SVRA US Equity☆

svra-10k_20201231.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

OR

Commission File Number 001-32157

Savara Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (512) 614-1848

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

Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share SVRA The Nasdaq Global Select Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒

Emerging growth company ☐

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2020, (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter), was $116,495,337.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 8, 2021 was 54,235,926.

Portions of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, scheduled to be held on June 10, 2021, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

Table of Contents

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 2

Item 1A. Risk Factors 20

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 45

Item 2. Properties 45

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 45

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 45

PART II

Item 6A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 55

Item 7. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 55

Item 8A. Controls and Procedures 56

Item 8B. Other Information 56

PART III

Item 9. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 57

Item 10. Executive Compensation 57

Item 13. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 57

PART IV

Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 58

i

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in Item 1 “Business,” and Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and the information incorporated herein by reference, include forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and beliefs and involve numerous risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as predictions of future events as we cannot assure you that the events or circumstances reflected in these statements will be achieved or will occur. When used in this report, the words “believe,” “may,” “could,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “indicate,” “seek,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, though not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. For example, forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

• our beliefs regarding the therapeutic benefits of our product candidates;

For a discussion of the factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from any future results, or performance or achievements expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements, see Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in this report.

If any of these risks or uncertainties materialize or any of these assumptions proves incorrect, our results could differ materially from the forward-looking statements in this report. All forward-looking statements in this report are current only as of the date of this report. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which any statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. Unless context requires otherwise, all references in this report to “Savara,” “our company,” “we,” “us,” “our,” or similar words refer to Savara Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries.

1

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Business Overview

Savara is an orphan lung disease company. Our lead program, molgramostim nebulizer solution (“molgramostim,” formerly referred to as Molgradex), is an inhaled granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (“GM-CSF”) in Phase 3 development for autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (“aPAP”). Our management team has significant experience in orphan drug development and pulmonary medicine, identifying unmet needs, and effectively advancing product candidates to approval and commercialization.

Corporate Strategy

Our goal is to become a leader in orphan lung disease therapeutics through the development and commercialization of novel, best-in-class medicines that address unmet medical needs in this field. Key elements of our strategy include:

Molgramostim – aPAP

Our lead product candidate, molgramostim, an inhaled formulation of recombinant human GM-CSF, is being developed for the treatment of aPAP. Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (“PAP”) is a rare lung disease characterized by the build-up of surfactant in the alveoli (or air sacs) of the lungs. There are different types of PAP, of which aPAP is the most common.

In June 2019, we announced that IMPALA, the Phase 3 clinical trial of molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP, did not meet its primary endpoint of alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient, or (A-a)DO2, improvement compared to placebo and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) indicated data from the IMPALA trial did not provide sufficient evidence of efficacy and safety. The totality of data from the IMPALA trial – which extends beyond the primary endpoint – gives us confidence that molgramostim has the potential to address a significant unmet need in this rare disease. These data include:

• Molgramostim being generally well tolerated.

In September 2020, results from the IMPALA trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

We consider molgramostim to have a favorable risk-benefit profile and remain confident in the future of the program, including the upcoming Phase 3 IMPALA 2 trial.

In May 2019, the FDA granted Fast Track Designation to molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP. Fast Track Designation facilitates the development and expedites the review of new drugs or biologics intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. In December 2019, although the IMPALA data did not meet the regulatory requirement for approval, the FDA granted a Breakthrough Therapy Designation (“BTD”) for molgramostim in aPAP based on data from the 24-week double-blind treatment period from our IMPALA trial. Additionally, molgramostim was granted Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of aPAP in the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”), which allows for seven and ten years of exclusivity from approval, respectively. Savara has exclusive access to the PARI eFlow® Nebulizer System for this indication along with a proprietary cell bank for molgramostim, a non-glycosylated form of GM-CSF.

2

Molgramostim – NTM

Molgramostim was also being investigated in cystic fibrosis (“CF”) and non-CF patients for the treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial (“NTM”) lung infection, a rare and serious lung disorder. The most common types of NTM lung infection involve Mycobacterium avium complex (“MAC”) and Mycobacterium abscessus (“MABSC”).

Savara has conducted two exploratory clinical trials of molgramostim in patients with persistent pulmonary NTM lung infection.

• OPTIMA: An open-label, non-controlled, Phase 2a trial in non-CF patients

The OPTIMA trial investigated the efficacy of molgramostim on reduction of NTM bacterial load in sputum, NTM sputum culture conversion to negative, exercise capacity, patient reported outcomes, and safety. The primary endpoint was sputum culture conversion during the treatment period. In March 2020, we disclosed top line microbiology results showing that OPTIMA did not meet the primary endpoint. Data showed five out of 24 patients (21%) with MAC infection achieved a sputum culture conversion, defined as at least three consecutive sputum samples without growth of nontuberculous mycobacteria by week 48.

The ENCORE trial investigated the efficacy of molgramostim on reduction of NTM bacterial load in sputum, NTM sputum culture conversion to negative, and other microbiological indicators, pulmonary measures, and patient reported outcomes. In September 2020, we announced the decision to discontinue the ENCORE trial based on confounding factors that compromised the ability of the trial to achieve its primary purpose of investigating the efficacy of molgramostim on NTM sputum culture conversion to negative. Such factors included the impact of COVID-19 on patient recruitment and continued participation in the trial as well as the availability of the new triple-combination CFTR modulator, approved during the treatment period of ENCORE, which became a preferred treatment option for many CF patients. Trial recruitment was terminated at the end of March 2020 with 14 patients enrolled out of a target of 30. Ten out of 14 patients were on the triple-combination CFTR modulator, nine patients started it during the trial, and one patient was on the triple-combination modulator from baseline. The decision to discontinue the trial was not based on safety concerns. Due to the early discontinuation of the trial, not all patients completed the planned 48-week treatment period. Based on preliminary data as of September 2020 from 12 patients who progressed at least beyond 20 weeks of treatment, five patients on the triple-combination CFTR modulator achieved a sputum culture conversion, defined as at least three consecutive sputum samples without growth of NTM. All of those patients had started the triple-combination modulator during the trial prior to culture conversion. Sputum culture conversions were not observed in patients who were on molgramostim without the triple-combination modulator. Data disclosed from the ENCORE trial have not been validated and are subject to the final trial report.

Based on the results of the exploratory ENCORE and OPTIMA trials, we decided to continue focusing molgramostim development efforts on our lead indication, aPAP, and do not plan to conduct further development activities related to molgramostim in NTM.

Vancomycin hydrochloride inhalation powder

Vancomycin inhalation powder (“vancomycin,” formerly referred to as AeroVanc) was the first inhaled antibiotic in development for the treatment of persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”) lung infection in individuals living with CF and was being investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial called AVAIL. The primary endpoint was the absolute change from baseline in Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) percent predicted at weeks 4, 12, and 20. Secondary endpoints included: (i) time-to-first pulmonary exacerbation requiring use of another antibiotic, (ii) frequency of pulmonary infection, (iii) patient reported outcome measures Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFRQ-R) and Cystic Fibrosis Respiratory Symptom Diary-Chronic Respiratory Infection Symptom Score (CFRSD-CRISS), and (iv) relative change in FEV1 and area under the curve FEV1.

In December 2020, we announced the AVAIL trial did not meet the primary endpoint of mean absolute change from baseline in FEV1 percent predicted analyzed sequentially at week 4, 12, and 20. According to statistical hierarchy, if the trial did not show a statistically significant improvement in FEV1, the sequence of analysis would end. Data from the trial showed a mean change from baseline in FEV1 percent predicted compared to placebo of 1.4 at week 4 (p=0.33), 1.3 at week 12 (p=0.33), and 3.0 at week 20 (p=0.07) in the primary analysis population of patients 6-21 years of age. Additionally, treatment with vancomycin did not result in a reduction in the frequency of pulmonary exacerbations versus placebo. The exacerbation rate per year was 2.3 for both groups (risk ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.7, 1.4). Vancomycin was generally well tolerated.

Based on the AVAIL results, we have discontinued further development of the vancomycin program.

Inhaled liposomal ciprofloxacin (“Apulmiq”)

In March 2020, we entered into an exclusive license and collaboration agreement with Grifols, S.A. (“Grifols”) for Apulmiq (inhaled liposomal ciprofloxacin). Apulmiq is a late-stage (Phase 3-ready) investigational inhaled antibiotic for the treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (“NCFB”). Under the terms of the agreement, Savara obtained the worldwide rights to develop and

3

commercialize Apulmiq. However, as part of our December 2020 pipeline simplification strategy that focused resources on molgramostim in aPAP and the IMPALA 2 trial, we discontinued the Apulmiq clinical development program.

Detailed Program Descriptions

Molgramostim

Background on aPAP

Autoimmune PAP, known as aPAP, is a specific disease belonging to a family of distinct rare lung diseases collectively referred to as PAP. Autoimmune PAP represents about 90% of all patients with PAP and the estimated prevalence of PAP is seven cases per million people in the U.S.1, with similar or higher prevalence reported elsewhere in the world. For example, Japan, a country that undertakes a more centralized approach to diagnosing and treating aPAP, has seen a consistent increase in patients being diagnosed with the disease. It is now estimated the prevalence in Japan could be four times the original estimate of seven cases per million.2 PAP is characterized by the build-up of surfactant in the alveoli, or air sacs, of the lungs. The surfactant consists of proteins and lipids and is an important physiological substance that lines the inside of the alveoli to prevent the lungs from collapsing. The lungs continuously produce new active surfactant. In a healthy lung, the surfactant is cleared by immune cells called alveolar macrophages. However, in lungs of patients with aPAP, the macrophages fail to clear the surfactant from the alveoli, leading to gradual accumulation of surfactant in the alveoli. The root cause of aPAP is an autoimmune response against GM-CSF, a naturally occurring protein in the body. Pulmonary macrophages need to be stimulated by GM-CSF to function properly, but in aPAP, GM-CSF is neutralized by antibodies against GM-CSF, rendering the macrophages unable to perform their tasks, including the clearance of surfactant from the alveoli.

aPAP most commonly affects men in early middle age, but both sexes and patients of any age can be affected. As a result of the accumulation of surfactant, gas exchange in the lungs is obstructed, and patients start to experience shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance. Typically, shortness of breath is first observed upon exertion, but as the disease progresses, shortness of breath can be experienced even when a person is at rest. Patients may experience cough, as well as episodes of fever, especially if secondary lung infection develops. In the long-term, the disease can lead to serious complications, including lung fibrosis and the need for lung transplant.

