View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

As confidentially submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2017.
This draft registration statement has not been publicly filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and all information herein remains strictly confidential.

Registration No. 333-_______

 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

________________________

  

FORM F-1 

REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

________________________

  

ENTERA BIO LTD. 

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

____________________

____________________

____________________

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after effectiveness of this registration statement.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. ☐
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Emerging growth company ☒

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

† The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

____________________

____________________

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

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This registration statement contains two forms of prospectus, as set forth below.

The Public Offering Prospectus and the Selling Stockholder Resale Prospectus will be substantively identical in all respects except for the following principal points:

We have included in this registration statement, after the financial statements, a set of alternate pages to reflect the foregoing differences between the Public Offering Prospectus and the Selling Stockholder Resale Prospectus.

The information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and we are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not permitted.

PROSPECTUS (Subject to Completion)
Issued              , 2017

ORDINARY SHARES

Entera Bio Ltd. is offering           ordinary shares. This is our initial public offering and no public market exists for our shares. We anticipate that the initial public offering price will be between $             and $             per ordinary share.

______________________

We expect to apply to list our ordinary shares on the                               under the symbol “           ”.

____________________

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act and will therefore be subject to reduced reporting requirements.

Investing in our ordinary shares involves risks. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 15.

____________________

PRICE $           A SHARE

____________________

(1) We have agreed to reimburse the underwriter for certain FINRA-related expenses. See “Underwriters.”

Entera Bio Ltd. has granted the underwriters the right to purchase up to an additional                 ordinary shares to cover over-allotments at the initial public offering price less the underwriting discount.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and state securities regulators have not approved or disapproved of these securities, or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The underwriters expect to deliver the ordinary shares to purchasers on             , 2017.

____________________

, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 ____________________

Neither we nor the underwriters have authorized anyone to provide information other than that contained in this prospectus, any amendment or supplement to this prospectus or in any free writing prospectus prepared by us or on our behalf. Neither we nor the underwriters take any responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any information other than the information in this prospectus, any amendment or supplement to this prospectus and any free writing prospectus prepared by us or on our behalf. You should assume that the information appearing in this prospectus is accurate only as of the date on the front cover of this prospectus, regardless of the time of delivery of this prospectus or any sale of our ordinary shares. This prospectus is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy these ordinary shares in any circumstances under which such offer or solicitation is unlawful.

We have not taken any action to permit a public offering of the ordinary shares outside the United States or to permit the possession or distribution of this prospectus outside the United States. Persons outside the United States who come into possession of this prospectus must inform themselves about and observe any restrictions relating to the offering of the ordinary shares and the distribution of this prospectus outside of the United States.

Presentation of Financial Information

We report under International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (the “IFRS” and the “IASB”). None of the financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States. We present our financial statements in U.S. dollars. We have made rounding adjustments to some of the figures included in this prospectus. Accordingly, numerical figures shown as totals in some tables may not be an arithmetic aggregation of the figures that preceded them.

Items included in our financial statements are measured using the currency of the primary economic environment in which we operate, the U.S. dollar (“the functional currency”). Our financial statements and other financial information included in this prospectus are presented in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. See Note 2 to our financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, references in this prospectus to “NIS” are to the legal currency of Israel, “U.S. dollars,” “$” or “dollars” are to United States dollars, “euro” or “€” are to the Euro, the legal currency of certain countries of the European Union.

Market and Industry Data

This prospectus includes market and industry data and forecasts that we obtained from publicly available information and independent industry publications and reports that we believe to be reliable sources. These publicly available industry publications and reports generally state that they obtain their information from sources that they believe to be reliable, but they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information. Certain estimates and forecasts involve uncertainties and risks and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the headings “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in this prospectus.

Risk Factors

You should consider carefully the risks described below and all other information contained in this prospectus before you make a decision to invest in our ordinary shares. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our ordinary shares could decline, and you might lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We are a research and development stage company with a history of operating losses and negative cash flow, and we may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We are a research and development stage company with no revenues from our research and development activities. Consequently, we have incurred net losses and negative cash flows since inception, including net losses of $4.3 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $30.6 million.

Our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, included elsewhere in this prospectus, disclose our determination that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, absent sources of additional liquidity. In order to fund further operations, we may need to raise capital in addition to the net proceeds of this offering. We may seek these funds through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, government grants, strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements. Additional financing may not be available when we need it or may not be available on terms that are favorable to us. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, and we will be required to raise additional funds, alternative means of financial support, or both, in order to continue operations. The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern and do not include adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. If we are unable to raise the requisite funds, we will need to curtail or cease operations.

We currently have no product revenues and may not succeed in developing or commercializing any products that could generate revenues. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, prepare for and begin to commercialize any approved products, and add infrastructure and personnel to support our product development efforts and operations as a public company. In addition, development of our product candidates requires a process of preclinical and clinical testing, during which our products could fail. We may not be able to enter into agreements with one or more companies experienced in the manufacturing and marketing of therapeutic drugs and, to the extent that we are unable to do so, we will not be able to market our product candidates. Our eventual profitability will depend on our success in developing, manufacturing, and marketing our product candidates, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to achieve profitability in the future.

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 or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. For example, our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA, the EMA or other regulators to perform trials in addition to those that we currently expect to perform, or if there are any delays in completing our currently planned clinical trials or in the development of any of our product candidates.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities for which we are only in the preliminary stages, including developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for them, and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Our ability to generate future revenue from product sales depends heavily on our success in many areas, including but not limited to:

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. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, develop other product candidates, or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Even if this offering is successful, we will need substantial additional capital in order to satisfy our long-term growth strategy, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, and, if not available, may require us to delay, scale back, or cease our product development programs or operations.

Although we anticipate that our available resources, including proceeds from this offering, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated working capital needs for at least the next months, we will need to raise additional funds to support the execution of our long-term growth strategy. We may require substantial additional financing at various intervals in order to continue our research and development programs, including significant requirements for operating expenses including intellectual property protection and enforcement, pursuit of regulatory approvals, and commercialization of our products. We can provide no assurance that additional funding will be available on a timely basis, on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Because successful development of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual financing we will require to complete research and development and to commercialize our product candidates.

Our future financing requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance future cash needs primarily through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic collaborations, and grant funding. If sufficient financing on acceptable terms are not available when needed, or at all, we could be forced to significantly reduce operating expenses and delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our development programs or our business operations or even go bankrupt.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, including purchasers of ordinary shares in this offering, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish substantial rights.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic collaborations and grant funding. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these new securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a holder of our ordinary shares. Debt financing, if available at all, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends. Further, we may incur substantial costs in pursuing future capital and/or financing, including investment banking fees, legal fees, accounting fees, printing and distribution expenses and other costs. We may also be required to recognize non-cash expenses in connection with certain securities we may issue, such as convertible notes and warrants, which will adversely impact our financial condition.

In the past we have incurred indebtedness that may convert into equity securities, including our ordinary shares, upon the election of the lender or upon certain automatic triggering events. Any such conversion may cause our shareholders to experience substantial dilution of their ownership interest. In addition, if such convertible indebtedness is not converted before maturity upon the triggering events, we will be required to repay such indebtedness, which may adversely affect our liquidity. See “Dilution” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Contractual Obligations and Commitments—Convertible Loans.”

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, product candidates, or future revenue streams, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional funding if and when necessary. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, we could be required to delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our development programs or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

We have a limited operating history and no history of commercializing pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate the prospects for our future viability.

