ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS

The following risk factors and other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our financial statements and related notes thereto, should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. Please see the discussion under the caption “Forward-Looking Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Capital

We have a history of incurring significant losses and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain consistent profitability.

We are an early-stage biotechnology company and have not yet generated revenues from the sales of our product candidates. All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development. Investment in biotechnology companies is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any product candidates will fail to be safe and efficacious, obtain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We have not yet demonstrated the ability to complete any clinical trials of our product candidates, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. We continue to incur significant expenses related to research and development, and other operations in order to commercialize our product candidates. We have a history of incurring significant operating losses. We had a net loss of $119.7 million, net loss of $65.0 million, and net income of $132.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024, and 2023, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $445.9 million.

We historically have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our redeemable convertible preferred stock, public offerings and private placements of our common stock, and strategic collaborations, including our prior collaborations with Sanofi Genzyme Corporation, or Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd and AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company, and our ongoing collaborations with Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., or Neurocrine, and Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis; our option and license agreement, or the Alexion Agreement, with Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease, or Alexion; and our option and license agreement, or the 2022 Novartis Option and License Agreement, with Novartis. We refer to our ongoing collaborations with Neurocrine collectively as the Neurocrine Collaborations.

To date, we have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to building our gene therapy and non-viral therapeutics platforms, selecting product programs, conducting research and development, including preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, building our intellectual property portfolio, building our team, and establishing strategic collaborations. We expect that it could be several years before we have a commercialized product, if ever. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. We also anticipate the cost of goods and services, and the levels of compensation paid to employees will increase due to inflationary conditions existing in the general economy. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if, and as, we:

Table of Contents

● maintain, expand, protect and enforce our intellectual property portfolio;

● identify, acquire or in-license other product candidates and technologies;

● continue to operate as a public company.

Table of Contents

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses. Our expenses will increase if:

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and commercialize, alone or with our collaborators, product candidates with significant market potential, which will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities. These activities include completing preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates; obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates; contracting with third parties with expertise in current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, to manufacture our product candidates at clinical and commercial scale; marketing and selling those products that are approved; satisfying any post-marketing requirements and achieving an adequate level of market acceptance of and obtaining and maintaining adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors for such products; and protecting our rights to our intellectual property portfolio. We may never succeed in any or all of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company also could cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We may not be able to generate sufficient revenue from the commercialization of our product candidates and may never be consistently profitable.

Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with our collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize, our current and future product candidates. All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for at least the next several years, and we may never succeed in doing so. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our and our collaborators’ and licensors’ success in:

Table of Contents

● addressing any competing technological and market developments;

● implementing additional internal systems and infrastructure, as needed;

● attracting, hiring and retaining qualified personnel.

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities to redesign or modify preclinical studies or clinical trials or to perform preclinical studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we are able to generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations and may we decide to discontinue commercial availability and/or voluntarily request the withdrawal of the new drug application, or NDA, for any of our products, which may raise additional potential risks and uncertainties. Any issues or hurdles related to our commercialization efforts may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects and could lead us to make significant further changes to the scope and nature of our efforts.

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

We expect our expenses to increase over time in connection with our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we continue the research and development of, continue or initiate clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product sales, medical affairs, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. We also continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital or enter into business development transactions when needed or on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

Our operations have consumed significant amounts of cash since inception. As of December 31, 2025, our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities were $201.7 million. Based upon our current operating plan, we expect that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of December 31, 2025, along with amounts expected to be received as reimbursement for development costs under our collaboration and license agreements with Neurocrine and Novartis, and interest income, to be sufficient to meet our planned operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into 2028. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong.

Table of Contents

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

● the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates;

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to maintain the financial support of our collaborators or obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In the event we are unable to achieve milestones necessary to demonstrate progress on those programs, a current or future collaboration partner or licensor may be unwilling to fund these programs at the desired levels, or at all, which could require us to fund these programs to a greater extent than we have expected, to decline to pursue certain program objectives or to discontinue one or more of the programs. Our ability to develop a product candidate for any of our lead gene therapy or other biological therapy programs may take longer than we anticipate, or may not happen at all, and

Table of Contents

could require funding at a level higher than we expect. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Our product revenues, if any, and any commercial milestone payments or royalty payments under our collaboration or option and license agreements, will be derived from sales of products that may not be commercially available for many years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing and business development transactions to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate product revenues sufficient to achieve consistent profitability, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, and option and license arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds other than the amounts we are entitled to receive from our collaboration partners, Neurocrine and Novartis, and licensees for the reimbursement of certain research and development expenses, potential option exercises, the achievement of specified regulatory and commercial milestones, and royalty payments under the 2019 Neurocrine Collaboration Agreement, the 2023 Neurocrine Collaboration Agreement, and the 2023 Novartis Collaboration Agreement and the amounts we are entitled to receive from our licensees Alexion and Novartis for the achievement of specified development, regulatory, and commercialization milestones and royalty payments under the applicable option and license agreements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or equity-linked securities, including convertible debt, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted. For example, on November 10, 2025, we entered into a sales agreement with respect to an “at the market offering” program pursuant to which we may offer and sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $100.0 million, from time to time through TD Securities (USA) LLC. Any significant sales of shares of our common stock pursuant to the sales agreement would result in dilution to our current stockholders. The amount of stockholder dilution through the sale of equity or equity-linked securities will be affected by the size of each securities offering and the offering price for the securities sold. The offering price will likely reflect the prevailing market price for our securities, with dilution increasing as the prevailing market price for our securities decreases. The terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our existing stockholders’ rights as holders of our common stock. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, obtaining additional capital, acquiring or divesting businesses, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Our issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. Further, our existing stockholders may not agree with the terms of such financings.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances, or option and license arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market products or product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Such collaborations, alliances, or option and license arrangements could therefore cause the market price of common stock to decline.

The early stage of our development efforts may make it difficult for our stockholders to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our operating history to date has been limited to building our team, business planning, raising capital, establishing our intellectual property portfolio, determining which neurological diseases to pursue, advancing our product candidates, including delivery and manufacturing and conducting preclinical studies and early-phase clinical trials. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had an operating history that included the late stage of clinical development, completion of clinical development, or commercialization of one or more product candidates. VY7523, our anti-tau antibody candidate, is in early-stage clinical

Table of Contents

trials, and all of our other active product candidates are currently in preclinical development, including VY1706, our tau silencing program.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors such as the regulatory setbacks that previously occurred in prior clinical programs we have conducted, such as those put on hold by the FDA, and the terminations, in part, of the 2019 Neurocrine Collaboration Agreement and the 2022 Novartis Option and License Agreement to date. These and other events that are part of our operating history may impact our ability to operate our business and to raise capital. All of our product candidates are in the early stages of development. To achieve our current goals, we will need to transition in the future from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control as we advance more of our programs into the clinical stage. Accordingly, our stockholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

Risks Related to the Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

Our AAV gene therapy, non-viral therapeutic, and other product candidates are based on proprietary technologies and, in several disease areas, unvalidated treatment approaches, which make it difficult and potentially infeasible to predict the duration and cost of development of, and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval for, our product candidates.

Our future success depends on our successful development of AAV gene therapy and other biological therapy product candidates, including our anti-tau antibody candidate and non-viral therapeutic product candidates. VY7523, our anti-tau antibody candidate, is in early-stage clinical trials. Each of the other product candidates we are advancing, either alone or together with our strategic collaborators, is currently in preclinical development.

