as the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer and Mr. Dekker served as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, in each case, through the consummation of the Merger. Pursuant to retention bonus letters approved by the ARCA Compensation Committee prior to the Merger, each of Messrs. Keuer and Dekker were paid a retention bonus upon consummation of the Merger of $165,000.

As a result of the Merger and the accompanying termination of their employment, the Company and each of Mr. Keuer and Mr. Dekker entered into a separation agreement, pursuant to which Mr. Keuer and Mr. Dekker each provided a release of claims in favor of the Company and the Company provided the following severance payments and benefits, in accordance with the terms of their employment agreement: (i) a lump sum cash severance payment equal to 12 months of their respective annual base salary ($340,000 and $270,000, respectively) and (ii) a lump sum cash payment of $69,715 in lieu of 12 months of group health plan continuation premiums.

Treatment of ARCA Equity Awards. In connection with the Merger, all outstanding ARCA stock options held by the NEOs were accelerated and cashed out for an amount equal to the difference between $3.9489 and the applicable per share exercise price; however, any ARCA stock options having an exercise price in excess of $3.9489 were cancelled for no consideration.

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End

The following table presents information regarding outstanding stock options, compensatory warrants and restricted stock held by each NEO as of December 31, 2024. The equity awards reflected below give effect to the share conversion completed in the Merger and the subsequent 1-for-12 reverse stock split. None of the former ARCA executive officers held any outstanding equity awards as of December 31, 2024.