Current treatment options for aPAP

The current standard-of-care for aPAP is a procedure called Whole Lung Lavage (“WLL”), which entails washing out the lungs with saline, one lung at a time, under general anesthesia. WLL is an invasive and inconvenient procedure that is performed by highly experienced physicians at specialist sites and necessitates hospitalization and admission to intensive care afterwards. In many patients, WLL may only provide temporary symptomatic relief. Once the lungs refill with surfactant, the WLL procedure needs to be repeated.

As there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available for aPAP, there is a high need for a convenient and efficacious medicinal treatment. We believe that inhalation of molgramostim activates macrophages in the lung alveoli, thus potentially restoring the surfactant clearing activity of the alveolar macrophages and considerably improving oxygenation and exercise tolerance. Sargramostim, an injectable form of GM-CSF, is approved in the U.S. for intravenous (“IV”) and subcutaneous administration (“SC”) treatment of neutropenia caused by cancer chemotherapy and other related indications. Currently, there are no approved inhalation formulations of GM-CSF.GM-CSF products administered systemically (e.g., by injection), including molgramostim, are unlikely to benefit patients with aPAP because autoimmune PAP patients have circulating antibodies against GM-CSF. These antibodies would likely neutralize systemically administered GM-CSF before reaching the alveolar space in the lung, unless a very large (perhaps impractical) amount of GM-CSF is injected to overwhelm the circulating anti-GM-CSF antibody.

4

The potential benefits of inhaled GM-CSF in aPAP, together with the availability of sargramostim for off-label compounding, have prompted independent clinicians and academic researchers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan to study the safety and efficacy of inhaled GM-CSF in aPAP patients. In addition to our Phase 3 IMPALA trial of molgramostim, the largest placebo-controlled trial in this patient population (n=138), several investigator-sponsored, open-label clinical trials and case studies of inhaled GM-CSF treatment have been published, with promising results on the efficacy and safety of the treatment.3,4,5 In total, treatment of nearly 150 aPAP patients with inhaled GM-CSF have been reported in open-label trials or retrospective cohorts, as well as several individual case reports. In PAGE, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 25-week clinical trial of inhaled sargramostim in 64 patients with mild-to-moderate disease, a significant effect was observed in the primary endpoint, which was change from baseline in (A-a)DO2. Secondary endpoints, including changes from baseline in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (“DLCO”), six-minute walk distance (“6MWD”), and aPAP serum biomarkers, showed directional, but in most cases not statistically significant, treatment effects over placebo. Overall, for the first time, the PAGE trial showed in a placebo-controlled setting, proof-of-concept for GM-CSF inhalation therapy in aPAP. Results from these investigator-sponsored clinical trials and case studies indicate that GM-CSF may have a positive impact on oxygenation and clinical symptoms in aPAP patients. For details on the results of the IMPALA trial, please see the “Clinical Development of Molgramostim―aPAP: Phase 3 IMPALA Trial” section included in this report.

According to our review of published literature, few safety issues related with GM-CSF inhalation in patients with aPAP have been reported. However, there is still limited information available on the long-term safety of inhaled GM-CSF. In indications other than aPAP, more than 100 patients, mainly with a cancer diagnosis, have received inhaled sargramostim in doses up to 4000 μg/day. Pulmonary adverse event was the most frequently reported adverse event at high doses. An increase in both the number and severity of adverse events with an increasing dose has been observed. However, due to the underlying diseases, it was often difficult for investigators to assess causality of the adverse event cases.

Product Description

Molgramostim is a non-glycosylated form of recombinant human GM-CSF that we are developing as an inhaled formulation for the treatment of aPAP. GM-CSF is an endogenous growth factor that stimulates the proliferation and differentiation of hematopoietic cells (blood immune cells), mainly granulocytic and monocytic cell lines, which defend against bacteria and viruses, and clear cellular debris and waste substances from the body. Molgramostim is produced in a strain of Escherichia coli bearing a genetically engineered plasmid containing a human GM-CSF gene.

Our product is a drug-device combination consisting of molgramostim nebulizer solution (drug component) and a nebulizer (device component). Molgramostim nebulizer solution is vialed as a sterile formulation containing 300 μg of molgramostim in 1.2 mL solution. Molgramostim nebulizer solution is administered once daily by inhalation via a high efficiency nebulizer, the eFlow® Nebulizer System (PARI Pharma GmbH). The eFlow® Nebulizer System is a reusable electronic inhalation system that has been optimized for administration of molgramostim nebulizer solution. The eFlow® consists of a controller unit (AC or battery powered), a nebulizer handset, and a connection cord. The controller unit has a life span of multiple years and the handset is replaced monthly with a new unit.

Molgramostim was granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA (October 2012) and by the EMA (July 2013) for the treatment of aPAP. It was also granted Fast Track Designation and Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA in May 2019 and December 2019, respectively. Since 2014, molgramostim has been available in several European countries for the treatment of aPAP for named patients following unsolicited physician requests.

We anticipate that molgramostim will be used as a long-term therapy in patients with aPAP. The optimal duration of treatment is currently not known and is likely to vary between patients depending on disease severity and the natural course of their disease. Treatment with molgramostim may not entirely eliminate the need for WLL in all patients. In the IMPALA trial, we observed a reduced number of WLL procedures in the active treatment arms, but the difference was not statistically significant due to the relatively low number of the procedures (approximately 10%). In the open-label extension period (Period 2) of the trial, when all patients received active drug, there was a further reduction of WLL procedures. This suggests that prolonged treatment with molgramostim may reduce the need for WLL.

5

Molgramostim Key Advantages

Based on data from the completed Phase 3 IMPALA trial and building upon the published investigator-sponsored treatment experience with inhaled GM-CSF, we believe molgramostim has the potential to become the treatment of choice for aPAP. Molgramostim has the following characteristics that may contribute to the clinical profile of the product candidate, as well as facilitate potential regulatory approval and successful commercialization.

Specifically, molgramostim offers:

• A proprietary cell bank used in the production of the drug substance.

Clinical Development of Molgramostim ‒ aPAP

Phase 3 IMPALA Trial

IMPALA was a Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of molgramostim in patients with aPAP. Conducted in 18 countries including the U.S., Japan, and various European countries, it was the largest controlled clinical trial of molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP. Patients were randomized to receive treatment for up to 24 weeks in one of three treatment arms: 1) molgramostim 300 μg administered once daily (“continuous dosing arm”), 2) molgramostim 300 μg and matching placebo administered daily every other week (“intermittent dosing arm”), or 3) inhaled placebo administered once daily. At the end of the 24-week double-blind period, all patients received molgramostim 300 ug administered daily in every other week intermittent cycles in a 24-week open-label follow up period. The primary endpoint of the trial was (A-a)DO2, a commonly used measure of oxygenation impairment. In addition, three key secondary endpoints―St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (“SGRQ”), 6MWD, and time to/requirement for WLL― along with multiple other secondary and exploratory endpoints were assessed to determine improvement in the disease pathology, pathophysiology, clinical symptoms, and function.

The pathogenesis of aPAP is well known and GM-CSF’s effect on the disease, as evaluated by (A-a)DO2, dyspnea, 6MWD, pulmonary function tests, computed tomography (“CT”) scores, and biomarkers, is well documented through published clinical trials. While IMPALA did not meet its primary endpoint, when looking at the totality of evidence, we believe that data from the IMPALA trial demonstrate reversal of lung pathology and pathophysiology, improvement in clinical outcomes, and reduction of the need for rescue treatment, with a clear dose-frequency dependency in favor of the continuous dosing arm. Such results are detailed below:

6

In these four patients, (A-a)DO2 values distributed quite differently compared to the remaining trial population―ranging from highly negative to highly positive. In a revised analysis that excluded these four patients, a statistically significant average (A-a)DO2 improvement was observed in the continuous dosing arm compared with the placebo arm.

Impaired gas transfer and oxygenation are key pathophysiologic features of aPAP and are associated with symptoms of shortness of breath and limitations in exercise capacity. In addition to (A-a)DO2, DLCO was assessed in the FAS as a secondary endpoint to evaluate the efficacy of molgramostim on gas transfer. Patients in the continuous dosing arm showed a mean improvement of 11.6% predicted in DLCO, whereas the intermittent dosing and placebo arms showed a 7.7% predicted and 3.9% predicted improvement, respectively. The estimated treatment difference of 7.9% predicted (p=0.007) between the continuous dosing arm and placebo was statistically significant, and in keeping with the (A-a)DO2 improvement, and suggests improved gas exchange in the lungs.

Results from the open-label period of the IMPALA trial, announced in March 2020, demonstrated a sustained treatment effect, or continued improvement, after longer term exposure to molgramostim. A summary of the results can be found below.

During the double-blind period, a dose frequency dependency was observed with continuous administration of molgramostim resulting in higher efficacy than intermittent dosing. Results from the open-label period noted below, therefore, focus on the group that had received a continuous dose of molgramostim during the double-blind period versus those that had received placebo, both of which received intermittent dosing during the open-label period.