We began operations in 2010. Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our drug delivery technology and developing our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability successfully to complete a large-scale, pivotal clinical trial, obtain marketing approval, manufacture a commercial scale product or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources and distract our management, which could make it difficult to manage our business, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

Following the completion of this offering, we will be required to comply with various regulatory and reporting requirements, including those required by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. Complying with these reporting and regulatory requirements will be time consuming, result in increased costs to us and could have a negative effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As a public company, we will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These requirements may place a strain on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. We will be implementing additional procedures and processes for the purpose of addressing the standards and requirements applicable to public companies. These activities may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

As an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain temporary exemptions from various reporting requirements including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC thereunder. We will remain an “emerging growth company” until the earliest of: (a) the last day of our fiscal year during which we have total annual gross revenues of at least $1.07 billion; (b) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of this offering; (c) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt; or (d) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” under the Exchange Act. We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur as a result of becoming a public company or the timing of such costs.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards, in the United States or Israel, relating to corporate governance and public disclosure and other matters, may be implemented in the future, which may increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more time consuming and divert management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed. We also expect that being a publicly traded company in the United States and being subject to U.S. rules and regulations will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee, and qualified executive officers.

We manage our business and develop our technology with a small number of employees and key consultants, and in the event of their loss or unavailability we may not be able to grow our business or develop and commercialize our products.

We currently depend upon the efforts and abilities of our senior executives, including Dr. Phillip Schwartz, our Chief Executive Officer, and a small number of employees and key consultants. Our success depends upon the continued contributions of these senior executives, employees and consultants, many of whom have substantial scientific and technical experience with, and have been instrumental for, us and our technologies. The loss of our senior executives or senior scientists could delay our research and development activities. We do not maintain “key man” life insurance policies for any of our employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific personnel to perform future research and development work will be critical to our success. Competition for skilled personnel is intense and turnover rates are high, and our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel may be limited. The loss or unavailability of the services of any of these individuals for any significant period of time or our inability to attract and retain qualified skilled personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business, technology, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We will need to grow our organization, specifically to expand our clinical development and regulatory capabilities, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As our clinical development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to expand our employee base for development, regulatory, managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial and other resources. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of senior executives, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees. Also, we may need to divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational errors, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of existing and additional product candidates. If we are unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or grow revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to develop our product candidates and compete effectively with others in our industry will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

Risks Related to the Clinical Development of Our Product Candidates

All of our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development. Clinical drug development is expensive, time consuming and uncertain, and we may ultimately not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, European Union, and EU Member State legislators and agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which enforce regulations that differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of a biologics license application, or BLA, from the FDA or in any other country until we receive marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities outside the United States. Our product candidates are in various stages of development and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We have not submitted an application, or received marketing approval, for any of our product candidates. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA or the EMA. Obtaining approval of a BLA or other marketing application can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process.

At present, our lead product candidate is EB612, our oral PTH (1-34) tablet, which is under development for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. We are also developing EB613, a distinct oral PTH (1-34) product candidate, with significant modifications to dose and formulation, for the treatment of osteoporosis. Each of our oral PTH product candidates, including EB612 and EB613, are in an early stage of clinical development and face a variety of risks and uncertainties, including the following:

If we are unsuccessful in dealing with any of these risks, or if we are unable to successfully commercialize our oral PTH for some other reason, it would likely have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, in the event we are able to successfully commercialize our oral PTH, we may sell the tablets at a discounted sales price for the initial period in order to gain market acceptance of the product, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The commencement and completion of clinical trials can be delayed or prevented for a number of reasons.

We expect to initiate a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial of EB612 in hypoparathyroidism in the first quarter of 2018 and we plan to submit applications for regulatory approval of EB612 in the first half of 2020. For osteoporosis we intend to commence a Phase 2a clinical trial of EB613 in the fourth quarter of 2017 and an additional Phase 2b clinical trial in the United States in 2018. We also plan to conduct clinical trials of a formulation of oral PTH for the treatment of non-union fractures. Drug development is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of our clinical trials. Clinical trials can be delayed or prevented for a number of reasons, including:

Changes in regulatory requirements and guidance may also occur and we may need to significantly amend clinical trial protocols or submit new clinical trial protocols with appropriate regulatory authorities to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to renegotiate terms with contract research organizations, or CROs, or resubmit clinical trial protocols to IRBs or ethics committees for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. Our clinical trials may be suspended or terminated at any time by the FDA, other regulatory authorities, the IRB or ethics committee overseeing the clinical trial at issue, any of our clinical trial sites with respect to that site, or us, due to a number of factors, including:

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the trial. FDA 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 and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

If we do not succeed in conducting and managing our preclinical development activities or clinical trials, or in obtaining regulatory approvals, we might not be able to commercialize our product candidates, or might be significantly delayed in doing so, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The results of previous clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, our progress in trials for one product candidate may not be indicative of progress in trials for other product candidates, and our trials may not be designed so as to support regulatory approval.

We currently have no products approved for sale and we cannot guarantee that we will ever have marketable products. Clinical failure can occur at any stage of clinical development. Clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any of our current and future collaborators may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or preclinical testing. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Success in early clinical trials does not mean that future larger clinical trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities despite having progressed through initial clinical trials. Product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent clinical trials. Similarly, the outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. Progress in trials of one product candidate does not indicate that we will make similar progress in additional trials for that product candidate or in trials for our other product candidates. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results in earlier clinical trials.

The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product. We may be unable to design and/or execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval. Flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. In addition, we may have little control over whether subjects comply with important aspects of clinical trial protocols. In particular, in trials of our oral PTH, if subjects do not comply with restrictions on eating and drinking before and after administration of our product candidates, interaction between the drug and food in the gastrointestinal tract, or a “food effect,” may decrease the bioavailability and increase the variability of drug delivered to the subject, which may negatively affect efficacy.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and/or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols, modifications in the formulation throughout the course of development and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. While our oral PTH product candidates have exhibited negligible safety issues in our clinical trials to date, we may need to change future trial design in response to adverse events that occur during future clinical development. We do not know whether any Phase 2, Phase 3 or other clinical trials we or any of our collaborators may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

We depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our product candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts could be materially adversely affected.

Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of subjects. Trials may be subject to delays as a result of enrollment taking longer than anticipated or subject withdrawal. Enrollment depends on many factors, including the size and nature of the patient population, eligibility criteria for

the trial, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the design of the clinical protocol, the availability of competing clinical trials, the availability of drugs approved for the indication the clinical trial is investigating, and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the product being studied in relation to other available therapies. Our product candidate EB612 has orphan drug designation for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism, which means that the potential patient population is limited. In addition, there may be other marketed drugs or drugs in development for hypoparathyroidism, and we may compete for patients with such marketed drugs, such as Natpara, or the sponsors of trials for drugs in development. These factors may make it difficult for us to enroll enough subjects to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner. Delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, some of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our drug delivery technology to other product candidates.

A key element of our strategy is to use and expand our oral drug delivery technology platform to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of different types of diseases. Our strategy is to focus on the development of our oral drug delivery technology in combination with a known active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, to validate our platform and potentially minimize risk and development timelines. We intend, by utilizing this approach, to both validate and enhance the credibility of our platform. We intend to use our technology as a platform for the oral delivery of other protein and large molecule APIs.

Our initial product candidates combine our oral drug delivery technology with PTH, a hormone that has been used in injectable form for many years for osteoporosis. Our business is substantially dependent on our ability to complete the development of, obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize our oral PTH product candidates in a timely manner. If we are unable to validate our oral drug delivery technology with our PTH product candidates, in particular our lead candidate EB612, we may be unsuccessful in leveraging our oral drug delivery technology for use with other APIs. In addition, we must significantly modify the formulation of EB612 to develop new formulations for applications in osteoporosis and other indications. If we are not successful in optimizing the formation of our PTH product candidates for additional indications, or if we are not otherwise able to obtain regulatory approval for them or successfully commercialize them, our business and prospects may be severely limited due to the small size of the population with hypoparathyroidism.