We cannot accurately predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or whether these product candidates will receive marketing approval. Additionally, there can be no assurance that we will not experience problems or delays in the preclinical testing or development of our product candidates and that such problems or delays will not cause unanticipated costs, or that any such problems or delays can be solved in a timely or profitable basis, if at all. For example, we are no longer advancing VY9323, formerly the lead development candidate for our superoxide dismutase 1, or SOD1, silencing gene therapy program for ALS, as a development candidate based on three-month data from a non-human primate good laboratory practice, or GLP, toxicology study suggesting that a different payload would be necessary to achieve the desired product profile for the program. We also may experience unanticipated problems or delays in expanding our manufacturing capacity or outsourcing manufacturing activities to contract manufacturers.

The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the product candidate. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as gene therapies can be more expensive and take longer than for other better known or more extensively studied product candidates. Until August 2017, the FDA had never approved an AAV gene therapy product. Since that time, it has approved a limited number of gene therapy products. In Europe, a similarly limited number of AAV gene therapy products have been granted marketing authorization.

It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or the European Union or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates. The few regulatory approvals of gene therapies to date may not be indicative of what the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities may require for approval or whether different or additional preclinical studies or clinical trials may be required to support regulatory approval in a particular jurisdiction. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market could

Table of Contents

decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.

Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy, non-viral therapeutic, and other products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. Such requirements may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to modify current studies or perform additional studies, or increase our development costs, which in turn may force us to delay, limit, or terminate certain of our programs.

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, of the FDA regulates biological products, for human use. The Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies, or OTAT, formerly known as the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, within CBER reviews gene therapy and related products and has established the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER in its review.

U.S. regulations require each clinical trial site’s institutional review board, or IRB, to review proposed clinical trials to assess the safety of the trial. If the protocol for such a trial was amended, it would need to be re-reviewed by the respective institutional IRBs of each institution. Any delay in or failure to obtain institutional IRB approval for any protocol or protocol amendment could delay, interrupt, or limit the conduct of the clinical trial at one or more participating clinical trial sites.

Adverse or unforeseen developments in clinical trials of proprietary antibody and gene therapy products conducted by us or others may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. Similarly, EMA and local health authorities of individual countries within the European Union may issue new guidelines concerning the clinical development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. The EMA and agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States have expressed an interest in further regulating new biotechnologies, including gene therapy. In addition, gene therapy products are considered genetically-modified organism, or GMO, products and are regulated as such in each country. Designation of the type of GMO product and subsequent handling and disposal requirements can vary across countries and is variable throughout the European Union. Addressing each specific country requirement and obtaining approval to commence a clinical trial in these countries could result in delays in starting, conducting, or completing a clinical trial. Similar issues could be faced in other regions of the world.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines.

Any inability to receive timely, actionable feedback from regulatory authorities could also delay or otherwise hinder our development efforts. These and other regulatory delays may require us to incur additional clinical development costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue from our product candidates.

We plan to continue to seek and incorporate FDA guidance in our ongoing development plans for each of our potential clinical candidates. If we fail to consult or solicit guidance from regulators or are unable to obtain sufficiently frequent or detailed guidance from regulators, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of certain of our product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of increased or lengthier regulatory approval process and further restrictions on development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our or our collaborators’ ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

Table of Contents

Results from preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials may not be indicative of efficacy in late-stage clinical trials.

All of our product candidates are in early stages of development, and the risk of failure is high. Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in preclinical testing or clinical development despite demonstrating promising results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. In addition, the outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical trials. For example, despite data we believed was promising from the earlier PD-1101 Phase 1b clinical trial and from the separate PD-1102 Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating the delivery of VY-AADC (NBIb-1817), we and our strategic collaborator Neurocrine did not receive favorable data from, and were ultimately unable to complete, the RESTORE-1 Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating VY-AADC (NBIb-1817) for the treatment of PD.

In addition, one of our competitors, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, in 2025, discontinued their Phase 2 clinical study of posdinemab, an anti-tau antibody being investigated to treat early Alzheimer’s disease, following a scheduled review of clinical findings that determined posdinemab did not achieve statistical significance in slowing clinical decline, despite the results observed in earlier preclinical studies.

Similarly, interim results generated from clinical trials do not necessarily predict final results, and results from one completed clinical trial may not be replicated in a subsequent clinical trial with a similar study design. Some of our clinical trials were conducted with small patient populations and were not blinded or placebo-controlled, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable results that we observed in such trials will be sustained or repeated in larger and more advanced clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in early-stage clinical trials. If a larger population of patients does not experience positive results, if these results are not reproducible, or if our products show diminishing activity over time, our products may not receive approval from the EMA or the FDA. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may encounter regulatory delays or rejections as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development. Failure to confirm favorable results from earlier trials by demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of our products in late-stage clinical trials with larger patient populations could harm our business and we may never succeed in commercialization or generating product revenue.

We have conducted, and may in the future conduct, clinical trials for product candidates at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.

We have conducted, and may in the future choose to conduct, one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States.

Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the sole basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations; and (iii) the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by the FDA, or if the FDA considers such inspection to be necessary, the FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means.

In addition, even where the foreign trial data are not intended to serve as the sole basis for approval, the FDA will not accept the data as support for an application for marketing approval unless the trial satisfies certain conditions. For example, the clinical trial must be well-designed and conducted and performed by qualified investigators in

Table of Contents

accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and would delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates. Even if the FDA accepted such data, it could require us to modify our planned clinical trials to receive clearance to initiate such trials in the United States or to continue such trials once initiated.

Other risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials or using international trial sites include:

● foreign exchange fluctuations;

We are early in our development efforts. VY7523, our anti-tau antibody candidate, is in early-stage clinical trials, and all of our other active product candidates, including VY1706, are currently in preclinical development. We or our collaborators may encounter substantial delays or difficulties in the commencement, enrollment or completion of preclinical studies or clinical trials, or we or our collaborators may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy sufficient to support further development or to satisfy the applicable regulatory authorities, any of which could prevent us or our collaborators from further developing or commercializing current and future product candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

Our future business prospects depend heavily on our ability, alone or through our collaborations, to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of, and commercialize our current and future product candidates. Drug development and obtaining regulatory approval for a product involve a long, expensive and uncertain process, involving a high degree of risk. We are early in our development efforts. VY7523 is currently in early-stage clinical trials, and all of our other active product candidates (including VY1706) are currently in preclinical development. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our current and future product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates. We or our collaborators, as applicable, may not be able to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of any of our current product candidates or any future product candidate at each stage of clinical development or we may encounter other issues with any clinical trials or non-clinical studies required for regulatory submissions. Some or all of our or our collaborators’ clinical trials may fail to meet their primary or key secondary endpoints, raise safety issues or generate mixed results.

To conduct clinical trials, we must first complete preclinical testing and studies to support IND applications or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or successful outcome of our preclinical testing and studies. Our ability to complete our preclinical testing and studies is contingent on, among other things, our ability to source animals and other supplies required for the conduct of such testing and studies. If we are unable to obtain such supplies, we may be unable to complete such preclinical testing and studies in a timely manner, or at all. For example, some of our IND-enabling toxicology, capsid discovery, and other studies require certain NHPs that are customarily imported from outside the United States. Our inability to obtain access to a sufficient supply of these

Table of Contents

NHPs in a timely manner, or at all, may impair or delay our ability to complete preclinical studies to support capsid discovery efforts or IND applications or similar applications in other jurisdictions. We have previously encountered, and may encounter in the future, delays in obtaining a sufficient supply of such NHPs due to governmental or regulatory actions that result in importation restrictions in the United States or exportation restrictions in the country of origin. At times when the NHP supply in the United States has been constrained, we have conducted NHP studies at contract research facilities outside of the United States. When utilizing such facilities, we are required to observe export control regulations for the shipment of product candidates and their component materials and import control regulations for the shipment of samples to us for evaluation and storage. We may be required to incur delays or expenses in order to conduct our NHP studies in compliance with these regulations, and we may be subject to additional penalties, delays, or expenses if we fail to achieve compliance.