(A-a)DO2improvement from baseline continued in these patients during the open-label period of the trial, with progressively larger improvements at weeks 48 and 72. Likewise, progressively larger improvements from baseline were observed in DLCO and SGRQ at weeks 48 and 72.

• Patients who had been in the placebo group during the double-blind period:

Placebo patients that transitioned to active drug showed similar average improvements in (A-a)DO2, DLCO, and SGRQ in the open-label period as compared to the continuous dosing group during the double-blind period, reaching similar levels of improvement to the continuous dosing group by week 72.

Similar trends were seen in the 6MWD at weeks 48 and 72, but the data were less conclusive.

During the double-blind period of the trial, 33 WLL procedures were required, with nine in the continuous group compared to 17 in the placebo group. During the 48-week open-label period of the trial, during which time all patients received active drug, only five WLL procedures were conducted.

7

IMPALA-X Extension Trial

In March 2018, the IMPALA-X clinical trial was initiated. IMPALA-X was an open-label extension trial that allowed patients who completed the IMPALA trial to continue treatment for up to three additional years. In August 2020, we disclosed that we were stopping the IMPALA-X trial in which approximately 60 patients were being treated with molgramostim 300 μg according to the intermittent, every other week dosing regimen. Some patients from IMPALA-X may be eligible to enroll in the Phase 3 IMPALA 2 trial.

Phase 3 IMPALA 2 Trial

IMPALA 2 is a Phase 3, 48-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of molgramostim 300 μg administered once daily by inhalation with matching placebo in patients with aPAP. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline in percent predicted DLCO, a gas exchange measure. Three secondary endpoints will evaluate clinical measures of direct patient benefit: SGRQ Total Score, SGRQ Activity Component Score, and exercise capacity using a treadmill test. Other efficacy endpoints will include (A-a)DO2 (another gas exchange measure), supplemental oxygen use, WLL frequency, patient and clinician global impression of disease severity and disease change, chest CT scan to assess lung opacity, blood biomarkers, etc. IMPALA 2 is expected to enroll a total of 160 patients who will be randomized to receive treatment for up to 48 weeks in one of two arms: molgramostim 300 μg administered once daily or inhaled placebo administered once daily. The primary time point for efficacy assessment will be at week 24, however, efficacy will be assessed through week 48 to show durability of effect. Safety will be assessed through week 48. Following the 48-week double-blind treatment period, patients will roll over to a 48-week open-label period and will receive molgramostim 300 μg administered once daily.

The IMPALA 2 trial design has been endorsed by regulatory authorities in approximately 14 countries across North America, Europe, and Asia and is anticipated to start by the end of the second quarter of 2021. The trial will be conducted at approximately 50 sites and is expected to fully enroll in approximately 20 months following initiation. Top line data are anticipated in the second quarter of 2024. While we are working to initiate IMPALA 2 as quickly and as safely as possible, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve and may adversely impact trial timelines, even with mitigation strategies in place.

In January 2021, we engaged Parexel International (IRL) Limited (“Parexel”), a global contract research organization (“CRO”) to support our IMPALA 2 clinical trial development activities.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities to produce clinical or commercial quantities of our molgramostim product candidate. We have fee-for-service contracts with a well-established drug substance manufacturer and drug product manufacturer that covers all steps of the manufacturing process of molgramostim. We expect to continue with this outsourcing model for the foreseeable future and plan to pursue a second source manufacturer to reduce production risks and ensure drug substance supply. All of our manufacturing and supply vendors conduct their operations under current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”), a regulatory standard for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals.

Molgramostim drug substance is currently manufactured by GEMA Biotech S.A. in Buenos Aires, Argentina (“GEMA”). All clinical and nonclinical trials to-date have used material sourced from GEMA and validation activities are ongoing to prepare for commercial manufacturing.

Patheon UK Limited in Ferentino, Italy (“Patheon”), a division of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., has been selected as the commercial drug product manufacturer. Technology transfer and process validation activities with Patheon UK Limited are complete.

8

Molgramostimis administered to the lungs using the eFlow® Nebulizer System, manufactured by PARI Pharma GmbH in Stamberg, Germany (“PARI”). The eFlow®Nebulizer System has been Conformité Européenne (“CE”) certified (CE 0123) according to the Medical Devices Directive 93/42/EEC (as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC) as a class IIa device. The device has a 510(k) approval in the U.S. as a general device. We have an exclusive license and a long-term supply agreement with PARI, as further discussed below, covering the eFlow®Nebulizer System for the administration of recombinant human GM-CSF.

Commercialization

Savara owns exclusive rights to molgramostim in the U.S. and all other major markets. We continue to pursue clinical and regulatory approvals for molgramostim in the U.S., EU, and Japan and to independently commercialize molgramostim in the U.S. In doing so, we may engage with strategic partners to collaborate on implementing optimal sales and promotion activities. Our commercialization strategy will target key prescribing physicians and centers, as well as provide patients with support programs to ensure product access. Pending European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) approval, we expect to commercialize molgramostim in the EU and may engage with strategic partners to optimize sales and promotion activities in other EU territories.

Key License and Other Agreements

Parexel

We entered into a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) with Parexel on March 5, 2021, pursuant to which Parexel will provide contract research services related to our clinical trials. The MSA has an initial term of five years. We may terminate the MSA and/or any work order without cause on 60 days’ prior written notice to Parexel, and either party may terminate the MSA or any work order (i) upon 30 days’ notice in the event of the other party’s uncured breach, or (ii) immediately upon the occurrence of any of the following: (a) continuation of the services would pose an undue risk to the health and/or wellbeing of a study participant, (b) any certificate, authorization, approval or exemption from a regulatory authority required for the conduct of the services is revoked, suspended, or expires without renewal, (c) in the reasonable opinion of such party, the continuation of the services would be in violation of applicable law, or (d) the other party becomes insolvent. Contemporaneously with entering the MSA, we executed a work order with Parexel, under which Parexel will provide services related to the IMPALA 2 trial. Under that work order, we expect to pay Parexel service fees and pass-through expenses estimated to be approximately $31 million over the course of the IMPALA 2 clinical trial.

PARI Pharma GmbH

We have a license and collaboration agreement related to molgramostim with PARI Pharma GmbH (the “PARI License Agreement”). Under the PARI License Agreement, we have a worldwide, exclusive license to commercialize PARI’s eFlow Nebulizer System for the pulmonary delivery of any liquid formulation containing human GM-CSF (“hGM-CSF”) as the sole active pharmaceutical ingredient for nebulization for aPAP. Additionally, we have the option to change the device, subject to certain conditions, to PARI’s eFlow Technology Nebulizer Closed System (“CS”) and, until marketing approval, the option to negotiate an extension to the license to cover commercialization of the drug for pulmonary delivery via the PARI eFlow Inline device for the treatment of certain other indications. Following an amendment in 2018 (the “PARI Amendment”), we have the option to add other pulmonary infections to the included indications in the future.

Under the terms of the PARI License Agreement, Savara is not permitted to work with third parties to develop any inhalation device or nebulizer for the pulmonary delivery of a pharmaceutical product containing GM-CSF as the sole active ingredient. This restriction extends until (i) in the European Economic Area, marketing approval of the product in Europe or the U.S., whichever is later, or (ii) in the rest of the world, the term of the PARI License Agreement.

In consideration of rights granted by PARI, our predecessor paid a one-time upfront fee and we pay an hourly rate for work performed by PARI. Additionally, we are obligated to make future milestone payments to PARI based upon (i) the successful completion of certain clinical trials, (ii) submissions for regulatory approval in the U.S, the EU or Japan, and (iii) the first marketing approval for the product in the U.S., EU or Japan. The PARI Amendment expanded the development milestones in the agreement to include any additional pulmonary indications for which we use the device.

If we successfully commercialize any product candidate subject to the PARI License Agreement in a country, we are responsible for royalty payments equal to a percentage of net sales. We are obligated to make such royalty payments until the later of (i) the expiration of the last valid claim in an issued patent covering a portion of the PARI device in the applicable country or (ii) 15 years after the first commercial sale of molgramostim with the PARI device in that country (the “PARI Royalty Period”). If there is no such valid patent claim covering the applicable PARI device, the royalty owed to PARI will be decreased by a specified percentage.

The license term extends on a country-by-country basis until the end of the PARI Royalty Period or until mutually agreed by the parties.

9

We also have a commercial supply agreement with PARI (the “PARI Supply Agreement”) related to the supply of thePARI eFlow Nebulizer and related accessories for commercial use with our products after marketing approval is obtained. Pursuant to the PARI Supply Agreement, we are obligated to purchase from PARI (i) within the European Economic Area, (a) during the first five years from marketing approval, all of our requirements for the device and related accessories and (b) thereafter 80% and (ii) in the rest of the world, all of our requirements during the PARI Royalty Period. Pricing is on a per unit basis, with a reduction in price once certain purchasing volumes are met.

GEMA Biotech S.A.

In April 2019, we entered into a Manufacture and Supply Agreement with GEMA pursuant to which GEMA will supply the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) for molgramostim exclusively to us for commercial sale and continue to supply the API to us for clinical trials and research and development activities. Additionally, GEMA transferred and assigned to us all right, title, and interest in and to the master cell bank and working cell bank necessary to produce the API.

Pursuant to the terms of the GEMA Agreement, GEMA agreed to undertake the actions required to comply with the requirements of the FDA and other similar regulatory authorities and obtain the approvals necessary to manufacture and supply the API to us for commercial sale.