In addition, our technology makes use of synthetically bioengineered ingredients. Our oral PTH is a synthetic form of the first 34 amino acids of human PTH to which we have applied our proprietary drug delivery technology. Although our product candidates utilize a synthesized PTH molecule that has clinically proven efficacy, known mechanism of action and an established safety profile, they may cause patients to exhibit safety or immune responses that do not match the biological effect of a human protein. Such responses could result in increased regulatory scrutiny, delays or other impediments to our planned development or the public acceptance and commercialization of our products.

Even if we are successful in expanding our drug delivery technology to other APIs for other indications, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. We may never successfully develop or commercialize our technology with other APIs, which could limit our business and prospects.

Our product candidates may have serious adverse, undesirable or unacceptable side effects that may delay or prevent marketing approval. If any such side effects are identified during the development of our product candidates or following any regulatory approval, we may need to abandon our development of such product candidates, any approved label may be limited or we may be subject to other significant negative consequences following regulatory approval.

Although all of our product candidates have undergone or will undergo safety testing to the extent possible and agreed with health authorities, not all adverse effects of drugs can be predicted or anticipated. Unforeseen side effects from any of our product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if such side effects are more rare, after our product candidates have been approved by regulatory authorities and the approved product has been marketed, resulting in the exposure of additional patients. All of our product candidates are still in clinical or preclinical development. While our oral PTH has exhibited negligible safety issues in our clinical trials to date, the results of future clinical trials may show that our product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, and result in delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities, or result in marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities with restrictive label warnings or potential product liability claims. For instance, other PTH products have been issued with labels that disclose a potential risk of osteosarcoma.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products:

Any of these events could prevent us or our potential future collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our products.

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must and have in the past decided to prioritize development of certain product candidates; these decisions may prove to have been wrong and may adversely affect our revenues.

Because we have limited resources and access to capital to fund our operations, we must decide which product candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each. As such, we are currently primarily focused on the development of EB612 and EB613 for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism and osteoporosis, respectively. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular compounds, product candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of viable commercial products and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our potential decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product development programs may also prove not to be optimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the market potential of our product candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

Obtaining regulatory approval even after clinical trials that are believed to be successful is an uncertain process.

Even if we complete our planned clinical trials and believe the results to be successful, all of which are uncertain, obtaining regulatory approval is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies may delay, limit or deny approval of our oral PTH for many reasons, including:

Before we can submit an application for regulatory approval in the United States, we must conduct a pivotal trial that will be substantially broader than our completed Phase 2a trial. We will also need to agree on a protocol with the FDA for a clinical trial before commencing the trial. Phase 3 clinical trials frequently produce

unsatisfactory results even though prior clinical trials were successful. Therefore, even if the results of our Phase 2 trials are successful, the results of the additional trials that we conduct may or may not be successful. Further, our product candidates may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in Phase 3 clinical trials. The FDA, the EMA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of data from preclinical studies and clinical trials. Moreover, there is no FDA guidance on the acceptable level of variability in orally delivered products with large molecule APIs, and, therefore we are unable to be certain that we are designing our product candidates or clinical trials to satisfy the FDA in this regard. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a clinical trial. The FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies may require that we conduct additional clinical, nonclinical, manufacturing validation or drug product quality studies and submit those data before considering or reconsidering the application. Depending on the extent of these or any other studies, approval of any applications that we submit may be delayed by several years, or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional studies, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies. If any of these outcomes occur, we would not receive approval for our oral PTH (1-34) tablet.

In addition, the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may impose significant limitations related to use restrictions for certain age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials or risk mitigation requirements. The FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies may not accept the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

In order to obtain FDA approval for EB612 prior to the expiration of Natpara’s orphan drug exclusivity in 2022, we need to show that EB612 is clinically superior to Natpara. Moreover, although we have obtained orphan drug designation for EB612 for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism, we may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the drug in the United States. In the European Union, the European Commission may designate a product candidate as an orphan medicinal product if it is a medicine for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or very serious conditions that affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union, or it is unlikely that marketing of the medicine would generate sufficient returns to justify the investment needed for its development and no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition concerned is authorized, or, if such method exists, that the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition .. We have received orphan drug designation for oral PTH for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism from the FDA, but orphan drug designation may not ensure that we have market exclusivity in a particular market and there is no assurance we will be able to receive orphan drug designation for any additional product candidates. Further, the granting of a request for orphan drug designation does not alter the standard regulatory requirements and process for obtaining marketing approval.

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, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the FDA from approving another drug with the same active moiety for the same indication for that time period or precludes the EMA, and other national drug regulators in the European Union, from accepting the marketing application for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The EU period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year of marketing exclusivity, a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for instance if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. In the European Union, orphan exclusivity may also be extended for an additional two years (i.e., a maximum of 12 years’ orphan exclusivity) if the product is approved on the basis of a dossier that includes pediatric

clinical trial data generated in accordance with an approved pediatric investigation plan. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost in the United States if the FDA 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.

Orphan drug exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because exclusivity can be suspended under certain circumstances. In the United States, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve another drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the European Union, orphan exclusivity will not prevent a marketing authorization being granted for a similar medicinal product in the same indication if the new product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the first product or if the marketing authorization holder of the first product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the product.

We believe that our key competitor in hypoparathyroidism treatment is Shire plc, whose product Natpara, an injectable bioengineered synthetic form of PTH (1-84), was approved by the FDA in January 2015. Natpara has been granted orphan drug designation for hypoparathyroidism by the FDA and, as the first approved product for this indication, has orphan drug market exclusivity for seven years in the United States and, if Natpara is approved by the EMA, ten years after receipt of market approval in the European Union. Therefore, we will only be able to obtain regulatory approval for EB612 prior to expiration of Natpara’s orphan exclusivity period in the United States, which expires in January 2022, if we demonstrate EB612’s clinical superiority over Natpara in that it demonstrates greater effectiveness or safety than Natpara or that it otherwise makes a major contribution to patient care. We believe that we will be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA and EMA that our formulation of PTH is clinically superior to Natpara, and therefore we do not believe that the FDA or EMA will be precluded from approving a marketing application prior to Natpara’s expiration of orphan exclusivity, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to demonstrate that EB612 is clinically superior to Natpara under the applicable FDA and EMA standards and obtain regulatory approval, even if EB612 would otherwise satisfy each regulator’s standards for approval.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of EB612, we may not enjoy the benefits of our orphan designation for EB612 for hypoparathyroidism. For example, even if we were to overcome Natpara’s exclusivity, regulatory approval of EB612 would not create exclusivity vis-a-vis Natpara, and we would still have to compete with Natpara for market acceptance and on other factors that contribute to commercial success, such as reimbursement. Moreover, even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for EB612 vis-à-vis other products in development, that exclusivity may not effectively protect EB612 from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or EMA can subsequently approve the same drug with the same active moiety for the same condition if the FDA or EMA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

Even if regulatory approvals are obtained for our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing government regulation. If we fail to comply with applicable current and future laws and government regulations, it could delay or prevent the promotion, marketing or sale of our products.

Even if marketing approval is obtained, a regulatory authority may still impose significant restrictions on a product’s indications, conditions for use, distribution or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-market surveillance, post-approval studies or clinical trials, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize our products. Our products will also be subject to ongoing requirements governing the labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, distribution, promotion, recordkeeping and submission of safety and other post-market information, including adverse events, and any changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements and other regulations.

If we, our drug products or the manufacturing facilities for our drug products fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

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, and compliance with such regulation may be expensive and consume substantial financial and management resources. If we or any future marketing collaborators or contract manufacturers are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies or are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, it could delay or prevent the promotion, marketing or sale of our products, which would adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Healthcare legislative changes may harm our business and future prospects.