Additionally, we cannot predict if the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States will accept our planned clinical programs or if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our preclinical and clinical programs. In connection with our earlier VY-HTT01 Program for the treatment of Huntington’s disease, for example, we were unable to successfully predict what the FDA would require and were unable to obtain a second pre-IND meeting with the FDA to discuss the product candidate’s regulatory pathway with the FDA. As a result, in October 2020, the FDA notified us that the IND application for the planned Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate VY-HTT01 had been put on clinical hold.

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, known was FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan, or DAP, for each Phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on DAPs. In June 2024, as mandated by FDORA, the FDA issued draft guidance outlining the general requirements for DAPs. Unlike most guidance documents issued by the FDA, the DAP guidance when finalized will have the force of law because FDORA specifically dictates that the form and manner for submission of DAPs are specified in FDA guidance. On January 27, 2025, in response to an Executive Order issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025, on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the FDA removed this draft guidance from its website. Thereafter, following litigation, the FDA was directed by a federal district court to restore the draft guidance to the FDA website. When the FDA did so, it stated that “information on this page may be modified and/or removed in the future subject to the terms of the court’s order and implemented consistent with applicable law.” Accordingly, in light of these ongoing actions, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the draft DAP guidance and how the FDA will consider diversity action plans in connection with its review of BLAs.

Similarly, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the European Union, or EU, recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A clinical trial failure can occur at any stage of testing. Similarly, there may be delays or difficulties in our initiation of future clinical trials. For example, we no longer expect to file an IND or Canadian clinical trial application for VY9323, formerly the lead development candidate for our SOD1 silencing program for ALS, based on three-month data from a

Table of Contents

non-human primate GLP toxicology study suggesting that a different payload would be necessary to achieve the desired product profile for the program.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner, or at all, pursuant to the requirements of the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authorities. Patient enrollment and trial completion are affected by many factors including:

● size of the patient population and process for identifying patients;

● design of the trial protocol;

● eligibility and exclusion criteria;

● perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under study;

● availability of competing therapies and clinical trials;

● severity of the disease under investigation;

● availability of genetic testing for potential patients;

● proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients;

● lack of adequate compensation of patients;

● ability to obtain and maintain patient consent;

● risk that enrolled patients will drop out before completion of the trial;

● patient referral practices of physicians; and

● ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment.

Table of Contents

There is also the potential for slower than expected clinical site initiation, problems with the conduct of a study at one or more sites, delays or problems in analyzing data, the need for additional analyses or data or the need to enroll additional patients, the negative impact of feedback from the FDA or other regulatory authorities on trial design or the analysis of results, the need to make protocol amendments or other unexpected issues, such as adverse events, in any of our clinical trials. These types of issues could lead to delays in the completion of a trial and announcement of results or impact the results of our trials.

Further, we plan to seek marketing approvals in the United States, Canada, the European Union and other jurisdictions, which may require that we conduct clinical trials in foreign countries. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

● different standards for the conduct of clinical trials;

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials in some or all localities, any of which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

Table of Contents

● receipt of negative or inconclusive clinical trial results;

Any inability to successfully initiate or complete preclinical studies and clinical trials could result in additional costs and potential delays to us or impair our ability to generate revenues from product sales, regulatory and commercialization milestones and royalties. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured, or will be completed on schedule, or at all. For example, the decision to refocus the Huntington’s disease program requires completion of new preclinical studies, preparation of a new IND, submission to the FDA, and resolution of any potential FDA objections before enrollment of the first patient in a new clinical trial. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, such as we did in connection with our previous transition to an HEK 293-based production system from a baculovirus/Sf9 AAV production system or as a result of unanticipated clinical trial results, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, if the results of our clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or SAEs associated with our product candidates, we may:

● be subject to changes in the way the product is administered;

Table of Contents

● be sued or otherwise become party to dispute proceedings; or

● experience damage to our reputation.

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

Our proprietary antibodies, gene therapies and non-viral therapy product candidates may cause an immunologic reaction, or an immune response against the relevant product candidate. Other potential side effects associated with our gene therapy product candidates could include insertional oncogenesis, which is the process whereby the insertion of a functional gene near a gene that is important in cell growth or division results in uncontrolled cell division, which could potentially enhance the risk of malignant transformation. In past clinical trials that were conducted by others using non-AAV gene therapy vectors, several significant side effects were caused by gene therapy treatments, including reported cases of leukemia and death. For example, one of our competitors, Capsida Biotherapeutics, Inc., stated that it was not aware of significant safety signals in its preclinical program known as STXBP1, but its first patient dosed in its clinical program resulted in the death of a patient. Additionally, in a published review of patients with hepatocellular carcinomas, it was shown that a small subset contained an integrated genome sequence of wild-type AAV2, and it was suggested that AAV2 may be associated with insertional oncogenesis. If our vectors demonstrate a similar adverse effect, or other adverse effects, we may be required to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates or withdraw the product from the market post-approval.

Side effects could be caused by the product candidate or the administration process. If in the future we are unable to demonstrate what caused such side effects or are unable to modify the trial protocol adequately to address such side effects, the FDA, the European Commission, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. For example, product candidates designed to “knock down” or reduce the expression of a gene or the production of its encoded protein could have effects on other parts of the body, or “off target” effects, that could result in unforeseen toxicity. Even if we are able to demonstrate that any future side effects are not product-related, and regulatory authorities do not order us to cease further development of our product candidates, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to delay, suspend or terminate any clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits outweigh its risks. We believe that the likelihood of the FDA requiring a REMS may be higher for treatments such as gene therapy. Such REMS may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners or the limitation of the use of the product to specifically trained neurosurgeons and/or certain centers. Furthermore, adverse events which were initially considered unrelated to the study treatment of the clinical trial may later be found to be caused by the study treatment. If we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Table of Contents

● regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label;

● our reputation may suffer.

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation or exclusivity for any of our product candidates for which we seek such designation. If our competitors are able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for products that constitute the “same drug” and treat the same indications as our product candidates, we may not be able to have competing products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time. For products for which we may obtain orphan drug designation or exclusivity, we may be unable to prevent the approval or marketing authorization of other similar products based upon regulatory decisions regarding product “sameness”.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, or the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug or biological product will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the European Union, EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union. Additionally, orphan designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biologic product.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the applicable regulatory authority from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. If another sponsor receives such approval before we do (regardless of our orphan drug designation), we may be precluded from receiving marketing approval for our product for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable period is seven years

Table of Contents

in the United States and 10 years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the United States can be extended by six months if the new drug application or BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that adequately respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to nine years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if any regulatory agency determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

We believe that certain of our current programs may qualify for orphan drug designation. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs or biological products can be approved for the same condition. In the United States, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug or biological product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the other drug or biological product is not the “same drug” or biological product or even if it is, the FDA determines that it is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer or more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In September 2021, the FDA issued final guidance describing its current thinking on when a gene therapy product is the “same” as another product for purposes of orphan exclusivity. Under the guidance, if either the transgene or vector differs between two gene therapy products in a manner that does not reflect “minor” differences, the two products would be considered different drugs for orphan drug exclusivity purposes. The FDA will determine whether two vectors from the same viral class are the same on a case-by-case basis and may consider additional key features in assessing the sameness.

In the European Union, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same orphan indication if:

On August 3, 2017, the Congress passed the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA. FDARA, among other things, codified the FDA’s pre-existing regulatory interpretation to require that a drug sponsor demonstrate the clinical superiority of an orphan drug that is otherwise the same as a previously approved drug for the same rare disease in order to receive orphan drug exclusivity. The new legislation reverses prior precedent holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously requires that the FDA recognize the orphan exclusivity period regardless of a showing of clinical superiority.