In addition to an agreed upon price per vial of 1 gram of the API, we paid GEMA a milestone payment upon the effective date of the agreement and are required to make milestone payments upon (i) completion of certain developmental activities, (ii) successful completion of an audit by the FDA, and (iii) marketing approval of a product containing the API. If we successfully commercialize a product containing the API in a country, we must pay GEMA a single digit percentage royalty on annual net sales. We are obligated to make such royalty payments until the earlier of (i) 10 years after the first receipt of marketing approval for the product in that country or (ii) the date a biosimilar of such product is first sold in that country.

The term of the GEMA Agreement continues until the twentieth anniversary of the date of receipt of marketing approval for a product containing the API in any country and may be extended for additional twelve-month terms by the agreement of both parties. We may terminate the GEMA Agreement immediately if (i) products containing the API will not be sold or will be withdrawn from the market, (ii) the FDA or other regulatory authority withdraws marketing approval for or fails to approve products incorporating the API, (iii) three or more batches of API supplied in any six month period fail to conform to specifications, (iv) GEMA receives notice of deficiencies in its manufacturing and fails to adequately respond, or (v) GEMA fails to achieve compliance with the requirements of the FDA and other regulatory authorities necessary to manufacture and supply the API to us for commercial sale.

Patheon UK Limited

We have entered into an agreement and related work orders with Patheon under which Patheon manufactures our molgramostim product candidate for clinical trials. We may terminate the agreement at any time for any business reason.

In June 2019, we entered into a Master Manufacturing Services Agreement (the “Master Manufacturing Agreement”) with Patheon and expect in the future to enter into one or more related Product Agreements (each a “Product Agreement) pursuant to the Master Manufacturing Agreement to govern the terms and conditions of Patheon’s manufacture of commercial supplies of molgramostim. Under the terms of the Master Manufacturing Agreement, we have agreed to order from Patheon at least a certain percentage of our commercial requirements.

The Master Manufacturing Agreement has an initial term ending December 31, 2024, and will automatically renew after the initial term for successive terms of two years each if there is a Product Agreement in effect, unless a party has given notice of termination. Either party may terminate the Master Manufacturing Agreement upon the other party’s uncured material breach or insolvency. Patheon may terminate the Master Manufacturing Agreement if we assign such agreement to an assignee that is unacceptable to Patheon for certain reasons, for failure of our timely payment of invoices, or if we forecast zero volume for six months.

Inhaled liposomal ciprofloxacin (Apulmiq)

In March 2020, we entered into an exclusive license and collaboration agreement with Grifols for Apulmiq for the treatment of NCFB. Under the terms of the agreement, Savara obtained an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, with rights to sublicense, patent rights and know-how owned or controlled by Grifols to develop and commercialize Apulmiq. The term of the license continues until the Royalty Term (as defined in the license agreement) expires in all countries for all products containing Apulmiq. Grifols may terminate the license immediately if (1) we or one of our affiliates files a challenge to a patent owned by Grifols or (2) we fail to develop Apulmiq for 12 consecutive months. Either party can terminate for the other party’s material breach following a cure period or upon certain insolvency events.

As part of our December 2020 pipeline optimization strategy that focused our resources on molgramostim in aPAP and the IMPALA 2 trial, we discontinued the Apulmiq clinical development program.

10

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 drugs, such as those we are developing. We, along with 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. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Government Regulation of Drugs

The process required by the FDA before drug product candidates, like ours, may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

• Satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable.

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, if at all. Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical trials. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro trials assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product candidate; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with cGCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, 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 trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some trials also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data

11

safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries.

For purposes of BLA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap. Additionally, in certain instances, a fourth phase, post approval, may be necessary or required.

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within a specified period, if at all, and there can be no assurance that the data collected will support FDA approval or licensure of the product. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may complete additional animal studies and develop additional information about the drug 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. 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.

BLA Submission and Review by the FDA

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 and clinical studies, 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 trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of the product, or from a number of alternative sources, including trials initiated by investigators. The submission of a BLA requires payment of a substantial user fee to the FDA, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual product and establishment user fees. These fees are typically increased annually. A waiver of user fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA 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 filed, the FDA’s goal is to review the application within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application relates to an unmet medical need in a serious or life-threatening indication, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for the indication being pursued, and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety and effectiveness. The FDA may convene an advisory committee to provide clinical insight on application review questions. 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 cGCP. 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.

The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. The FDA may not grant approval on a timely basis, or at all, and we may encounter difficulties or unanticipated costs in our efforts to secure necessary governmental approvals, which could delay or preclude us from marketing our products. After the FDA evaluates a

12

BLA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the investigational product and/or our 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 indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter may request 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 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 mitigate risks, which 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 regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-marketing trials 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 trials. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of its products under development.

A sponsor may seek approval of its product candidate under programs designed to accelerate the FDA’s review and approval of new drugs that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drug products are eligible for Fast Track Designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. For a fast track product, the FDA may consider sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted if relevant criteria are met. A fast track designated product candidate may also qualify for priority review, under which the FDA sets the target date for FDA action on the BLA at six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review is granted when there is evidence that the proposed product would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of a serious condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application is subject to the standard FDA review period of 10 months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may approve a BLA on the basis of either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Post-marketing trials or completion of ongoing trials after marketing approval are generally required to verify the biologic’s clinical benefit in relationship to the surrogate endpoint or ultimate outcome in relationship to the clinical benefit. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, which was enacted and signed into law in 2012, established breakthrough therapy designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of its product candidate as a breakthrough therapy if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Sponsors may request the FDA to designate a breakthrough therapy at the time of or any time after the submission of an IND, but ideally before an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may result in smaller or more efficient clinical trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough designation also allows the sponsor to file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis.

Fast Track Designation, priority review and Breakthrough Therapy Designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

The review and approval process with respect to our drug candidates may also be significantly delayed in the event of government shutdowns, if any.

Orphan Drug Status

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to drug candidates intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more than 200,000

13

individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that costs of research and development of the drug for the indication can be recovered by sales of the drug in the U.S. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation, the generic identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Although there may be some increased communication opportunities, Orphan Drug Designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a drug candidate that has Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA, to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in very limited circumstances, such as if the second applicant demonstrates the clinical superiority of its product or if the FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of Orphan Drug Designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the BLA application user fee.

Orphan drug exclusivity could block the approval of our drug candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same product as defined by the FDA or if our drug candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease.

As in the U.S., designation as an orphan drug for the treatment of a specific indication in the EU, must be made before the application for marketing authorization is made. Orphan drugs in Europe enjoy economic and marketing benefits, including up to 10 years of market exclusivity for the approved indication unless another applicant can show that its product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the orphan designated product.

The FDA and foreign regulators expect holders of exclusivity for orphan drugs to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of their orphan drugs to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in the withdrawal of marketing exclusivity for the orphan drug.

Breakthrough Designation

In December 2019, the FDA granted the use of molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP program Breakthrough Therapy Designation which provides a process for expediting the development and review of drug candidates that are intended to treat a serious condition and for which preliminary evidence indicates that the drug candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over the available therapy.

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, distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other FDA regulatory requirements. If our present or future suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may, among other things, halt our clinical trials, require us to recall a product from distribution, or withdraw approval of the BLA.

Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved BLA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action that could delay or prohibit further marketing.

The FDA may withdraw approval of a BLA 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-marketing trials or clinical trials to assess new

14

safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

• fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drugs and biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy 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.

Government Regulation of Combination Products

Our product candidates under development will be regulated as combination products, which means that they are comprised of two or more different components that, if marketed individually, would be subject to different regulatory paths and would require approval of independent marketing applications by the FDA. A combination product, however, is assigned to a center within the FDA that will have primary jurisdiction over its regulation on a determination of the combination product’s primary mode of action, which is the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action. We believe our product candidates include both a drug and medical device component, and will be regulated as a drug, subject to the review of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research which will have primary jurisdiction over premarket development and approval. The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health will provide support and review of the inhaler component of our product candidates.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Our sales, promotion, medical education, clinical research and other activities following product approval will be subject to regulation by numerous regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including potentially the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and state and local governments. Our promotional and scientific/educational programs and interactions with healthcare professionals must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”), physician payment transparency laws, privacy laws, security laws, and additional federal and state laws similar to the foregoing.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, the knowing and willing, direct or indirect offer, receipt, solicitation or payment of remuneration in exchange for or to induce the referral of patients, including the purchase, order or lease of any good, facility, item or service that would be paid for in whole or part by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced-price items and services. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to increased scrutiny and review if they do not qualify for an exception or 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 federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. The government has enforced the federal Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham research or consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. Further, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. Many states have similar laws that apply to their state health care programs as well as private payers.

15

Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the FCA, impose liability on persons and/or entities that, among other things, knowingly present or cause to be presented claims that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed for payment or approval by a federal health care program. The FCA has been used to prosecute persons or entities that “cause” the submission of claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers, promoting a product off-label, submitting claims for services not provided as claimed, or submitting claims for services that were provided but not medically necessary. Actions under the FCA may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual, or whistleblower, in the name of the government. Violations of the FCA can result in significant monetary penalties and treble damages. The federal government is using the FCA, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other illegal sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the FCA in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. In addition, certain companies that were found to be in violation of the FCA have been forced to implement extensive corrective action plans, and have often become subject to consent decrees or corporate integrity agreements, restricting the manner in which they conduct their business.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers; knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services; and willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent standard for certain healthcare fraud statutes under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payer, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, to the extent that our products, once commercialized, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, known as “Open Payments” and implemented as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, among other things, imposed new reporting requirements on 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, for payments or other transfers of value made by them to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Covered manufacturers are required to collect and report detailed payment data and submit legal attestation to the accuracy of such data to the government each year. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $179,495 per year (or up to an aggregate of $1,176,638 per year for “knowing failures”), for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. On October 24, 2018, former President Trump signed into law the “Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promoted Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act” which in part (under a provision entitled “Fighting the Opioid Epidemic with Sunshine”) extends the reporting and transparency requirements under Open Payments to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level practitioners (with reporting requirements going into effect in 2022 for payments made in 2021). Additionally, entities that do not comply with mandatory reporting requirements may be subject to a corporate integrity agreement. Certain states also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs, impose restrictions on covered manufacturers’ marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians and other healthcare professionals.