Healthcare costs have risen significantly over the past decade. Globally, governments are becoming increasingly aggressive in imposing health care cost-containment measures. Certain proposals, if passed, would impose limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for the products that we are developing, or the amounts of reimbursement available for these products from governmental agencies or third-party payors. These limitations could in turn reduce the amount of revenues that we will be able to generate in the future from sales of our products and licenses of our technology.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or MMA changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The MMA expanded Medicare coverage for outpatient drug purchases by those covered by Medicare under a new Part D and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for Medicare Part B physician-administered drugs. In addition, the MMA authorized Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to limit the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. As a result of this legislation and the expansion of federal coverage of drug products, we expect that there will be additional pressure to contain and reduce costs. These cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of the MMA could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for any approved products and could seriously harm our future business prospects. While this law applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and any reduction in reimbursement that results from this law may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for health care and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The Affordable Care Act, among other

things, increased rebates a manufacturer must pay to the Medicaid program, addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must provide 50% point-of-sale discounts on products covered under Part D and implemented payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models. Further, the new law imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance were enacted, which may affect our business practices with health care practitioners. The ACA appears likely to continue the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year effective April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2025, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further 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 new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

President Trump and the majorities of both houses of Congress have stated their intention to repeal and replace the ACA. On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. In May 2017, the House of Representatives voted to pass the American Healthcare Act of 2017, which repeals certain portions of the ACA and adds material new provisions. On June 22, 2017, the Senate introduced its own healthcare reform bill. Considerable uncertainty remains about whether the Senate bill will pass or how it will be reconciled with the House version, and if it does and President Trump signs it into law, about the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation on us, our industry or the market for drug products like ours. Though the full future impact of the new administration and the U.S. Congress on our business remains unclear, legislative and regulatory changes may continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.

The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Both in the United States and in the European Union, legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be.

Our relationships with customers and payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which, if violated, could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, primarily in the United States, that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our future business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from U.S. government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business with are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We are likely to face significant competition, and if our competitors’ products are more effective, safer or less expensive than ours, our commercial opportunities will be negatively affected. Our lead product candidates, if approved, would compete with existing products.

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from many different sources, including large pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, biotechnology and generic drug companies and academic and government institutions. These organizations may have significantly greater resources than we do and conduct similar research, seek and obtain patent protection that may impact our freedom to operate and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and marketing of products that compete with our product candidates. We believe that the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our oral PTH product candidates, and any other product candidates that we develop, are efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, convenience in dosing, product labeling, price and availability of reimbursement from the government and other third-parties. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors have products that are better in one or more of these categories. Furthermore, our competitors may, among other things: develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, less expensive, or more convenient or easier to administer; obtain quicker regulatory approval; establish superior proprietary positions; have access to more manufacturing capacity; implement more effective approaches to sales and marketing; or form more advantageous strategic alliances.

Our primary innovation is our development of an oral drug delivery technology for large peptides, protein and other large molecules. If another company develops an alternative technology for oral delivery of such molecules that is equal to or better than our technology, we may be unable to compete.

We believe that our key competitor in hypoparathyroidism treatment is Natpara. If we obtain regulatory approval for EB612, it will compete with Natpara, which by that time will have been marketed for several years and may have wide-spread market acceptance that may be difficult to overcome. See “—In order to obtain FDA approval for EB612 prior to the expiration of Natpara’s orphan drug exclusivity in 2022, we need to show that EB612 is clinically superior to Natpara. Moreover, although we have obtained orphan drug designation for EB612 for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism, we may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with orphan drug

designation, including the potential for market exclusivity.” In addition, Ascendis Pharma has reported that it is developing a long-acting, oral prodrug formulation of PTH for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. Ascendis’ oral PTH product is currently in preclinical development, and Ascendis has reported that it plans to initiate a Phase 1 trial for the drug in the third quarter of 2017.

The osteoporosis market is already served by a variety of competing products based on a number of APIs. Many of these existing products have achieved widespread acceptance among physicians, patients and payors for the treatment of osteoporosis. The market has been dominated by bisphosphonates for many years, although bisphosphonates’ market share has declined due to the occurrence of serious side effects, as well as the introduction of newly developed pharmacological treatments. Many of the new drugs have serious side effects of their own. Eli Lilly’s Forteo, an injectable PTH (1-34), is one of the most effective osteoporosis medications. We anticipate that our product candidate EB613, if approved, will compete with Forteo and the rest of the pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. Many of these products are available on a generic basis, and EB613 may not demonstrate sufficient additional clinical benefits to physicians, patients or payors to justify a higher price compared to generic products. In many cases, insurers or other third-party payors, particularly Medicare, seek to encourage the use of generic products. Furthermore, our competitors in this market are large pharmaceutical companies and the alternatives have been on the market for many years and have widespread market acceptance.

We are subject to manufacturing risks that could substantially increase our costs and limit supply of our products.

The process of manufacturing our products is complex, highly regulated and subject to several risks, including:

our product candidates, including leading to significant delays in the availability of drug product for our clinical trials or the termination or hold on a clinical trial, or the delay or prevention of a filing or approval of marketing applications for our product candidates. Significant noncompliance could also result in the imposition of sanctions, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approvals for our product candidates, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could damage our reputation. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our product candidates and/or may be subject to product recalls, seizures, injunctions, or criminal prosecution.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution infrastructure. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely affect the commercialization of our products. If we enter into collaborations to market and sell any approved products, our revenue may be lower and we will be dependent on the efforts of a third party.

We have not yet established sales, marketing or distribution operations because our product candidates are in early clinical development. Prior to receiving regulatory approval for EB612, we plan to build a focused sales and marketing organization in the United States and other jurisdictions where we anticipate obtaining approval to sell EB612. This would be expensive and time consuming. If we elect to fund and undertake 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. In addition, the costs of establishing sales and marketing operations may be incurred in advance of any approval of our product candidates. Moreover, we may not be able to hire a sales force that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we intend to target. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely affect the commercialization of our products.

Alternatively, we may consider entering into a collaboration to commercialize EB612, and we anticipate seeking a collaborator to develop EB613 and that any such collaborator would be responsible for, or substantially support, late stage clinical trials of EB613 as well as regulatory approvals and registrations. These arrangements are typically complex and time consuming to negotiate. To the extent that we enter into collaboration agreements with respect to marketing, sales or distribution, our product revenue may be lower than if we directly marketed and sold any approved products. In addition, any revenue we receive will depend in whole or in part upon the efforts of these third-party collaborators, which may not be successful and are generally not within our control. If we are unable to enter into these arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any approved products. If we are not successful in commercializing any approved products, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

Even if approved, if any of our product candidates do not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, the medical community and third-party payors, our revenue generated from their sales will be limited.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon their acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates are approved, but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of any of our product candidates in a major pharmaceutical market such as the United States or the European Union, we may never obtain approval or commercialize our products in other major markets, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products in a country or territory, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries or territories regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approvals in all major markets could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs

for us and may require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and third-party payors establish adequate coverage and reimbursement levels and pricing policies.

The successful commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for our products will be available from government and health administration authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors. To manage healthcare costs, many governments and third-party payors increasingly scrutinize the pricing of new technologies and require greater levels of evidence of favorable clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness before extending coverage. In light of such challenges to prices and increasing levels of evidence of the benefits and clinical outcomes required of new technologies, we cannot be sure that coverage will be available for our oral PTH product candidates or any other product candidate that we commercialize and, if available, that the reimbursement rates will be adequate. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, their marketability will be negatively and materially impacted.

Third party payors may deny coverage and reimbursement status altogether of a given drug product, or cover the product but establish prices at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Because the coverage and reimbursement policies may change frequently, in some cases at short notice, even when there is favorable coverage and reimbursement, future changes may occur that adversely impact the favorable status. Further, the net reimbursement for drug products may be subject to additional reductions if there are changes to laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

The unavailability or inadequacy of third-party coverage and reimbursement could have a material adverse effect on the market acceptance of our product candidates and the future revenues we may expect to receive from those products. In addition, we are unable to predict what additional legislation or regulation relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future, or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business.