The FDA and Congress may further reevaluate and revise the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. For example, in September 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, for the purpose of determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity, the term “same disease or condition” means the designated “rare disease or condition” and not the “indication or use” for which the product is approved. Subsequently, in another case, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. followed the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit decision and that decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 3, 2026, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 was enacted into law. It overruled these court decisions and codified the FDA’s longstanding interpretation of the scope of orphan drug exclusivity to apply to “the same drug for the same approved use or indication within such designated rare disease or condition.” This change, which applies retroactively, expressly authorizes the FDA to approve multiple versions of the same orphan drug for different sub-indications and subpopulations, such as adult and pediatric patients or multiple variations of the same disease that are caused by different genetic variants.

Table of Contents

In addition, to obtain orphan drug designation in the European Union, we would need to demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. There is no assurance that we would be able to meet that standard for any of our product candidates. Further, if we do obtain orphan drug designation for a candidate product in the EU, we will not be able to maintain that designation if we are not able to show, to the satisfaction of the EU regulatory authorities, that the candidate product is of significant benefit to patients over available commercial products for the indication in the EU and any additional products that are ahead of our product candidate in clinical development for the indication.

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

We may in the future seek a breakthrough therapy designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biological product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biological product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs or biological products that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for accelerated approval.

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

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

We have sought and may in the future seek a regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT, designation for some of our product candidates. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, to be eligible to receive RMAT designation from the FDA, a product candidate must be (a) considered a “regenerative medicine therapy” as defined in the Cures Act; (b) intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure one or more serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions; and (c) indicated, in preliminary clinical evidence, to have the potential to address unmet medical needs for such diseases or conditions. Gene therapies, including genetically modified cells, that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues may meet the definition in the Cures Act of a regenerative medicine therapy.

The RMAT program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of such therapies. A new drug application or a BLA for a product candidate that has received an RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through (1) surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit or (2) reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of such designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A product candidate that has received an RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

Table of Contents

RMAT designation is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our other product candidates meets the criteria for RMAT designation, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of RMAT designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, the FDA may later decide that a product candidate that received RMAT designation no longer meets the conditions for designation. Alternatively, we or our collaborative partners may decide not to proceed with the clinical development of a product candidate that has previously received RMAT designation or decide to pursue such product candidate for an indication for which it has not received RMAT designation.

Fast Track designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not assure FDA approval of our product candidate.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. We have sought and may in the future seek such a designation for our product candidates. A Fast Track designation does not ensure that the product candidate will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. Thus, Fast Track products may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from a product candidate’s clinical development program. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.

Priority review designation by the FDA may not lead to a faster regulatory review or approval process and, in any event, does not assure FDA approval of our product candidate.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the FDA’s goal to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months. We may request priority review for our product candidates. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a priority review designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or thereafter.

Where appropriate, we may pursue approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities through the use of accelerated registration pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA, EMA or such other regulatory authorities may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

Where appropriate, we plan to pursue accelerated development strategies in areas of medical need. We may seek an accelerated approval pathway for one or more of our product candidates from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Under the accelerated approval provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the FDA’s implementing regulations, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit but is not itself a measure of

Table of Contents

clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug or biologic over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s or biologic’s clinical benefit. If such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s or biologic’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the product.

In addition, there can be no assurance that we will satisfy all FDA requirements, including new provisions, that govern accelerated approval. For example, with passage of the FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded and to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months until the study is completed. Moreover, FDORA established expedited procedures authorizing FDA to withdraw an accelerated approval if certain conditions are met, including where a required confirmatory study fails to verify and describe the predicted clinical benefit or where evidence demonstrates the product is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use. The FDA may also use such procedures to withdraw an accelerated approval if a sponsor fails to conduct any required post-approval study of the product with due diligence, including with respect to “conditions specified by the Secretary.” The new procedures include the provision of due notice and an explanation for a proposed withdrawal, and opportunities for a meeting with the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s designee and a written appeal, among other things. We will need to fully comply with these and other requirements in connection with the development and approval of any product candidate that qualifies for accelerated approval.

More recently, in March 2023, the FDA issued draft guidance that outlines its current thinking and approach to accelerated approval. The FDA indicated that the accelerated approval pathway is commonly used for approval of oncology drugs due to the serious and life-threatening nature of cancer. Although single-arm trials have been commonly used to support accelerated approval, a randomized controlled trial is the preferred approach as it provides a more robust efficacy and safety assessment and allows for direct comparisons to an available therapy. To that end, the FDA outlined considerations for designing, conducting, and analyzing data for trials intended to support accelerated approvals of oncology therapeutics. Subsequently, in December 2024 and January 2025, the FDA issued additional draft guidance relating to accelerated approval. This guidance describes FDA’s views on what it means to conduct a confirmatory trial with due diligence and how the agency plans to interpret whether such a study needs to be underway at the time of approval. While this guidance is currently only in draft form and will ultimately not be legally binding even when finalized, we will need to consider the FDA’s guidance if we seek accelerated approval for any of our products in the future.

Prior to seeking accelerated approval, we will seek feedback from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities and will otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. There can be no assurance that after our evaluation of the feedback and other factors we will decide to pursue or submit a BLA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that after subsequent feedback from the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so.

Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA, EMA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could also require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval, review or approval for our product candidate would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Table of Contents

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. If we or any current or future collaborators are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we or they may not be able to commercialize our products, and our ability to generate revenue may be materially impaired.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, export and import, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process.

Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

Further, the FDA may determine that we must provide additional evidence and data before approving a BLA or NDA for our candidate products. For example, the FDA reviews an application to determine whether there is “substantial evidence” to support a finding of effectiveness for the proposed product for its intended use(s). In February 2026, the Commissioner of FDA and the Director of Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research published an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they declared that, in most cases, the new default requirement for FDA approval of a new product will be one adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence, rather than two pivotal clinical trials. In determining whether to rely on one trial, the FDA will focus on the single trial’s quality, including magnitude of effect, appropriateness of control arms, endpoint selection, statistical power, blinding, handling of missing data, biological plausibility and alignment with intermediate biomarkers. The FDA has long had authority to approve new products on the basis of one trial plus confirmatory evidence and, in recent years, the agency has exercised that authority with respect to certain types of products. The FDA now takes the position that this will be the new official default standard for most product candidates. At this point, it is unclear how this new policy will be implemented by the FDA and how, if at all, it will affect our clinical development programs.

The FDA may also require that NDA or BLA submissions for our product candidates include pediatric data. Under the PREA, an NDA, BLA or supplement to an NDA or a BLA for certain drugs and biological products must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug or biological product in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective, unless the sponsor receives a deferral or waiver from the FDA. Applicable legislation in the EU also requires sponsors to either conduct clinical trials in a pediatric population in accordance with a Pediatric Investigation Plan approved by the Pediatric Committee of the EMA or to obtain a waiver or deferral from the conduct of these studies by this Committee. For any of our product candidates for which we are seeking regulatory approval in the United States or the EU, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain a waiver or alternatively complete any required studies and other requirements in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in associated reputational harm and subject us to enforcement action.

Moreover, principal investigators for our future clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory

Table of Contents

authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive; may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In the United States, for example, the application user fee to obtain FDA review of a marketing application is more than $4.6 million and may be higher in the future. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we, or any current or future collaborators, ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Accordingly, if we or any current or future collaborators experience delays in obtaining approval or if we or they fail to obtain or retain approval of our product candidates and devices, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues could be materially impaired.

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

Even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our product candidates, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storing, advertising, promoting, sampling, record-keeping and submitting safety and other post-market information. Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates also may be subject to a REMS, limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including post-marketing studies or clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of the product. For example, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. The holder of an approved BLA also must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.