We are also subject to data privacy and security regulation by the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business and the EU with the General Data Protection Regulation rules which became effective in May 2018. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations, imposes specified requirements on certain health care providers, plans and clearinghouses (collectively, “covered entities”) and their “business associates,” relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain states have their own laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other and/or HIPAA in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

16

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to them, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, and diminished profits and future earnings, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

In addition to the foregoing health care laws, we are also subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws, which generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to government officials or private-sector recipients for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. We have adopted an anti-corruption policy which mandates compliance with the FCPA and similar anti-bribery laws applicable to our business throughout the world. However, we cannot assure that such a policy or procedures implemented to enforce such a policy will protect against intentional, reckless or negligent acts committed by our employees, distributors, partners, collaborators or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could result in fines, penalties or prosecution and have a negative impact on our business, results of operations, and reputation.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products depend significantly on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement are provided by third-party payers. Third-party payers include state and federal government health care programs, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Although we currently believe that third-party payers will provide coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, if approved, we cannot be certain of this. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the price, examining the cost-effectiveness, and reducing reimbursement for medical products and services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit our net revenue and results. We may need to conduct expensive clinical trials to demonstrate the comparative cost-effectiveness of our products. The product candidates that we develop may not be considered cost-effective and thus may not be covered or sufficiently reimbursed. It is time consuming and expensive for third-party payers to seek coverage and reimbursement. Thus, one payer’s decision to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for a product does not assure that another payer will provide coverage or that the reimbursement levels will be adequate. Moreover, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Reimbursement may not be available or sufficient to allow third-party payers to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis.

Healthcare Reform

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

By way of example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of importance to our potential drug candidates are:

17

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes include, among others, the Budget Control Act of 2011, which mandates aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year effective April 1, 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, former President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations.

There have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and we expect additional challenges and amendments in the future. On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid. The decision was appealed, and the case is currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the healthcare industry or our business operations. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products to the extent we choose to develop or sell any products outside of the U.S. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required to obtain FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, including our product candidates and our processes. We seek patent protection in the U.S. and internationally for our products, their methods of use and processes of manufacture and any other technology to which we have rights, as appropriate, such as device exclusivity. We also rely on trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business.

We own issued patents and additional pending patent applications worldwide for a proprietary formulation of vancomycin. The patents and pending applications are derived from a PCT application (Pub. No. WO2012159103) entitled “Dry Powder Vancomycin Compositions and Associated Methods.” In February 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued United States Patent No. 9,572,774 for “Dry Powder Vancomycin Compositions and Associated Methods” that will expire no earlier than 2032. We also have corresponding patent applications for vancomycin in different stages of prosecution in other key markets throughout the world. However, in connection with our decision to discontinue the development of the vancomycin program, we may choose to abandon certain vancomycin-related applications in the future.

Our success will, in part, depend on the ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary rights in commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, the validity and enforceability of our patents, the continued confidentiality of our trade secrets as well as our ability to operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

We cannot be sure patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications we may own or license in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents we may own or license in the future will be useful in protecting our technology and products. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. For example, significant aspects of our processes and proprietary technology portfolio are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how. Trade

18

secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and commercial partners. These agreements are designed to protect the proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. While we have confidence in our key individuals, consultants, partner organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and there may not be adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our contractors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and subject to continuous technological change. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. We believe that key competitive factors affecting the commercial success of our product candidates will be efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, reliability, convenience of dosing, price and reimbursement. Many of our potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than us, and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, manufacturing, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our competitors may be faster and more successful in obtaining FDA approval for therapies and achieving widespread market acceptance. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of very capable competitors. We anticipate facing intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Our competitors’ products may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any product candidate we may commercialize and may render our therapies obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover development and commercialization expenses.

We are not aware of any other companies developing an inhaled form of GM-CSF. A glycosylated GM-CSF product, sargramostim (Leukine®), is available on the market in the U.S., intended for IV or SC delivery in patients with neutropenia following cancer chemotherapy. Leukine® has not been approved for the treatment of aPAP or any other acute or chronic lung disease but is sometimes used as a pharmacy-compounded product (injectable product compounded for inhalation delivery). The drug substance in Leukine®, sargramostim, has been used in a nonclinical research project conducted by NIH/TRND in collaboration with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine on the potential application of inhaled GM-CSF as a treatment for aPAP. No clinical trials have been conducted to date under this collaboration project. We are aware of a multicenter clinical trial of inhaled Leukine®, using a standard commercially available nebulizer, which was conducted by a consortium of independent clinical investigators6. It is not known to us if this trial, together with other possibly available related clinical or nonclinical information, may be, or will be, used to support a potential new product approval in Japan. If such a new product would be approved and launched in Japan, we believe it has the potential to present a material competitive threat to the commercial success of molgramostim in Japan. In addition, in November 2018, Partner Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial biotechnology company, was granted Orphan Drug Designation to Leukine® for the treatment of PAP by the FDA.

Employees and Human Capital

We are committed to attracting and retaining the best possible talent. As of March 8, 2021, we had 27 employees as well as several consultants. Of our employees, 14 are located in Denmark and 13 are located in the U.S. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Attraction, Development and Retention

We believe our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees.Our compensation program, including salary, bonus, benefits as well as short and long-term incentives, is designed to help us to attract and retain individuals whose skills are important to our current and long-term success. Our total compensation package is generally positioned within the competitive ranges of our peer market, with differences generally based on tenure, skills, and performance needed to attract and retain key talent. In 2020, we implemented a spot bonus program that allows employees to nominate their colleagues for cash awards in recognition of notable achievements.

We believe that continued professional growth and development are essential to helping our team stay on top of current rules, laws, trends and events which impact their duties. We seek to develop our employee talent within the organization through access to training, continuous learning programs and other development initiatives, such as our LEAD2020 program administered during 2020. This program helped employees assess their strengths and identify areas of improvement while also allowing a 360 assessment of their managers.

19

Diversity and Inclusion

We value diverse backgrounds and viewpoints and are committed to equal opportunity. We aim to recruit, hire, place, develop, compensate, and advance people based on the needs of our organization and the qualifications, performance, skills, and experience of our people. Currently, women represent approximately 63% of our employees and 50% of our leadership team. We expect to continue to enhance our workforce diversity and advance the development of diverse talent. We consistently evaluate the opportunity for diversity for both our employee workforce and our board of directors. Upon beginning employment with Savara, all employees receive training on workplace diversity and inclusion.

Health and Safety

The health and safety of our employees is a top priority, and our goal is to provide a safe and healthy work environment for all personnel. In dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, we have provided our employees the ability to work virtually in order to best manage business and personal responsibilities and halted non-essential travel. We have enhanced our internal communications with regular “town hall” meetings to ensure connectivity to our workforce. We have set specific guidelines for our employees to follow when they determine they need to use our facilities. These guidelines include, among others, limiting the number of people in our office at one time and social distancing. We will continue to manage this situation with a focus towards the safety of our employees.

Merger and Corporate Information

On April 27, 2017, Savara completed its business combination through a reverse merger with Mast Therapeutics, Inc. (“Mast”), a publicly held company, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”), dated January 6, 2017 (the “Merger”). In connection with the Merger, Mast changed its name to Savara Inc. Pre-Merger Savara was formed as a corporation in Delaware in 2007. Mast was originally incorporated in Delaware in December 1995.

Our website is located at http://www.savarapharma.com. Information found on our website is not incorporated by reference into this annual report on Form 10-K. We make our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) including our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments and exhibits to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), available free of charge on or through our website, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding our filings at http://www.sec.gov.

Trademarks

“Savara Inc.” and the Savara logo are unregistered trademarks of Savara Inc. or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. Other third-party logos and product/trade names are registered trademarks or trade names of their respective companies. Use or display by us of other parties’ trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress or products is not intended to and does not imply a relationship with, or endorsements or sponsorship of, us by the trademark, service mark, trade name, trade dress or product owners.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk and uncertainty. Our business, operating results, growth prospects and financial condition are subject to various risks, many of which are not exclusively within our control, that may cause actual performance to differ materially from historical or projected future performance. We urge investors to consider carefully the risks described below, together with all of the information in this report and our other public filings, before making investment decisions regarding our securities. Each of these risk factors, as well as additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial, could adversely affect our business, operating results, growth prospects or financial condition, as well as the trading price of our common stock, in which case you may lose all or part of your investment.

Summary Risk Factors

The risk factors described below are a summary of the principal risk factors associated with an investment in us.

Risks Relating to Our Capital Requirements and Financial Condition

20

Risks Related to Our Business Strategy and Operations

• We currently have limited marketing capabilities and no sales organization.

Risks Related to Drug Development and Commercialization

21

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Risks Related to Our Industry

Risks Related to our Common Stock

• Our stock price is expected to continue to be volatile.

• We do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Risks Related to Our Capital Requirements and Financial Condition

We have incurred significant losses since inception and expect that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, which makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a clinical development-stage biopharmaceutical company and we have not been profitable since we commenced operations and may not ever achieve profitability. In addition, we have limited history as an organization and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biopharmaceutical industry. Drug development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. To date, we have not obtained any regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates, commercialized any of our product candidates, or generated any product revenue. We have devoted significant resources to research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing clinical trials and operations, in addition to acquiring product candidates.