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

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of pharmaceutical products. Currently we have no products that have been approved for commercial sale; however, the current and future use of product candidates by us in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, our collaborators or others selling such products. Any claims against us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially adversely affect the market for our product candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our product candidates.

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval of the product candidate, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates.

Although we maintain limited product liability insurance for our product candidates, it is possible that our liabilities could exceed our insurance coverage. We intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates. However, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

Should any of the events described above occur, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We are highly dependent upon our ability to enter into agreements with collaborators to develop, commercialize and market our products.

We may enter into collaborations with third parties that we believe could provide us with valuable funding and other benefits. For example, we anticipate seeking a collaborator to develop EB613 for osteoporosis and that any such collaborator would be responsible for, or substantially support, late stage clinical trials of EB613 as well as regulatory approvals and registrations.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA, the EMA or similar regulatory authorities, 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 may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available for collaboration and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.

Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. 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 one or more of our other development programs, delay potential commercialization of a product candidate 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 fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities ourselves, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our technology platforms and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

Any collaboration we enter into may pose a number of risks, including the following:

All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this prospectus also apply to the activities of any of our future program collaborators.

We may not be able to secure and maintain research institutions to conduct our clinical trials.

We rely on research institutions to conduct our clinical trials. Specifically, the limited number of centers experienced with pharmaceutical product candidates heightens our dependence on such research institutions. Our reliance upon research institutions, including hospitals and clinics, provides us with less control over the timing and cost of clinical trials and the ability to recruit subjects. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable research institutions on acceptable terms, or if any resulting agreement is terminated, we may be unable to quickly replace the research institution with another qualified institution on acceptable terms. Furthermore, we may not be able to secure and maintain suitable research institutions to conduct our clinical trials.

Independent clinical investigators and CROs that we engage to conduct our clinical trials may not devote sufficient time or attention to our clinical trials or be able to repeat their past success.

We expect to continue to depend on independent clinical investigators and CROs to conduct our clinical trials. CROs may also assist us in the collection and analysis of data. There is a limited number of third-party service providers that specialize or have the expertise required to achieve our business objectives. Identifying, qualifying and managing performance of third-party service providers can be difficult, time consuming and cause delays in our development programs. These investigators and CROs will not be our employees and we will not be able to control, other than by contract, the amount of resources, including time, which they devote to our product candidates and clinical trials. If independent investigators or CROs fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or compromise the prospects for approval and commercialization of any product candidates that we develop. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information will be misappropriated. Further, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that we comply with standards, commonly referred to as Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, requirements for conducting, recording and reporting clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial subjects are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Failure of clinical investigators or CROs to meet their obligations to us or comply with GCP procedures could adversely affect the clinical development of our product candidates and harm our business.

We contract with third parties for the supply of materials used in drug formulation for clinical testing and expect to contract with third parties for the manufacturing of our product candidates for large-scale testing. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We anticipate continuing our engagement of third parties to provide our clinical supply as we advance our product candidates into and through clinical development. We expect in the future to use third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture. We plan to enter into long-term supply agreements with several manufacturers for commercial supplies. We may be unable to reach agreement on satisfactory terms with contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates. Additionally, the facilities to manufacture our product candidates must be the subject of a satisfactory inspection before the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities approve a BLA or grant a marketing authorization for the product candidate manufactured at that facility. We will depend on these third-party manufacturers for compliance with the FDA’s and the EMA’s requirements for the manufacture of our finished products. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturers for compliance with cGMPs. If our manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the FDA, European Commission and other regulatory authorities’ cGMP requirements, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved, and may subject us to recalls or enforcement action for products already on the market.

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

Any of these factors could cause the delay of approval or commercialization of our product candidates, cause us to incur higher costs or prevent us from commercializing our product candidates successfully. Furthermore, if any of our product candidates are approved and contract manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of finished product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, in substantially equivalent volumes and quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and could lose potential revenue. It may take several years to establish an alternative source of supply for our product candidates and to have any such new source approved by the FDA, the EMA or any other relevant regulatory authorities.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we fail to establish, maintain, defend and enforce intellectual property rights with respect to our technology, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection with respect to our intellectual property and proprietary technology. Our product candidates utilize our proprietary technology relating to the oral delivery of large molecules for the treatment of certain conditions with oral PTH. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions relating to our product candidates and technologies that are important to our business. This process is expensive, complex and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. If we do not adequately obtain, maintain, protect and enforce our proprietary rights in our technologies, competitors may be able to use our technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to achieve profitability.

We have limited patent protection with respect to our product candidates and technologies. We have been issued a patent that contains claims directed to compositions comprising a protein, an absorption enhancer and a protease inhibitor, as well as methods for oral administration of a protein with an enzymatic activity in each of the United States, Australia, Japan, China, Israel, Canada, New Zealand and Russia. Related patent applications are pending in the United States, the European Union, Hong Kong, Brazil, India, Israel and Russia. We have also filed five Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications (with a sixth application expected to be filed in August 2017), that currently contain claims directed to oral administration technologies, including compositions and drug delivery devices utilizing an absorption enhancer and methods of treating osteoporosis, hypoparathyroidism and bone fractures and related conditions with orally administered parathyroid hormone. We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to any of our pending or future patent applications, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable. The patent position of pharmaceutical companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably, and can change. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents. Even if our pending patent applications issue as patents, such patents may not cover our product candidates in the United States or in other countries. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether additional patents protecting our technology will issue in the United States or in non-U.S. jurisdictions, or whether any patents that do issue will have claims of adequate scope to provide us with a competitive advantage.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing technology and products similar or identical to ours, or limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and product candidates. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States and most foreign jurisdictions, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its effective filing date. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. For example, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the useful patent term lost, if any, during the FDA regulatory review process. However, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product’s approval by the FDA, only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. We may not be granted an extension because we may fail to satisfy applicable requirements and even if we are granted an extension, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. In addition, if we encounter delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product under patent protection could be reduced. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once such patents expire, we may be vulnerable to competition from similar or generic products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, we cannot provide any assurance that any of our issued patents or any patents that may issue to us in the future will provide sufficient protections for our technology or product candidates, in whole or in part, or will effectively prevent competitors from commercializing similar or identical technologies and products.

Our issued patents may not be sufficient to provide us with a competitive advantage. For example, competitors and other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. We may also grant licenses under our intellectual property that may limit our ability to exploit such intellectual property. For example, we are party to a patent transfer agreement with Oramed Ltd., or the Patent Transfer Agreement, pursuant to which we have granted Oramed Ltd. an exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable and perpetual license, with the right to sublicense, under certain of our patent rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize covered products or otherwise exploit such patent rights in the fields of diabetes and influenza and we have agreed not to, directly or indirectly, engage in any activities within the fields of diabetes and influenza. Even if such agreement were to be terminated, Oramed Ltd. would retain its exclusive license under such patent rights.

In the future, we may enter into collaborative agreements or license agreements with third parties which may subject us to obligations that must be fulfilled and require us to manage complex relationships with third parties. If we are unable to meet our obligations or manage our relationships with our collaborators under these agreements, our revenue may decrease. From the standpoint of our future strategic collaborators, the strength of the intellectual property under which we may grant licenses can be a determinant of the value of these relationships. If we are unable to secure, protect and enforce our intellectual property, it may become more difficult for us to attract strategic collaborators. The loss or diminution of our intellectual property rights could also result in a decision by future third-party collaborators to terminate their agreements with us. In addition, these agreements may be complex and may contain provisions that could give rise to legal disputes, including potential disputes concerning financial obligations or ownership of intellectual property and data under such agreements. Such disputes can lead to lengthy, expensive litigation or arbitration, requiring us to divert management time and resources to such dispute. Any such development could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may become involved in proceedings to protect or enforce our proprietary rights, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors or other third parties may infringe or otherwise violate our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or other violations, we may be required to file claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. Any such claims could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against

us, including claims alleging that we infringe their patents or other intellectual property rights. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of the patents we assert is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to prevent the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology. In any intellectual property litigation, even if we are successful, any award of monetary damages or other remedy we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Third parties may also raise challenges to the validity of our patent claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions such as opposition proceedings. If third parties have prepared and filed patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference proceedings in the USPTO, to determine priority of invention for patent applications filed before March 16, 2013, or in derivation proceedings to determine inventorship for patent applications filed after such date. Such proceedings could result in the revocation of, cancellation of, or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or provide us with any competitive advantage.