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

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory authority may:

● issue a warning letter asserting that we are in violation of the law;

● suspend or withdraw regulatory approval;

Table of Contents

● suspend any ongoing clinical trials;

● restrict the marketing or manufacturing of the product;

● refuse to permit the import or export of products; or

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

In addition, we could be adversely affected by several significant administrative law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, for example, the Court overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required federal courts to defer to permissible agency interpretations of statutes that are silent or ambiguous on a particular topic. The U.S. Supreme Court stripped federal agencies of this presumptive deference and held that courts must exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency such as the FDA acted within its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, or the APA. Additionally, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Court held that actions to challenge a federal regulation under the APA can be initiated within six years of the date of injury to the plaintiff, rather than the date the rule is finalized. The decision appears to give prospective plaintiffs a personal statute of limitations to challenge longstanding agency regulations. Another decision, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, overturned regulatory agencies’ ability to impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings. These decisions could introduce additional uncertainty into the regulatory process and may result in additional legal challenges to actions taken by federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA and CMS, that we rely on. In addition to potential changes to regulations as a result of legal challenges, these decisions may result in increased regulatory uncertainty and delays and other impacts, any of which could adversely impact our business and operations.

Further, our ability to develop and market new drug products may be impacted by litigation challenging the FDA’s approval of another company’s drug product. In April 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the approval by the FDA of mifepristone, a drug product which was originally approved in 2000 and whose distribution is governed by various measures adopted under a REMS. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to order the removal of mifepristone from the market but did hold that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that changes allowing for expanded access of mifepristone, which the FDA authorized in 2016 and 2021, were arbitrary and capricious. In June 2024, the Supreme Court reversed that decision after unanimously finding that the plaintiffs (anti-abortion doctors and organizations) did not have standing to bring this legal action against the FDA. On October 11, 2024, the Attorneys General of three states (Missouri, Idaho and Kansas) filed an amended complaint in the district court in Texas challenging FDA’s actions. On January 16, 2025, the district court agreed to allow these states to file an amended complaint and continue to pursue this challenge. Thereafter, on September 30, 2025, the district court declined to dismiss the case and, instead, transferred it to the federal district court in the Eastern District of Missouri. Depending on the outcome of this litigation, our ability to develop new drug product candidates and to maintain approval of existing drug products could be delayed, undermined or subject to protracted litigation.

In addition, FDA policies, and those of equivalent foreign regulatory agencies, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing

Table of Contents

requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies from funding cuts, personnel losses, regulatory reform, government shutdowns and other developments could hinder our ability to obtain guidance from the FDA regarding our clinical development programs and develop and secure approval of our product candidates in a timely manner, which would negatively impact our business.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in foreign jurisdictions, such as the EMA and Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, play an important role in the development of our product candidates by providing guidance on our clinical development programs and reviewing our regulatory submissions, including investigational new drug applications, requests for special designations and marketing applications. If these oversight and review activities are disrupted, then correspondingly our ability to develop and secure timely approval of our product candidates could be impacted in a negative manner.

For example, the recent loss and retirement of FDA leadership and personnel could lead to disruptions and delays in FDA guidance, or review and approval of our product candidates. Pursuant to President Trump’s E.O. 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” the Secretary of HHS announced on March 27, 2025, a reorganization and reduction in force across HHS of approximately 20,000 employees (82,000 to 62,000), with the FDA’s workforce of approximately 20,000 to decrease by 3,500 full-time employees. On July 14, 2025, following litigation reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration began to carry out layoffs across HHS, including the FDA. In November 2025, a Congressional Continuing Resolution ended the government shutdown, providing full-year funding for the FDA for fiscal year 2026 through September 30, 2026 at approximately $7 billion with a slight increase in user fees for drug and device companies.

Further, while the FDA’s review of marketing applications and other activities for new drugs and biologics is largely funded through the user fee program established under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, it remains unclear how the administration’s reduction in force and budget cuts will impact this program and the ability of the FDA to provide guidance and review our product candidates in a timely manner. For example, while the FDA reduction in force did not reportedly specifically target FDA reviewers, many operations, administrative and policy staff that help support such reviews were affected and those losses could lead to delays in PDUFA reviews and related activities. There have been several reports in which the FDA failed to meet a PDUFA goal date for approval of an NDA or a BLA due to heavy workload and limited resources. In addition, there is a risk that the reduction in force and budget cutbacks could threaten the integrity of the PDUFA program itself because, for the FDA to utilize user fees collected under PDUFA in the first place, a certain amount of non-user fee appropriations must be spent on the process for the review of applications plus certain other costs during the same fiscal year.

There is also substantial uncertainty as to how regulatory reform measures being implemented by the Trump Administration across the government will impact the FDA and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over our activities. For example, since taking office, President Trump has issued a number of executive orders that could have a significant impact on the manner in which the FDA conducts its operations and engages in regulatory and oversight activities. These include E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” January 31, 2025; E.O. 14212, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” February 13, 2025; and E.O. 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,” February 21, 2025. If these or other orders or executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

During the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged

Table of Contents

government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions and could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

For example, the federal government shut down on October 1, 2025, and did not reopen for 43 days. With the shutdown, the FDA issued a public notice stating that agency operations would continue to the extent permitted by law, such as activities necessary to address imminent threats to the safety of human life and activities funded by carryover user fee funds. The FDA declared that, during the shutdown period, it did not have legal authority to accept user fees assessed for fiscal year 2026 until fiscal year 2026 appropriation or Continuing Resolution for the FDA was enacted. As a result, the FDA was not able to accept any regulatory submissions for fiscal year 2026 that required a fee payment and that was submitted during the lapse period. In addition, the FDA indicated that some of its regulatory science research, crucial for advancing product innovation, safety, and quality, would be curtailed during the lapse period.

At the same time, disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies may result from public health events similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, during the pandemic, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. In the event of a similar public health emergency in the future, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended. Regulatory authorities outside the United States facing similar circumstances may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to a similar public health emergency and may also experience delays in their regulatory activities.

Accordingly, if any of the foregoing developments and others impact the ability of the FDA to provide us guidance regarding our clinical development programs or delay the FDA’s review and processing of our regulatory submissions, including INDs, NDAs, or BLAs, our business would be negatively impacted. Further, any future government shutdown could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological change and the possibility that our competitors may achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may harm our business and financial condition and our ability to successfully market or commercialize our product candidates.

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense and dynamic competition to develop new technologies and proprietary therapies. Any product candidates that we successfully develop into products and commercialize may compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. While we believe that our gene therapy platform, non-viral therapeutics platform, product programs, product candidates and scientific expertise in the fields of proprietary antibodies, gene therapy, and neuroscience provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from various sources, including larger and better-funded pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as from academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions.

We are aware of several companies focused on developing their proprietary antibodies, AAV gene therapies, or non-viral therapeutics in various indications, as well as several companies addressing other methods for modifying genes and regulating gene expression. Any advances in antibody, gene therapy, or non-viral therapeutic technology made by a competitor may be used to develop therapies that could compete against any of our product candidates.

We expect that our TRACER discovery platform, non-viral therapeutics platform, and clinical and preclinical programs will compete with a variety of therapies in development, including:

Table of Contents

Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development, clinical, marketing and manufacturing organizations. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including recent transactions involving a number of gene therapy companies, may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative agreements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop.

Even if our competitors are unsuccessful in developing and commercializing their product candidates, their preclinical and clinical findings may lead us to conclude that our own similar product candidates are unlikely to achieve the desired performance characteristics. As a result, we may modify our development plans for, or discontinue further research and development of, such product candidates. For example, several of our competitors have conducted clinical trials of anti-tau antisense oligonucleotide and antibody candidates with clinical data readouts in 2025 or are conducting clinical trials with expected readouts in 2026. It is possible that we will modify our development plans for, or discontinue further research and development of, VY7523 or VY1706 if any of these clinical data readouts suggest that either candidate will likely fail to achieve the desired performance characteristics.

Competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly or earlier than us or may obtain orphan drug or other marketing exclusivity, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or reducing the number of available subjects for enrollment in our clinical trials to support regulatory submissions and approvals of our product. Additionally, technologies developed or acquired by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors. These third parties also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites, and registering patients for clinical trials.

In addition, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face more litigation with respect to the validity and scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for any products that we may develop and commercialize. If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not grow, and our financial condition and operations will be harmed.

Table of Contents

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

Approval of a product candidate in the United States by the FDA does not ensure approval of such product candidate by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. Sales of our product candidates outside of the United States will be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing clinical trials and marketing approval. Even if the FDA grants marketing approval for a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries also must approve the manufacturing and marketing of the product candidates in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and more onerous than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials or manufacturing control requirements. In many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be separately approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products, if approved, is also subject to approval. We intend to submit a marketing authorization application to EMA for approval of our product candidates in the European Union but obtaining such approval from the European Commission following the opinion of EMA is a lengthy and expensive process. Even if a product candidate is approved, the FDA or the European Commission may limit the indications for which the product may be marketed, require extensive warnings on the product labeling or require expensive and time-consuming additional clinical trials or reporting as conditions of approval. Regulatory authorities in countries outside of the United States and the European Union also have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those countries. Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in certain countries.

Further, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be withdrawn. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects will be harmed.

Additionally, we could face heightened risks with respect to obtaining marketing authorization in the United Kingdom as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. The United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Single Market and EU Customs Union. As of January 1, 2025, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is responsible for approving all medicinal products destined for the United Kingdom market (i.e., Great Britain and Northern Ireland). On April 28, 2025, the United Kingdom Parliament adopted amendments to improve and strengthen the United Kingdom’s clinical trials regulatory regime; they are scheduled to take effect on April 28, 2026. These changes were needed since the current United Kingdom requirements are based upon the now-repealed EU Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC), which has been replaced by the CTR. Since the United Kingdom left the EU prior to the date on which the CTR took effect, the United Kingdom legal framework did not benefit from the same revisions as occurred at EU level.

Further, as of January 1, 2025, a new international recognition procedure, or IRP, will apply, which intends to facilitate approval of pharmaceutical products in the UK. The IRP is open to applicants that have already received an authorization for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators, or RRs. The RRs notably include EMA and regulators in the EU/European Economic Area member states for approvals in the EU centralized procedure and mutual recognition procedure as well as for the FDA (for product approvals granted in the U.S.). However, the concrete functioning of the IRP is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, may force us or our collaborators to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the UK for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

In addition, foreign regulatory authorities may change their approval policies and new regulations may be enacted. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. The European Commission’s proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (including potentially reducing the duration of regulatory data protection and revising the eligibility for expedited

Table of Contents

pathways) was published on April 26, 2023. On June 4, 2025, after almost two years of negotiations among the EU Member States, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the proposed overhaul of the EU general pharmaceutical legislative framework, which is known as the new Pharma Package. Thereafter, on December 11, 2025, the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional political agreement on the legislation, which is expected to be adopted by mid-2026. The revisions may have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry and our business. They would, among other things, set a baseline period of eight years of data exclusivity and one year of market exclusivity with possible extensions for new indications up to a maximum of 11 years total. There will likely be a transition period of 24 months, with the changes taking effect in mid-2028.

We expect that we will be subject to additional risks in commercializing any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval outside the United States, including tariffs, trade barriers and regulatory requirements; economic weakness, including inflation, increasing interest rates, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets; compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad; foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country; and workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States.

If approved, our product candidates that are licensed and regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, to establish an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. The regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics, including the possible designation of a biosimilar as “interchangeable” based on its similarity to an approved biologic. Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. In addition, the licensure of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still develop and receive approval of a competing biologic, so long as its BLA does not rely on the reference product or sponsor’s data, or the company does not submit the application as a biosimilar application.

We believe that any of the product candidates we develop as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider the subject product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated. For example, in October 2025, the FDA issued draft guidance which proposes to eliminate the need for sponsors of biosimilar products to conduct comparative human clinical efficacy studies, allowing them to rely instead on analytical testing to demonstrate product differences from a reference product. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of the reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. Nonetheless, the approval of a biosimilar to our product candidates would have a material adverse impact on our business due to increased competition and pricing pressure.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Third Parties

To date, substantially all of our revenue has been derived from our ongoing collaborations and licensing agreements with Neurocrine, Novartis, and Alexion, and from our prior collaborations with Sanofi Genzyme Corporation, AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd and AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company. If any ongoing or future collaboration, option and license, or license agreements were to be terminated, our business financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be harmed.

To date, substantially all of our revenue has been derived from our ongoing collaborations and licensing agreements with Neurocrine, Novartis, and Alexion and from our prior collaborations with Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd and AbbVie Ireland Unlimited Company. If any ongoing or future collaboration, option and license, or license agreements were to be terminated, our business financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be harmed. For instance, in April 2025, Neurocrine deprioritized two programs against undisclosed targets pursuant to the 2019 Neurocrine Collaboration Agreement, and in October 2025, Novartis notified us of its intent to partially terminate the 2022 Novartis Option and License Agreement with respect to the two discovery stage programs against undisclosed targets effective February 1, 2026. In both cases, the rights to the discontinued programs were returned to us.

Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ success in performing the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. Our current collaborators or any future collaborator might not be successful in obtaining approvals for the product candidates arising from our collaboration or commercializing or manufacturing the resulting products. Further, such collaborator’s objectives in connection with the collaboration may not be consistent with our best interests. With respect to the rights granted to a collaborator by us, the collaborator could take actions that may be adverse to us, or it could halt, slow, or deprioritize its development and commercialization efforts under the collaboration. In any such instances, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

We may seek to enter into collaborations and out-licensing transactions in the future with other third parties. If we are unable to enter into such collaborations or out-licensing transactions, or if these collaborations or out-licensing transactions are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have entered into collaboration agreements or capsid license agreements with Neurocrine, Novartis, Transition Bio and other collaborators since 2019. We may seek to enter into additional collaborations in the future, including sales, marketing, distribution, development, option, licensing, and/or broader collaboration agreements.

Our likely collaborators, optionees, and licensees include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, and medical device manufacturers. However, we may not be able to enter into additional collaborations or option and license transactions on favorable terms, or at all. Our ability to generate revenues from our collaborations and option and license transactions will depend on our and our collaborators’, optionees’, and licensees’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to each of us in these arrangements. In addition, our collaborators, optionees, and licensees might have the ability to abandon research or development projects and terminate applicable agreements. Moreover, an unsuccessful outcome in any clinical trial for which our competitors, collaborators, optionees, or licensees are responsible could be harmful to the public perception and prospects of our proprietary antibody program, gene therapy and other platforms and programs.

Our relationship with any current or future collaborators, optionees, or licensees may pose several risks, including the following:

Table of Contents

Collaboration and license agreements may not lead to the development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. If our collaborations or option and license transactions do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products, or if one of our collaborators, optionees, or licensees terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration or option and license transactions. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. In the event we are unable to achieve milestones necessary to demonstrate progress on our programs relevant to our ongoing collaborations with Neurocrine or Novartis or our collaboration programs are deprioritized by our collaborators, Neurocrine or Novartis may be unwilling to fund these programs at the desired levels or at all, which could require us to fund these programs to a greater extent than we have expected, to decline to pursue certain program objectives or to discontinue one or more of the programs. Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if a collaborator, optionee, or licensee of ours were to be involved in a business combination, it might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate optioned or licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators, optionees, or licensees terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators, optionees, or licensees, and the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this periodic report also apply to the activities of our collaborators, optionees, and licensees.