For the year ended December 31, 2020, we incurred a net loss of $49.6 million, and net cash used in operating activities was $39.8 million. At December 31, 2020, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investment securities were approximately $82.2 million, and working capital was approximately $76.9 million. At December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $257.5 million. We expect to continue to incur substantial operating losses for the next several years as we seek to advance our molgramostim product candidate through clinical development (IMPALA 2 trial), global regulatory approvals, and commercialization. No revenue from operations will likely be available until, and unless, our current product candidate, molgramostim, is approved by the FDA or another regulatory agency and successfully marketed, or we enter into an arrangement that provides for licensing revenue or other partnering-

22

related funding, outcomes which we may not achieve. We are also continuously and critically reviewing our liquidity and anticipated capital requirements in light of the significant uncertainty created by the COVID-19 global pandemic.

We will require additional financing to obtain regulatory approval for molgramostim and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our product development efforts or other operations.

Since our Aravas subsidiary was formed in 2007, most of our resources have been dedicated to the development and acquisition of our product candidates, molgramostim, vancomycin hydrochloride inhalation powder (“vancomycin”) and Apulmiq. On December 10, 2020, based upon our analysis of the clinical data from the Phase 3 trial of vancomycin, we concluded and announced that the trial missed its primary endpoint, ceasing further development of vancomycin. Our priority remains the continued development of molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP and preparation for an additional Phase 3 trial. We cannot estimate with reasonable certainty the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidate and there is no certainty that we will be able to raise the necessary capital on reasonable terms or at all.

Our capital requirements for the foreseeable future will depend in large part on, and could increase significantly as a result of, our expenditures on our development programs. Future expenditures on our development programs are subject to many uncertainties, and will depend on, and could increase significantly as a result of, many factors, including:

• the duration of patient treatment and follow-up;

• negative impacts from the scope and spread of COVID-19.

Additional capital may not be available when we need it, on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we will be required to delay, limit, reduce, or terminate our establishment of sales and marketing, manufacturing or distribution capabilities, development activities, other activities that may be necessary to commercialize our product candidate, or conduct preclinical or clinical trials.

23

If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable rights to our product candidates, technologies, future revenue streams, or research programs or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we raise additional capital through public or private equity offerings, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of any new equity securities may have preferential rights over our common stock. In particular, due to the price per share of our common stock, any sale of our equity securities to raise significant capital would result in substantial ownership dilution to our stockholders. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, it may be subject to covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt or making capital expenditures, or subject to specified financial ratios, any of which could restrict our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidate or operate as a business.

Our loan agreement contains covenants which may adversely impact our business; the failure to comply with such covenants could cause our outstanding debt to become immediately payable or accelerate principal payments.

On April 28, 2017, we entered into a Loan and Security Agreement, as subsequently amended on October 31, 2017, December 4, 2018, and January 31, 2020 between us and Aravas, as co-borrowers, and Silicon Valley Bank (the “Amended Loan Agreement”). The Amended Loan Agreement includes a number of restrictive covenants, including restrictions on incurring additional debt, making investments, granting liens, disposing of assets, paying dividends, and redeeming or repurchasing capital stock, subject to certain exceptions. Collectively, these covenants could constrain our ability to grow our business through acquisitions or engage in other transactions. In addition, the Amended Loan Agreement includes covenants requiring, among other things, that we provide financial statements, comply with all laws, pay all taxes, maintain insurance, and satisfy an equity-based milestone. If we are not able to comply with these covenants, the outstanding loans under the Amended Loan Agreement could become immediately due and payable and would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition, operating results, business, and prospects and cause the price of our common stock to decline. The Amended Loan Agreement requires us to have an ongoing Phase 3 or Phase 4 clinical trial evaluating our molgramostim product for the treatment of aPAP in which the first patient has been dosed by the end of the first quarter of 2021. This milestone, if not met, will cease the interest only period and principal plus interest payments will be due in equal monthly installments over 24 months beginning April 1, 2021. In February 2021, Silicon Valley Bank agreed to extend the requirement for the date of the first patient dosed in our Phase 3 IMPALA 2 trial to the end of the second quarter of 2021.

Any future acquisitions that we make could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition.

We may, from time to time, evaluate potential strategic acquisitions of complementary businesses, products, or technologies. In addition, we may evaluate joint ventures, licensing opportunities, and other collaborative projects. We may not be able to identify appropriate acquisition candidates or strategic partners, or successfully negotiate, finance, or integrate acquisitions of any businesses, products, or technologies. Furthermore, the integration of any acquisition and management of any collaborative project may divert our management’s time and resources from our core business and disrupt our operations. Any cash acquisition we pursue would diminish the funds otherwise available to us for other uses. Any acquisition using our stock would dilute our stockholders’ ownership interests.

If we engage in acquisitions of companies, products, or technologies in order to execute our business strategy, we may need to raise additional capital. We may raise additional capital in the future through one or more financing vehicles that may be available to us including (i) new collaborative agreements; (ii) expansions or revisions to existing collaborative relationships; (iii) private financings; (iv) other equity or debt financings; (v) monetizing assets; and/or (vi) the public offering of securities.

If we are required to raise additional capital in the future, it may not be available on favorable financing terms within the time required, or at all. If additional capital is not available on favorable terms when needed, we will be required to raise capital on adverse terms or significantly reduce operating expenses through the restructuring of our operations or deferral of strategic business initiatives. If we raise additional capital through a public offering of securities or equity, a substantial number of additional shares may be issued, which may negatively affect our stock price and these additional shares will dilute the ownership interest of our current investors.

We have significant IPR&D and future impairment of IPR&D may have a significant adverse impact on our future financial condition and results of operations. Our goodwill was fully impaired during the year ended December 31, 2019.

As of December 31, 2020, we had IPR&D of approximately $12.2 million. Our intangible assets have been previously impaired and remain subject to additional impairment analyses whenever an event or change in circumstances indicates the carrying amount of such an asset may not be recoverable. We test our goodwill, if any, and IPR&D for impairment annually, or more frequently if an event or change in circumstances indicates that the asset may be impaired. If an impairment is identified, we would be required to record an impairment charge with respect to the impaired asset to our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. A significant impairment charge could have a material negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations. We will continue to evaluate our intangible assets for potential impairment in accordance with our accounting policies.

Events giving rise to impairment are difficult to predict and are an inherent risk in the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the potential risks that could result in impairment of our goodwill and IPR&D include negative clinical trial results, adverse regulatory developments, delay or failure to obtain regulatory approval, additional development costs, changes in the manner of our use or development of our product candidate, competition, earlier than expected loss of exclusivity, pricing pressures, higher operating costs, changes in tax laws, prices that third parties are willing to pay for our IPR&D or similar assets in an arm’s-length transaction being

24

less than the carrying value of our IPR&D, and other market and economic environment changes or trends, such as the ultimate scope and scale of the COVID-19 global pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 onpatient enrollment in our IMPALA 2 trial. Events or changes in circumstances may lead to significant impairment charges on our IPR&D in the future, which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Business Strategy and Operations

We are substantially dependent upon the clinical, regulatory, and commercial success of our product candidate, molgramostim. Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, results of earlier studies and trialsmay not be predictive of future trial results, and our clinical trials may fail to adequately demonstrate to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities the safety and efficacy of our molgramostim product candidate.

The success of our business is dependent on our ability to advance the clinical development of molgramostim for the treatment of patients with aPAP.

The topline results of the molgramostim Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of aPAP, designated as IMPALA, were announced on June 12, 2019. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of change in alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (“A-aDO2”) compared to placebo. The continuous treatment arm (molgramostim 300 μg administered once daily continuously over 24 weeks) did show a 12.1 mmHG improvement which is similar to what has been observed in previously published trials, but a larger-than-expected placebo effect was also seen (8.8 mmHg improvement). However, results from IMPALA did show statistically significant improvement in two secondary endpoints: the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (“SGRQ”) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (“DLCO”). Two other secondary endpoints were numerically in favor of the continuous dosing arm of molgramostim but were not statistically significant (six-minute walk distance and time to WLL), while adverse event frequencies were similar between the treatment arms and placebo.

On October 1, 2019, we received a written response from the FDA in connection with a Type C meeting regarding the molgramostim development program for aPAP and results from the IMPALA trial in which the FDA indicated that the data provided in the briefing package for the Type C meeting did not provide sufficient evidence of efficacy and safety.

On December 23, 2019, the FDA granted us Breakthrough Therapy designation for molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP, a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that are intended to treat a serious condition and for which preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s). During the year ended December 31, 2020, we worked with the FDA and EMA regarding the protocol and design of an additional Phase 3 trial of molgramostim for the treatment of aPAP, or the IMPALA 2 trial. IMPALA 2 will be a 48-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, with efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24 for the primary analyses and a sample size of 160 patients. However, the placebo-controlled period will be 48 weeks to better support the durability of treatment effect, as well as long-term safety of the drug, which is intended to be administered chronically. At the end of the placebo-controlled period, both the placebo and non-placebo treatment arms will rollover into a 48-week open-label follow-on period in which all patients will receive molgramostim 300 micrograms administered once-daily and provide useful information on the long-term safety of the drug. The primary endpoint of the IMPALA 2 trial will be the gas exchange measure of DLCO. Three secondary endpoints designed to measure direct patient benefit will be evaluated which include the SGRQ Total Score, SGRQ Activity Component score, and exercise capacity using a treadmill test.

Additionally, as we work to initiate the IMPALA 2 trial, there remains a general uncertainty regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the aPAP patient population and physicians. Patients suffering from aPAP lung disease are prone to underlying lung conditions and are often treated by infectious disease specialists and pulmonologists. These treating physicians are on the front lines in addressing this global pandemic and must now, understandably, focus their attention on COVID-19.