In addition, we may be subject to third-party challenges regarding our exclusive ownership of our intellectual property. If a third party were successful in challenging our exclusive ownership of any of our intellectual property, we may lose our right to use such intellectual property, such third party may be able to license such intellectual property to other third parties, including our competitors, and third parties could market competing products and technology. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We may face claims that we are violating the intellectual property rights of others.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Other entities may have or obtain patents or other proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates and future approved products or impair our competitive position. We may face claims, including from direct competitors, asserting that the commercial use of our technology infringes or otherwise violates the intellectual property rights of others. We cannot be certain that our technologies and processes do not violate the intellectual property rights of others. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. We expect that we may increasingly be subject to such claims as our product candidates approach commercialization, and as we gain greater visibility as a public company. We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates and their uses. Thus, we do not know with certainty that our oral PTH (1-34) tablet or any other product candidate, or our commercialization thereof, does not and will not infringe or otherwise violate any third party’s intellectual property.

If we were found to infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of others, we could face significant costs to implement work-arounds, and we cannot provide any assurance that any such work-around would be available or technically equivalent to our current technology. In such cases, we might need to license a third party’s intellectual property, and such required licenses might not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us and could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could expose us to similar liabilities and have a similar negative impact on our business.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform or predictable. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries generally, and these lawsuits can be very time consuming and costly. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be successful in doing so. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in defending these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Also, to the extent that our agreements provide that we will defend and indemnify our suppliers, service providers, future strategic collaborators or any other party for claims against them relating to any alleged infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties in connection with such suppliers’, service providers’, strategic collaborators’ or other parties’ use of our technologies, we may incur substantial costs defending and indemnifying such parties to the extent they are subject to these types of claims. Any claims brought against us, any suppliers, service providers, future strategic collaborators or any other party indemnified by us alleging that we have violated the intellectual property of others could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

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

We currently have limited patent protection for our product candidates and technologies, and filing, prosecuting, maintaining and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, we may not pursue or obtain patent protection in all major markets. In addition, the legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to life sciences. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Furthermore, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained or are unable to adequately enforce patent protection to develop or commercialize their own products. These products may compete with our future products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in such jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in the United States and foreign countries may affect our ability to obtain adequate protection for our technology and to enforce our intellectual property.

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

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing pharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has recently enacted wide-ranging patent reform legislation, which includes provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, may affect patent

litigation, and switch the U.S. patent system from a “first to invent” system to a “first to file” system. It is not clear what, if any, impact such legislation will have on the operation of our business. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any U.S. patents that may issue to us in the future, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Intellectual property litigation may lead to unfavorable publicity that harms our reputation and causes the market price of our ordinary shares to decline.

During the course of any intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our product candidates or future products, services or intellectual property could be diminished and the market price of our ordinary shares may decline as a result. Furthermore, such negative publicity could severely impair our capability to enter into future agreements with key commercial collaborators.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our owned patents and/or applications and any patent rights we may own or license in the future. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government patent agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Under applicable employment laws, we may not be able to enforce covenants not to compete and therefore may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of some of our former employees. In addition, our Israeli employees may be entitled to seek compensation for their inventions irrespective of their contractual agreements with us.

Our agreements with our employees and key consultants generally include non-competition provisions. These provisions prohibit such employees and key consultants, if they cease working for us, from competing directly with us or working for our competitors or clients for a limited period of time. We may be unable to enforce these provisions under the laws of the jurisdictions in which our employees and consultants work and it may be difficult for us to restrict our competitors from benefitting from the expertise our former employees or consultants developed while working for us. For example, Israeli courts have required employers seeking to enforce non-compete undertakings of a former employee to demonstrate that the competitive activities of the former employee will harm one of a limited number of material interests of the employer which have been recognized by the courts, such as the secrecy of a company’s confidential commercial information or the protection of its intellectual property. If we cannot demonstrate that such interests will be harmed, we may be unable to prevent our competitors from benefiting from the expertise of our former employees or consultants and our ability to remain competitive may be diminished. In addition, we cannot guarantee that any waiver of rights by our employees and consultants to receive compensation for inventions made by such employees or consultants during or in consequence of their service for us, or Service Inventions, will be upheld by Israeli courts even when our agreements with them include provisions

regarding the assignment and waiver of rights to additional compensation in respect of inventions created within the course of their employment with us, including in respect of Service Inventions as defined under the Israel Patents Law, 5727-1967. This is primarily due to a recent ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court that left the validity of such provisions to further judicial review. If we are required to pay additional compensation or face other disputes relating to Service Inventions, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

We may not be able to protect the confidentiality of our technology, which, if disseminated, could negatively impact our plan of operations.

In addition to seeking patent protection, we also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that may not be patentable, processes for which patents may be difficult to obtain and/or enforce, and other elements of our technology. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, which would harm our competitive position. While we strive to maintain systems and procedures to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets and technical know-how, these systems and procedures may fail to provide an adequate degree of protection. For example, although we generally enter into agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors, and other collaborators restricting the disclosure and use of trade secrets, technical know-how and confidential information, we cannot provide any assurance that these agreements will be sufficient to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets and technical know-how, that these agreements will not be breached or that we have executed agreements with all parties who may have had access to our proprietary information. We may not have adequate remedies in the case of a breach of any such agreements, and our competitors or others may independently develop substantially equivalent or superior proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or know-how. Monitoring and policing unauthorized use and disclosure of intellectual property is difficult. Further, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, or if our competitors or other third parties independently develop any of our trade secrets, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We currently have relationships with different consultants who perform research and development activities for us and who are not employed by us, and we may enter into additional relationships of such nature in the future. We have limited control over the activities of these consultants and can expect only limited amounts of their time to be dedicated to our activities. These persons may have consulting, employment or advisory arrangements with other entities that may conflict with or compete with their obligations to us. We typically require our consultants to sign agreements that require such consultants treat our proprietary information and results of studies as confidential. However, in connection with each such relationship, we may not be able to maintain the confidentiality of our technology, the dissemination of which could hurt our competitive position and results of operations. To the extent that our scientific consultants develop inventions or processes independently that may be applicable to our product candidates, disputes may arise as to the ownership of the proprietary rights to such information, and we may expend significant resources in such disputes and we may not win those disputes.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that we or our employees, consultants or contractors have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Certain of our employees, consultants and contractors were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees, consultants or contractors have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s, consultant’s or contractor’s former employer.

In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Further, such assignment agreements may not be self-executing, may be insufficient in scope or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

If trademarks and trade names related to our product candidates are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

We do not currently own or use any registered trademarks for our product candidates. In the future, our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Ordinary Shares and this Offering

The price of our ordinary shares may be volatile, and you may not be able to resell your shares at or above the initial public offering price.

The share price of publicly traded emerging biopharmaceutical and drug discovery and development companies has been highly volatile and is likely to remain highly volatile in the future. These fluctuations may result from a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

In addition, the stock market in general has recently experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of individual companies. Broad market and industry factors may materially affect the market price of companies’ stock, including ours, regardless of actual operating performance.

There was no public market for our ordinary shares prior to this offering, and an active market in our ordinary shares may not develop in which investors can resell our ordinary shares.