We will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, optionees, and licensees, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Our ability to reach a definitive collaboration or license agreement with any future collaborators, optionees, and licensees will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s, optionee’s, or licensee’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration or option and license transactions and the proposed collaborator’s, optionee’s, or licensee’s evaluation of several factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator, optionee, or licensee may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration or option and license transaction could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators, optionees, or licensees. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators, optionees, and licensees.

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations or option and license transactions and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our proprietary antibody program or gene therapy platforms and

Table of Contents

programs. If we license rights to product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture.

We and our collaborators have relied, and we and our collaborators expect to continue to rely, on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and if these third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner, our business could be harmed.

We and our collaborators expect to rely on CROs, clinical trial sites, and other vendors to ensure our preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted properly and on time. We and our collaborators may also engage third parties such as clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators to conduct or assist in our clinical trials or other preclinical and clinical research and development work. While we and our collaborators will have agreements governing their activities, we and our collaborators will have limited influence over their actual performance. We and our collaborators will control only certain aspects of our third-party service providers’ activities. Nevertheless, we and our collaborators will be responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, quality, regulatory and scientific standards. Our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For example, the multiple ascending dose study of VY7523 in Alzheimer’s patients is currently ongoing at several locations. Additionally, we expect to initiate the clinical study of VY1706 at multiple sites in the United States and Canada. If any locations terminate a particular clinical trial, we or our collaborators would be required to find other parties or locations to conduct such clinical trial. We and our collaborators may be unable to find a new party to conduct new trials of our product candidates or obtain clinical supply of our product candidates or AAV vectors for such trials. If we or our collaborators elect to internalize some or all activities related to the conduct of our preclinical studies or clinical trials that are currently performed by our third-party service providers, or if we or our collaborators are required to do so due to a service provider’s termination of our relationship, then we or our collaborators may be required to source additional technology and personnel in order to perform the relevant activities. We and our collaborators may be unsuccessful in our efforts to internalize some or all relevant activities, either on the desired timeline or at all.

We, our collaborators, and our third-party service providers are required to comply with the FDA’s GLPs and GCPs for conducting, recording and reporting the results of IND enabling preclinical studies and clinical studies to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. We and our collaborators are also required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. The FDA enforces these GLPs and GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, clinical trial sites, and laboratories at which the FDA may determine that our preclinical studies and clinical trials did not comply with GLPs or GCPs. If we, our collaborators, or our third-party service providers fail to comply with applicable GLPs or GCPs, the preclinical or clinical data generated in our future preclinical studies or clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA may require us to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving the relevant INDs or marketing applications. In addition, our future clinical trials will require a sufficient number of patients to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates. Accordingly, if we, our collaborators, or our third-party service providers fail to comply with these regulations or fail to recruit a sufficient number of patients, we may be required to repeat such preclinical studies or clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Failure to comply can also result in fines, adverse publicity, and civil and criminal sanctions.

Our third-party service providers are not our employees, and we and our collaborators are therefore unable to directly monitor whether or not they devote sufficient time, attention, expertise and resources to our clinical and nonclinical programs. These third-party service providers may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. If our third-party service providers do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements, or for any other reasons, our preclinical studies or clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results

Table of Contents

and the commercial prospects for our product candidates could be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

Risks Related to Manufacturing

Our gene therapies, non-viral therapeutics, and other biological modalities are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in the development or commercialization of our product candidates or otherwise harm our business.

The manufacture of gene therapy, non-viral therapeutic, and other biological products is technically complex and necessitates substantial expertise and capital investment. Production difficulties caused by unforeseen events may delay the availability of material for our clinical studies. To meet the requirements of our current and planned future trials we have developed a flexible AAV gene therapy manufacturing platform that is based on proprietary technology and provides a scalable process for preclinical and clinical AAV production. We are using a HEK 293 based transient transfection manufacturing process to support our preclinical research activities. As the field advances, we will continue to evaluate additional novel manufacturing technologies that may be suitable for future clinical and commercial manufacturing.

We presently contract with third parties for the manufacturing of our program materials for our proprietary antibody and gene therapy product candidates. We have also built an onsite, state-of-the-art process research and development facility to enable the manufacturing of preclinical AAV gene therapy vectors for large animal studies, including IND enabling GLP toxicology materials. We do not currently have our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing. The use of contract manufacturing and reliance on collaboration partners is relatively cost-efficient and eliminates the need for our direct investment in manufacturing facilities and additional staff early in development. Although we rely on contract manufacturers, we have personnel with manufacturing and quality experience to oversee our contract manufacturers.

To date, our third-party manufacturers have met our manufacturing requirements for our program materials. We expect third-party manufacturers to be capable of providing sufficient quantities of our program materials to meet anticipated clinical trial scale demands. To meet our projected needs for clinical and commercial manufacturing, third parties with whom we currently work might need to increase their scale of production, or we may need to secure additional suppliers as part of our external manufacturing network. We believe that there are alternate sources of supply for our program materials that can satisfy our clinical and commercial requirements, although we cannot be certain that identifying and establishing relationships and technology transfers with such sources, if necessary, would not result in significant delay or material additional costs. However, if a third-party manufacturer decided to not enter into a new contract with us for program materials or if they did not have the capacity to meet our needs for program materials, we may be required to contract with additional suppliers on terms which may be less favorable to us or would result in additional material costs.

To date, our third-party manufacturers have met our quality standards for our program materials. The manufacturers of pharmaceutical products must comply with strictly enforced cGMP requirements, state and federal regulations, as well as foreign requirements when applicable. Any failure by us or our contract manufacturing organizations to adhere to or document compliance to such regulatory requirements could lead to a delay or interruption in the availability of our program materials for clinical study. If we or our manufacturers were to fail to comply with the FDA, EMA, or other regulatory authority, it could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates. Our potential future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates may also adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive regulatory approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Biological products are inherently difficult to manufacture. Our program materials are manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized equipment and facilities, highly specific raw materials, cells, and reagents, and other production constraints. Several of these raw materials, cells, and reagents are provided by a limited

Table of Contents

number of suppliers. Even though we aim to have backup supplies and suppliers of raw materials, cells, and reagents whenever possible, we cannot be certain they will be sufficient if our primary sources are unavailable. A shortage of a critical raw material, cell line, or reagent, or a technical issue during manufacturing may lead to delays in clinical development or commercialization plans. Any changes in the manufacturing of components of the raw materials we use could result in unanticipated or unfavorable effects on our manufacturing processes, including delays.

Delays in obtaining regulatory approval of our or our collaborators’ manufacturing processes and facilities or disruptions in such manufacturing processes may delay or disrupt our commercialization efforts. Until recently, no cGMP gene therapy manufacturing facility in the United States had received approval from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved gene therapy product.

Before we can begin to commercially manufacture a product candidate in our own facility, or the facility of a collaborator, we must obtain regulatory approval from the FDA for our manufacturing process and our collaborator’s facility. A manufacturing authorization must also be obtained from the appropriate European Union regulatory authorities. Until recently, no cGMP gene therapy manufacturing facility in the United States had received approval from the FDA for the manufacture of an approved gene therapy product and, therefore, the timeframe required for us to obtain such approval is uncertain. In addition, we must pass a pre-approval inspection of our or our collaborator’s manufacturing facility by the FDA and other relevant regulatory authorities before any of our product candidates can obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain approval, we will need to ensure that all of our processes, methods and equipment are compliant with cGMP, and perform extensive audits of vendors, contract laboratories and suppliers. If any of our vendors, contract laboratories or suppliers is found to be out of compliance with cGMP, we may experience delays or disruptions in manufacturing while we work with these third parties to remedy the violation or while we work to identify suitable replacement vendors. The cGMP requirements govern quality control of the manufacturing process and documentation policies and procedures. In complying with cGMP, we will be obligated to expend time, money and effort in production, record keeping and quality control to assure that the product meets applicable specifications and other requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we would be subject to possible regulatory action and may not be permitted to sell any products that we may develop.