Clinical testing is expensive, can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. A failure of one or more of our clinical trials can occur at any time during the clinical trial process as demonstrated by our IMPALA trial results in June 2019. The results of preclinical and early clinical trials of our product candidate may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. There is a high failure rate for drugs proceeding through clinical trials, and product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the required safety and efficacy despite having progressed through preclinical and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier clinical trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidate.

Given the developmental nature of our product candidate, we are subject to risks associated with initiating, completing, and achieving positive outcomes from our current and future clinical trials, including:

• slow implementation, enrollment, and completion of the clinical trials;

25

• inability to enroll enough patients in the clinical trials;

• lack of safety and efficacy in the clinical trials;

• poor quality or missing data from the clinical trials; and

If we successfully complete the necessary clinical trials for our product candidate, our success will be subject to the risks associated with obtaining regulatory approvals, product launch, and commercialization, including:

• FDA rejection of our BLA submissions for our product candidate;

• regulatory rejection in the EU, Japan, and other markets;

• poor commercial sales due to:

• low patient demand for the product candidate; and

• reduction in the safety profile of our product candidate following approval.

Many of these clinical, regulatory, and commercial matters are beyond our control and are subject to other risks described elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. Accordingly, we cannot assure that we will be able to advance our product candidate further through final clinical development, or obtain regulatory approval of, commercialize, or generate significant revenue. If we cannot do so, or are significantly delayed in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidate.

We have historically operated with a limited number of employees that manage third parties for most development activities. Institutional knowledge is concentrated within a small number of employees. Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain, and motivate highly qualified management, clinical, and scientific personnel. Our future success is highly dependent upon the contributions of our senior management, as well as our senior scientists and other members of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals, who all have at-will employment arrangements with us, could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical trials, or the commercialization of our product candidate.

26

Replacing key employees may be a difficult, costly, and protracted process, and we may not have other personnel with the capacity to assume all the responsibilities of a key employee upon his/her departure. Transition periods can be difficult to manage and may cause disruption to our business.

In addition, there may be intense competition from other companies and organizations for qualified personnel. Other companies and organizations with which we compete for personnel may have greater financial and other resources and different risk profiles than us, and a history of successful development and commercialization. If we cannot attract and retain skilled personnel, as needed, we may not achieve our development and other goals.

The success of our business will depend on our ability to develop and maintain relationships with respected service providers and industry-leading consultants and advisers. If we cannot develop and maintain such relationships as needed, the rate and success at which we can develop and commercialize product candidates may be limited. In addition, our outsourcing strategy, which has included engaging consultants that spend considerable time to manage key functional areas, may subject us to scrutiny under labor laws and regulations, which may divert management time and attention and have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

The COVID-19 global pandemic has required us to adapt our operations, such as enabling employees to work remotely, which may adversely affect their employment satisfaction or productivity.

We do not have, and do not have plans to establish commercial manufacturing facilities. We completely rely on third parties for the manufacture and supply of our clinical trial drug and delivery device supplies and, if approved, commercial product materials. The loss of any of these vendors or a vendor’s failure to provide us with an adequate supply of clinical trial or commercial product material in a timely manner and on commercially acceptable terms, or at all, could harm our business.

We outsource the manufacture of our molgramostim product candidate and do not plan to establish our own manufacturing facilities. To manufacture our product candidate, we have made numerous custom modifications at contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), making us highly dependent on these CMOs. For clinical and commercial supplies, if approved, we have supply agreements with third party CMOs for drug substance, finished drug product, drug delivery devices and other necessary components of our molgramostim product candidate. While we have secured long-term commercial supply agreements with many of the third party CMOs, we would need to negotiate agreements for commercial supply with several important CMOs, and we may not be able to reach agreement on acceptable terms. In addition, we rely on these third parties to conduct or assist us in key manufacturing development activities, including qualification of equipment, developing and validating methods, defining critical process parameters, releasing component materials, and conducting stability testing, among other things. If these third parties are unable to perform their tasks successfully in a timely manner, whether for technical, financial, or other reasons, we may be unable to secure clinical trial material, or commercial supply material if approved, which likely would delay the initiation, conduct, or completion of our clinical trials or prevent us from having enough commercial supply material for sale, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business. For example, the impacts of the current COVID-19 global pandemic are rapidly evolving. The extent to which the pandemic impacts our ability to procure sufficient supplies for the development and commercialization of our product candidate will depend on the severity and duration of the spread of COVID-19, and the actions undertaken to contain the pandemic or treat its effects.

All manufacturers of our clinical trial material and, if approved, commercial product, including drug substance manufacturers, must comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) requirements enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program and applicable requirements of foreign regulatory authorities. These requirements include quality control, quality assurance, and the maintenance of records and documentation. Manufacturers of our clinical trial material may be unable to comply with these cGMP requirements and with other FDA, state, and foreign regulatory requirements. While we and our representatives generally monitor and audit our manufacturers’ systems, we do not have full control over their ongoing compliance with these regulations. Although the responsibility to maintain cGMP compliance is shared between us and the third-party manufacturer, we bear ultimate responsibility for our supply chain and compliance with regulatory standards. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in fines and civil penalties, suspension of production, suspension or delay or failure to obtain product approval, product seizure or recall, or withdrawal of product approval.

Currently, we do not have alternative vendors to back up our primary vendors of clinical trial material or, if approved, commercial supply material. Identification of and discussions with other vendors may be protracted and/or unsuccessful, or these new vendors may be unsuccessful in producing the same results as the current primary vendors producing the material. Therefore, if our primary vendors become unable or unwilling to perform their required activities, we could experience protracted delays or interruptions in the supply of clinical trial material and, ultimately, product for commercial sale, which would materially and adversely affect our development programs, commercial activities, operating results, and financial condition. In addition, the FDA or regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. may require that we have an alternate manufacturer of a drug product before approving it for marketing and sale in the U.S. or abroad and securing such alternate manufacturer before approval of a BLA could result in considerable additional time and cost prior to BLA approval. We are pursuing but have not yet engaged a second source manufacturer for molgramostim.

Any new manufacturer or supplier of finished drug product or its component materials, including drug substance and delivery devices, would be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements and would need to have sufficient rights under applicable intellectual property laws to the method of manufacturing of such product or ingredients required by us. The FDA or foreign

27

regulatory agency may require us to conduct additional clinical trials, collect stability data, and provide additional information concerning any new supplier, or change in a validated manufacturing process, including scaling-up production, before we could distribute products from that manufacturer or supplier or revised process. For example, if we were to engage a third party other than our current CMOs to supply the drug substance or drug product for future clinical trials or commercial sale, the FDA or regulatory authorities outside of the U.S. may require us to conduct additional clinical and nonclinical studies to ensure comparability of the drug substance or drug product manufactured by our current CMOs to that manufactured by the new supplier. Changing of suppliers or equipment is particularly challenging for companies like us, with inhalation products, because any change could alter the performance of the drug product.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling-up initial production. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product candidate and quality assurance testing, and shortages of qualified personnel. Our product candidate has not been manufactured at the scale we believe will be necessary to maximize their commercial value and, accordingly, we may encounter difficulties in attempting to scale-up production and may not succeed in that effort on a timely basis or at all. In addition, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may impose additional requirements as we scale up initial production capabilities, which may delay our scale-up activities and/or add expense.

If our manufacturers encounter any of the aforementioned difficulties or otherwise fail to comply with their contractual obligations or there are delays entering commercial supply agreements due to capital constraints, we may have insufficient quantities of material to support ongoing and/or planned clinical trials or to meet commercial demand, if approved. In addition, any delay or interruption in the supply of materials necessary or useful to manufacture our product candidate could delay the completion of our clinical trials, increase the costs associated with our development programs, and depending upon the period of delay, require us to commence new clinical trials at significant additional expense or terminate the trials completely. Delays or interruptions in the supply of commercial product could result in increased cost of goods sold and lost sales. We cannot provide assurance that manufacturing or quality control problems will not arise in connection with the manufacture of our clinical trial material or commercial product, if approved, or that third-party manufacturers will be able to maintain the necessary governmental licenses and approvals to continue manufacturing such clinical trial material or commercial product, as applicable. In addition, molgramostim is currently manufactured entirely outside the U.S. and, as a result, we may experience interruptions in supply due to shipping or customs difficulties or regional instability. Furthermore, changes in currency fluctuations, shipping costs, or import tariffs could adversely affect cost of goods sold. Any of the above factors could cause us to delay or suspend anticipated or ongoing trials, regulatory submissions or commercialization of our product candidate, entail higher costs, or result in being unable to effectively commercialize our product. Our dependence upon third parties for the manufacture of our clinical trial material may adversely affect our future costs and our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidate on a timely and competitive basis.

We rely significantly on third parties to conduct our nonclinical testing and clinical trials and other aspects of our molgramostim development program, and if those third parties do not satisfactorily perform their contractual obligations or meet anticipated deadlines, the development of our molgramostim product candidate could be adversely affected.

We do not employ personnel or possess the facilities necessary to conduct many of the activities associated with our programs. We engage consultants, advisors, contract research organizations (“CROs”) and others to assist in the design and conduct of nonclinical and clinical trials of our product candidate, with interpretation of the results of those trials and with regulatory activities, and we expect to continue to outsource all or a significant amount of such activities. Specifically, in early 2021, we engaged Parexel to support our IMPALA 2 clinical trial development activities. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs are and will continue to be outside our direct control, and our third-party service providers may not perform their activities as required or expected, including the maintenance of good clinical practice (“GCP”), good laboratories practice (“GLP”), and cGMP compliance, which are ultimately our responsibility to ensure. Further, such third parties may not be as committed to the success of our programs as our own employees and, therefore, may not devote the same time, thoughtfulness, or creativity to completing projects or problem-solving as our own employees would. To the extent we are unable to successfully manage the performance of third-party service providers, our business may be adversely affected.