Prior to this offering there was no public market for our ordinary shares. We cannot predict the extent to which an active market for our ordinary shares will develop or be sustained after this offering, or how the development of such a market might affect the market price for our ordinary shares. The initial public offering price of our ordinary shares in this offering was agreed between us and the underwriters based on a number of factors, including market conditions in effect at the time of this offering, which may not be indicative of the price at which our ordinary shares will trade following completion of this offering. Investors may not be able to sell their ordinary shares at or above the initial public offering price.

Immediately following this offering, D.N.A Biomedical will beneficially own approximately           % of our ordinary shares and may therefore be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval.

Immediately following this offering, D.N.A Biomedical Solutions Ltd., or D.N.A Biomedical, will beneficially own approximately           % of our outstanding shares. Accordingly, subject to special approvals required by Israeli law for transactions involving controlling shareholders, D.N.A Biomedical may be able to exercise significant influence over all matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions, which could have the effect of delaying or preventing either a third party from acquiring control over us or engaging in other purchases of our ordinary shares that might otherwise give our shareholders the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price for our ordinary shares or any changes, or from making any changes to our management or board of directors. D.N.A Biomedical could also sell its stake in our company and effectively transfer control of our company to another party without your consent.

The market price of our ordinary shares could be negatively affected by future sales of our ordinary shares.

After this offering, we will have           ordinary shares outstanding. If we or our shareholders sell substantial amounts of our ordinary shares or if there is a public perception that these sales may occur in the future, the market price of our ordinary shares may decline. We, together with our directors, officers and our significant shareholders, in the aggregate beneficially owning           % of our outstanding ordinary shares as of                 , 2017.

, have agreed with the underwriters of this offering not to sell any ordinary shares, other than the shares offered through this prospectus, for a period of 180 days following the date of this prospectus, subject to certain exceptions. See “Shares Eligible for Future Sale” and “Underwriters.”

We have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from this offering and may not use them effectively.

We intend to allocate the net proceeds from this offering to our different areas of activity. Our management may not apply the net proceeds in ways that ultimately increase the value of your investment in our ordinary shares. They will have broad discretion in the application of the use of proceeds from this offering, and you will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of these proceeds. If we do not invest or apply the net proceeds from this offering in ways that enhance shareholder value, we may fail to achieve expected financial results, which could cause the price of our ordinary shares to decline.

If you purchase ordinary shares in this offering, you will suffer immediate dilution of your investment.

If you purchase ordinary shares in this offering, you will pay a price per ordinary share that exceeds our pro forma net tangible book value (deficit) per ordinary share. You will experience immediate dilution of $           per ordinary share, representing the difference between our pro forma net tangible book value (deficit) per ordinary share of $           as of December 31, 2016 and the assumed initial public offering price of $           per ordinary share (the midpoint of the estimated offering price range on the cover of this prospectus). Purchasers of ordinary shares in this offering will have contributed approximately % of the aggregate price paid by all purchasers of our ordinary shares but will own only approximately           % of our ordinary shares outstanding after this offering. To the extent options or warrants for our ordinary shares are exercised, you will incur further dilution. See “Dilution.”

We do not intend to pay dividends.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares. In addition, Israeli law may limit our declaration or payment of dividends, and may subject our dividends to Israeli withholding taxes. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance operations and to expand our business and, therefore, do not expect to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We will be a foreign private issuer and, as a result, we will not be subject to U.S. proxy rules and will be subject to Exchange Act reporting obligations that, to some extent, are more lenient and less frequent than those of a U.S. domestic public company.

Upon consummation of this offering, we will report under the Exchange Act as a non-U.S. company with foreign private issuer status. Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. domestic public companies, including (i) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act, (ii) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time and (iii) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8-K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events. We do, however, intend to make available to our shareholders quarterly reports containing unaudited financial information for each of the first three quarters of each fiscal year. In addition, foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until four months after the end of each fiscal year, while U.S. domestic issuers that are accelerated filers are required to file their annual report on Form 10-K within 75 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from the Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information. As a result of the above, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

As a foreign private issuer and as permitted by the listing requirements of           , we will follow certain home country governance practices rather than the corporate governance requirements of the           .

As a foreign private issuer, we have the option to follow certain Israeli corporate governance practices rather than those of           , except to the extent that such laws would be contrary to U.S. securities laws, and provided that we disclose the requirements we are not following and describe the home country practices we follow instead. We intend to rely on this “foreign private issuer exemption” with respect to the           shareholder approval requirements in respect of equity issuances and equity-based compensation plans and the quorum requirement for meetings of our shareholders. In addition, we intend to rely on the “foreign private issuer exemption” in the future with respect to the           compensation committee requirements. We may in the future elect to follow home country practices in Israel with regard to other matters. As a result, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all           corporate governance requirements.

We may lose our status as a foreign private issuer, which would increase our compliance costs and could thereby negatively impact our results of operations.

We may no longer be a foreign private issuer as of June 30, 2018 (the end of our second fiscal quarter in the fiscal year after this offering), which would require us to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to U.S. domestic issuers as of January 1, 2019. We will not maintain our current status as a foreign private issuer, if (a) a majority of our ordinary shares is not either directly or indirectly owned of record by non-residents of the United States and (b) one of the following applies: (i) a majority of our executive officers or directors are United States citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of our assets are located in the United States or (iii) our business is administered principally inside the United States. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. We may also be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with governance practices associated with U.S. domestic issuers. Such modifications will involve additional costs. In addition, we may lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements on           that are available to foreign private issuers. As a result, we expect that a loss of foreign private issuer status would increase our legal and financial compliance costs and would make some activities highly time consuming and costly. We also expect that if we were required to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, it would make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors.

We may be a passive foreign investment company, or a PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes for any taxable year, which generally would result in certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to our U.S. shareholders.

In general, a non-U.S. corporation is a “passive foreign investment company,” or a PFIC, for any taxable year in which (i) 75% or more of its gross income consists of passive income, or the income test, or (ii) 50% or more of the average quarterly value of its assets consists of assets that produce, or are held for the production of, passive income, or the assets test. Generally, “passive income” includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties and certain gains, and cash (including cash raised in this offering) is a passive asset for PFIC purposes. The assets shown on our balance sheet are expected to consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents for the foreseeable future. Therefore, whether we will satisfy the assets test for the current or any future taxable year will depend largely on the quarterly value of our goodwill. Because the value of our goodwill may be determined by reference to the quarterly market price of our ordinary shares from time to time, which may be especially volatile given the nature and early stage of our business, and because a company’s PFIC status is an annual determination that can be made only after the end of each taxable year, we cannot express a view as to whether we will be a PFIC for the current or any future taxable year. In addition, it is not clear how to apply the income test to a company such as our company, whose only income for a relevant taxable year is passive interest income but whose overall losses significantly exceed the amount of such passive income. We believe that it is reasonable to take the position that a company like us, whose overall losses exceed its passive income, would not be a PFIC if it otherwise would not be a PFIC under the assets test for the relevant taxable year, but there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service will respect, or a court will uphold, such position. If we were a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. investor owned our ordinary shares, such U.S. shareholder generally will be subject to certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, including increased tax liability on gains from dispositions of the ordinary shares and certain distributions and a requirement to file annual reports with the Internal Revenue Service. See “Taxation and Government Programs—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders—Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules” for more information.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain whether the reduced requirements applicable to “emerging growth companies” will make our ordinary shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth

companies.” For instance, for so long as we remain an “emerging growth company,” we will not be subject to the provision of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that requires our independent registered public accounting firm to provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. This may increase the risk that we will fail to detect and remedy any weaknesses or deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting. We have also elected to include two years of audited financial statements and selected financial data, as permitted for an “emerging growth company” compared to three and five years, respectively, for comparable data reported by other public companies. In general, these reduced reporting requirements may allow us to refrain from disclosing information that you may find important.