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

The regulatory authorities may, at any time, following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities for such product or institute biennial inspections. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations, or if a violation of product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly or time-consuming to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a manufacturing facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon our third-party manufacturers, our collaborators, or us could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our third-party manufacturers, our collaborators, or we fail to comply with applicable cGMP regulations, FDA and foreign regulatory authorities can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product candidate or suspension or revocation of a pre-existing approval. Such an occurrence may cause our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects to be harmed.

Additionally, if supply from any third-party manufacturers is delayed or interrupted, there could be a significant disruption in the supply of our clinical or commercial material. We have agreements in place with our contract manufacturers pursuant to which we are collaborating on cGMP manufacturing processes and analytical methods for the manufacture of our proprietary antibody and AAV product candidates. However, we are dependent on one third-party manufacturer to produce our AAV and one for the tau antibody clinical product candidates. Therefore, if we are unable to enter into an agreement with our contract manufacturers to manufacture clinical or commercial material for our product programs, or if our agreement with our contract manufacturers were terminated, we would have to find suitable alternative manufacturers. This could delay our or our collaborators’ ability to conduct clinical trials or commercialize our current and future product candidates. The regulatory authorities also may require additional trials if a new

Table of Contents

manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and could result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

Any contamination in the manufacturing process for our products or product candidates, shortages of raw materials, cells or reagents, or failure of any of our key suppliers to deliver necessary components could result in delays in our clinical development or marketing schedules.

Given the nature of biologics manufacturing, there is a risk of contamination. Any contamination could adversely affect our ability to produce product candidates on schedule and could, therefore, harm our results of operations and cause reputational damage.

Some of the raw materials required in our manufacturing process are derived from biologic sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of our product candidates could adversely impact or disrupt the commercial manufacturing or the production of clinical material, which could adversely affect our development timelines and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Failure to obtain access to or to protect intellectual property related to the manufacturing of our products or product candidates may result in changes, delays and/or inability to manufacture such products or product candidates.

The intellectual property related to the manufacture of biological products is complex. If we are unable to maintain control of manufacturing technology such as our trade secrets, or we are unable to protect ongoing improvements comprehensively and in a sufficient number of jurisdictions, it would impact our ability to produce products for commercial sale or product candidates for preclinical testing or clinical trials and our development timelines and operations timelines could be adversely affected.

We presently manufacture our AAV product candidates using a mammalian cell system. We are aware of third parties that also use this system in the manufacture of their products and who hold intellectual property on their AAV manufacturing systems. If we determine that access to certain third-party intellectual property is necessary for the manufacturing of our products and product candidates and are unable to license or otherwise access this intellectual property, it would impact our ability to produce products for commercial sale or product candidates for preclinical testing or clinical trials and our development timelines and operations timelines could be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates and may fail to capitalize on programs or product candidates that may be a greater commercial opportunity, or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

The success of our business depends upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize product candidates generated through our proprietary antibody program and our gene therapy and non-viral therapeutics platforms and programs. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. Most of our product candidates are in preclinical development, and one is in early-stage clinical trials. Our current portfolio of product candidates is subject to change as we continue to conduct preclinical and clinical testing and to develop product candidates and prioritize or abandon product candidates based on such results and other factors. For example, we are no longer advancing VY9323, formerly the lead development candidate for our SOD1 silencing program for ALS, as a development candidate based on three-month data from a non-human primate GLP toxicology study suggesting that a different payload would be necessary to achieve the desired product profile for the program. We may also fail to identify other product candidates for clinical development for several reasons. For example, our research may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects, may be commercially impracticable to manufacture or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

Table of Contents

Additionally, because we have limited resources, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. For example, we paused investment in our apolipoprotein E gene therapy program to prioritize other programs. Furthermore, similar to our prior investments with regard to our VY-AADC (NBIb-1817) and VY-HTT01 programs, our spending on current and future research and development programs may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaboration, option and license, or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Alternatively, we may allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a licensing or collaboration arrangement. Several of our current preclinical programs have previously been part of collaborations with third parties. While we have invested significant resources in these programs, we may decide in the future to cease development activities on one or more of them.

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts with respect to a particular product candidate or fail to develop a potentially successful product candidate, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key members of our management and research and development teams, and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the management, technical, and scientific expertise of principal members of our management, scientific, and clinical teams. While we have entered into employment agreements or offer letters with each of our executive officers, any of them could leave our employment at any time, as all of our employees are “at will” employees. We currently do not have “key person” insurance on any of our employees. The loss of the services of one or more of our current employees might impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives.

Recruiting and retaining qualified employees, consultants and advisors for our business, including scientific and technical personnel, is critical to our success. There currently is a shortage of skilled individuals with substantial gene therapy experience, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel, including in gene therapy research and vector manufacturing, is intense and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms, if at all, given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and academic institutions for individuals with similar skill sets. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. In addition, failure to succeed in preclinical or clinical trials or applications for marketing approval, the termination of relationships with collaborators, and the reduction of our workforce in connection with the development of a new portfolio and platform strategy may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified personnel. The inability to recruit, or loss of services of, certain executives, such as the recent departure of our Chief Medical Officer, key employees, consultants or advisors, may impede the progress of our research, development and commercialization objectives and could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In 2025 and 2026, we reduced the size of our organization in connection with restructurings. We may encounter difficulties in managing our business as a result of these restructurings, or as a result of the attrition that has occurred or may in the future occur due to these restructurings, which could disrupt our operations. In addition, we may not achieve anticipated benefits and savings from these restructurings.

Our board of directors have approved restructuring plans to eliminate a portion of our workforce as part of initiatives to reduce expenses and enhance operations. The restructurings were approved in connection with our ongoing evaluation of our operations and our efforts to focus resources on creating shareholder value on critical program and platform development. The restructurings during 2025 and 2026 involved the termination of 71 employees, representing 41% of our workforce as of January 1, 2025.

Table of Contents

The continuing impact of the restructurings and additional measures we might take to reduce costs could divert management attention, yield attrition beyond our intended reduction in force, reduce employee morale, or cause us to delay, limit, reduce or eliminate certain product development plans.

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

If we are successful in executing our business strategy, we will need to expand our managerial, operational, financial and other systems and resources to manage our operations, continue our research and development activities and, in the longer term, build a commercial infrastructure to support commercialization of any of our product candidates that are approved for sale. We can provide no assurances that we will have sufficient resources in the future to manage all of our planned programs. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, may lead to significant added costs, and may divert our management and business development resources. It is likely that our management, finance, development personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and product candidates requires that we continue to develop more robust business processes and improve our systems and procedures in each of these areas and to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees. We may be unable to successfully implement these tasks on a larger scale and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and growth goals.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, consultants, collaborators, and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or the regulations applicable in the European Union and other jurisdictions, provide accurate information to the FDA, the European Commission and other regulatory authorities, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct also could involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or interactions with the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from government investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any collaborators to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any collaborators, to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed.

In March 2010, President Obama signed the ACA into law. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things,

Table of Contents

created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2032 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers 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 and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

VYGR US Equity

VYGR · 10-K · period ended 2025-12-31

ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS

VYGR US Equity☆

VYGR · 10-K · period ended 2025-12-31

ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS

VYGR US Equity