The CROs that we engage to execute our clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of the trials, including patient enrollment and the collection and analysis of trial data. We likely will depend on CROs and clinical investigators to conduct future clinical trials and to assist in analyzing data from completed trials and developing regulatory strategies for our product candidate. Individuals working at the CROs with which we contract, as well as investigators at the sites at which our trials are conducted, are not our employees, and we have limited control over the amount or timing of resources that they devote to their programs. In addition, our CROs may be affected by business or workforce interruptions for many reasons, including as a result of an outbreak of COVID-19 or another infectious disease, over which they and we have limited control. If our CROs, trial investigators, and/or third-party sponsors fail to devote sufficient time and resources to trials of our product candidate, if we and/or our CROs do not comply with all GLP and GCP regulatory and contractual requirements, or if their performance is substandard, we may delay commencement and/or completion

28

of these trials, submission of applications for regulatory approval, regulatory approval, and commercialization of our product candidate. Failure of CROs to meet their obligations to us could adversely affect development of our product candidate.

In addition, CROs we engage may have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. Through intentional or unintentional means, our competitors may benefit from lessons learned on our projects that could ultimately harm our competitive position. Moreover, if a CRO fails to properly, or at all, perform our activities during a clinical trial, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs on acceptable terms or in a timely manner, or at all. Switching CROs may increase costs and divert management time and attention. In addition, there likely would be a transition period before a new CRO commences work. These challenges could result in delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired and/or announced development timelines and have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition. Additionally, the COVID-19 global pandemic may pose significant risks to our development and commercialization of our product candidate as our third-party service providers, manufacturers, and suppliers are experiencing restrictions and challenges which could negatively impact our supply-chain and progress of our development pipeline.

Our molgramostim product candidate may cause undesirable side effects or adverse events or have other properties that could delay or prevent our clinical development, regulatory approval, or commercialization.

Undesirable side effects or adverse events caused by our molgramostim product candidate could interrupt, delay, or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities for any or all indications, and in turn prevent us from commercializing our product candidate. A significant challenge in clinical development is that the patient population in early trials, where small numbers of patients are required, is different from the patient population observed in later stage trials, where larger groups of patients are required. For example, patients in earlier stage trials may be more sick, compliant, or otherwise motivated than patients in larger trials. As such, efficacy or safety results may differ significantly between trials. If we fail to demonstrate the efficacy of our drug candidate or undesirable side effects occur, they could possibly prevent approval, which would have a material and adverse effect on our business.

If our product candidate receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product:

• regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product;

• our reputation may suffer.

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the product, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from its sale.

We may not achieve our projected development goals in the time frames we have announced.

We have set goals for accomplishing certain objectives material to the successful development of our molgramostim product candidate. The actual timing of these events may vary due to many factors, including delays or failures in our nonclinical testing, clinical trials, and manufacturing and regulatory activities and the uncertainties inherent in the regulatory approval process. From time to time, we create estimates for the completion of enrollment of or announcement of data from clinical trials of our product candidate. However, predicting the rate of enrollment or the time from completion of enrollment to announcement of data for any clinical trial requires us to make significant assumptions that may prove to be incorrect. As an example, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we ceased enrollment in our discontinued AVAIL and ENCORE trials. Our estimated enrollment rates and the actual rates may differ materially, and the time required to complete enrollment of any clinical trial may be considerably longer than we estimate. Such delays may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Even if we complete a clinical trial with successful results, we may not achieve our projected development goals in the time frames we initially anticipate or announce. If a development plan for a product candidate becomes more extensive and costly than anticipated, we may determine that the associated time and cost are not financially justifiable and, as a result, may discontinue development in a particular indication or of the product candidate as a whole. In addition, even if a trial did complete with successful results, changes may occur in regulatory requirements or policy during the period of product development and/or regulatory review of a BLA that relate to the data required to be included in BLAs, which may require additional studies that may be costly and time consuming. Any of these actions may be viewed negatively, which could adversely impact our financial condition.

29

Further, throughout development, we must provide adequate assurance to the FDA and other regulatory authorities that we can consistently develop and produce our product candidate in conformance with GLP, GCP, cGMP, and other regulatory standards. As discussed above, we rely on CMOs for the manufacture of clinical, and future commercial, quantities of our product candidate. If future FDA or other regulatory authority inspections identify cGMP compliance deficiencies at these third-party facilities, production of our clinical trial material or, in the future, commercial product, could be disrupted, causing potentially substantial delay in or failure of development or commercialization of our product candidate.

We are substantially dependent upon our primary CRO, Parexel, for conducting our IMPALA 2 clinical trial.

We do not employ personnel or possess the facilities necessary to conduct many of the activities associated with our IMPALA 2 clinical trial. We have engaged a CRO, Parexel, to assist in the conduct of the trial. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs are, and will, continue to be outside our direct control. Parexel may not perform their activities as required or expected, including the maintenance of GCP and GLP. Further, Parexel may not be as committed to the success of our program as our own employees would. To the extent we are unable to successfully manage the performance of Parexel, our business may be adversely affected.

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

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors and consultants, principal investigators, CROs, CMOs and other vendors, and any future commercial partners may engage in fraudulent conduct or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to comply with manufacturing standards required by cGMP or our standards, to comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and to report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to them. The misconduct of our employees and other service providers could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Although we have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, it is not always possible to identify and deter such misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against them, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions. For example, if one of our manufacturing partners were placed under a consent decree, we may be hampered in our ability to manufacture clinical or commercial supplies.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of third-party computer system failures, cyber-attacks on third-party systems, or deficiency in our cyber-security.

We rely on information technology (“IT”) systems, including third-party “cloud based” service providers, to keep financial records, maintain laboratory data, clinical data and corporate records, communicate with staff and external parties, and operate other critical functions. This includes critical systems such as email, other communication tools, electronic document repositories, and archives. If any of these third-party IT providers are compromised due to computer viruses, unauthorized access, malware, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war and telecommunication failures, electrical failures, cyber-attacks, or cyber-intrusions over the internet, then sensitive emails or documents could be exposed or deleted. Similarly, we could incur business disruption if our access to the internet is compromised and we are unable to connect with third-party IT providers. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusion by computer hackers, foreign governments, or cyber-terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity, and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. In addition, we rely on those third parties to safeguard important confidential personal data regarding our employees and patients enrolled in our clinical trials. If a disruption event were to occur and cause interruptions in a third-party IT provider’s operations, it could result in a disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing, or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in loss or damage to our data or applications or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and development of our product candidate could be delayed or could fail.

30

In response to COVID-19, we have modified our business practices with a majority of our employees working remotely from their homes to have our operations uninterrupted as much as possible. Technology in employees’ homes may not be as robust as in our offices and could cause the networks, information systems, applications, and other tools available to employees to be more limited or less reliable than in our offices. The continuation of these work-from-home measures also introduces additional operational risk, including increased cybersecurity risk. These cyber risks include greater phishing, malware, and other cybersecurity attacks, vulnerability to disruptions of our information technology infrastructure and telecommunication systems for remote operations, increased risk of unauthorized dissemination of confidential information, limited ability to restore the systems in the event of a systems failure or interruption, greater risk of a security breach resulting in destruction or misuse of valuable information, and potential impairment of our ability to perform critical functions, including wiring funds, all of which could expose us to risks of data or financial loss, litigation and liability and could seriously disrupt our operations and the operations of any impacted customers.

We have experienced and may continue to experience attempts to breach our security and attempts to introduce malicious software into our IT systems; however, to date and to our knowledge, such attacks have not resulted in any material damage to us.

We are continually working to maintain reliable systems to improve our operations. Our efforts include, but are not limited to, the following: firewalls, antivirus protection, patches, log monitors, routine backups with offsite retention of storage media, system audits, data partitioning, and routine password modifications. Our internal IT systems environment continues to evolve and our business policies and internal security controls may not keep pace as new threats emerge. No assurance can be given that our efforts to continue to enhance our systems will be successful.

If we fail to comply with data protection laws and regulations, we could be subject to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation and/or adverse publicity, which could negatively affect our operating results and business, or if we or our vendors fail to comply with applicable data privacy laws, including the GDPR or the CCPA, we could be subject to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, and our business could be adversely impacted.

A number of state, national, and foreign laws and regulations apply to the collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure, transfer, and other processing of personal data. Due to our Danish subsidiary, Savara ApS, our clinical trial activities, and operations in Europe, we are subject to data protection laws in the EU, including the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018, has caused the EU requirements for the protection of personal data to become more stringent and increased the penalties for noncompliance. Penalties can consist of fines up to €20 million or 4% of global annual revenues, whichever is higher. As a result, we have been required to implement additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new EU data protection rules, which may cause us to incur additional costs. Similarly, in June 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which became effective in January 2020. The CCPA, among other things, requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers and afford such consumers new rights to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. The CCPA creates a private right of action for statutory damages for certain breaches of information and the California Attorney General has proposed regulations under the CCPA which became effective on July 1, 2020. In addition, the California Privacy Rights Act was passed in November 2020 expanding CCPA regulations and will have an impact on our future privacy obligations. Other states have enacted or proposed legislation that regulates the collection, use, and sale of personal information, and such regimes might not be compatible with either the GDPR or the CCPA. We may be required to implement additional mechanisms to comply with the CCPA or such other state laws, which may be difficult to implement and may require us to incur additional costs. If we or our vendors fail to comply with applicable data privacy laws, including the GDPR, we could be subject to government enforcement actions and significant penalties against us, and our business could be adversely impacted.

Our operations might be interrupted and financial results could be adversely impacted by the occurrence of a natural disaster, war, system malfunction, terrorism, telecommunication and electrical failures or other catastrophic event, or public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.