We could be an “emerging growth company” for up to five years, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if the market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of any June 30 (the end of our second fiscal quarter) before that time, in which case we would no longer be an “emerging growth company” as of the following December 31 (our fiscal year end). When we are no longer deemed to be an “emerging growth company,” we will not be entitled to the exemptions provided in the JOBS Act. We cannot predict if investors will find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result of our reliance on exemptions under the JOBS Act. If some investors find our ordinary shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our ordinary shares and our share price may be more volatile.

We have not yet determined whether our existing internal control over financial reporting is compliant with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and we cannot provide any assurance that there are no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our existing internal controls.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the related rules adopted by the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or Section 404, starting with the second annual report that we file with the SEC after the consummation of this offering, our management will be required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, once we no longer qualify as an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act and lose the ability to rely on the exemptions related thereto discussed above, our independent registered public accounting firm will also need to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404.

We have only initially commenced the process of determining whether our existing internal controls over financial reporting systems are compliant with Section 404 and whether there are any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our existing internal controls. This process will require the investment of substantial time and resources, including by our Chief Financial Officer and other members of our senior management. As a result, this process may divert internal resources and take a significant amount of time and effort to complete.

In addition, we cannot predict the outcome of this determination and whether we will need to implement remedial actions in order to implement effective control over financial reporting. The determination and any remedial actions required could result in us incurring additional costs that we did not anticipate. Irrespective of compliance with Section 404, any failure of our internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our stated results of operations and harm our reputation. As a result, we may experience higher than anticipated operating expenses, as well as higher independent auditor fees during and after the implementation of these changes. If we are unable to implement any of the required changes to our internal control over financial reporting effectively or efficiently or are required to do so earlier than anticipated, it could adversely affect our operations, financial reporting and/or results of operations and could result in an adverse opinion on internal controls from our independent auditors.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports or publish unfavorable research about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our ordinary shares will depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by securities and industry analysts. If securities or industry analysts do not commence coverage of our company, the trading price for our shares would be negatively affected. In the event we obtain securities or industry analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our shares, our shares price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases to cover us or fails to publish regular reports on us, interest in the purchase of our shares could decrease, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

Risks Relating to Our Incorporation and Location in Israel

The Israeli government grants we have received for research and development expenditures restrict our ability to manufacture products and transfer technologies outside of Israel and require us to satisfy specified conditions. If we fail to satisfy these conditions, we may be required to refund grants previously received together with interest and penalties or to pay other amounts according to the formulas set out in the relevant laws.

Our research and development efforts have been financed, in part, through the grants that we have received from the Israeli Innovation Authority (formerly known as the Office of Chief Scientist of the Israeli Ministry of Economy), or the IIA. Pursuant to these grants, we must comply with the requirements of the Encouragement of Industrial Research, Development and Technological Innovation in Industry Law 5744-1984, or the Research Law. Until the grants are repaid with interest, royalties are payable to the IIA in the amount of 3% on revenues derived from sales of products or services developed in whole or in part using the IIA grants, including EB612, EB613 and any other oral PTH product candidates we may develop. The royalty rate may increase to 5%, with respect to approved applications filed after we achieve sales of over $70 million in the year prior to the application.

Under the Research Law, we are prohibited from manufacturing products developed using these grants outside of the State of Israel without special approvals. We may not receive the required approvals for any proposed transfer of manufacturing activities. Even if we do receive approval to manufacture products developed with government grants outside of Israel, the royalty rate may be increased and we may be required to pay up to three times the grant amounts plus interest, depending on the manufacturing volume that is performed outside of Israel. This restriction may impair our ability to outsource manufacturing or engage in our own manufacturing operations for those products or technologies. See “Business— The Israeli Innovation Authority Grant” for additional information.

Additionally, under the Research Law, we are prohibited from transferring in any manner (including by way of license), the IIA-financed technologies and related rights (including know-how and other intellectual property rights) outside of the State of Israel, except under limited circumstances and only with the approval of the IIA Research Committee. We may not receive the required approvals for any proposed transfer and, even if received, we may be required to pay the IIA a portion of the consideration that we receive upon any transfer of such technology to a non-Israeli entity up to 600% of the grant amounts plus interest. The scope of the IIA support received, the royalties that we have already paid to the IIA, the amount of time that has elapsed between the date on which the know-how or other intellectual property rights were transferred and the date on which the IIA grants were received and the sale price and the form of transaction will be taken into account in order to calculate the amount of the payment to the IIA. Approval to transfer the technology to residents of the State of Israel is also required, and may be granted in specific circumstances only if the recipient abides by the provisions of applicable laws, including the restrictions on the transfer of know-how and the obligation to pay royalties. No assurance can be made that approval to any such transfer, if requested, will be granted. Transfer of know-how or rights outside of the state of Israel without IIA approval is a criminal offense.

These restrictions may impair our ability to sell our technology assets or to perform or outsource manufacturing outside of Israel, engage in change of control transactions or otherwise transfer our know-how outside of Israel and may require us to obtain the approval of the IIA for certain actions and transactions and pay additional royalties and other amounts to the IIA. In addition, any change of control and any change of ownership of our ordinary shares (including by way of an initial public offering) that would make a non-Israeli citizen or resident an “interested party,” as defined in the Israeli Securities Law, 5728-1968, as amended, or the Securities Law, requires written notice to the IIA, and our failure to comply with this requirement could result in monetary fines. Such non-Israeli interested parties, which include 5% shareholders and shareholders who have the right to appoint a director to our board of directors, are required to sign an undertaking towards the IIA in which they would undertake to comply with the Research Law. Shareholders that purchase shares in an IPO would not be required to sign such an undertaking.

These restrictions will continue to apply even after we have repaid the full amount of the grants. If we fail to satisfy the conditions of the Research Law, we may be required to refund certain grants previously received together with interest and penalties, and may become subject to criminal charges.

Security, political and economic instability in the Middle East may harm our business.

Our principal offices and research and development facilities are located in Israel. Accordingly, political, economic and military conditions in the Middle East may affect our business directly. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a number of armed conflicts have occurred between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Hamas (an Islamist militia and political group in the Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (an Islamist militia and political group in Lebanon). Recent political uprisings, social unrest and violence in various countries in the Middle East and North Africa, including Israel’s neighbors Egypt and Syria, are affecting the political stability of those countries. This instability may lead to deterioration of the political relationships that exist between Israel and these countries and have raised concerns regarding security in the region and the potential for armed conflict. In addition, Iran has threatened to attack Israel and is widely believed to be developing nuclear weapons. Iran is also believed to have a strong influence among the Syrian government, Hamas and Hezbollah. These situations may potentially escalate in the future to more violent events which may affect Israel and us. These situations, including conflicts which involved missile strikes against civilian targets in various parts of Israel have in the past negatively affected business conditions in Israel.

Any hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its present trading partners could have a material adverse effect on our business. Although such hostilities did not in the past have a material adverse impact on our business, we cannot guarantee that hostilities will not be renewed and have such an effect in the future. The political and security situation in Israel may result in parties with whom we have contracts claiming that they are not obligated to perform their commitments under those agreements pursuant to force majeure provisions. These or other Israeli political or economic factors could harm our operations and product development. Any hostilities involving Israel or the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its present trading partners could adversely affect our operations and could make it more difficult for us to raise capital. Furthermore, several countries restrict business with Israel and Israeli companies, which could have an adverse effect on our business. We could experience disruptions if acts associated with this conflict result in any serious damage to our facilities. Our business interruption insurance may not adequately compensate us for losses that may occur, and any losses or damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our operations may be disrupted by the obligations of personnel to perform military service.

Our employees in Israel, including executive officers, may be called upon to perform up to 36 days (and in some cases more) of annual military reserve duty until they reach the age of 40 (or older, for reservists with certain occupations) and, in emergency circumstances, could be called to active duty. In response to increased tension and hostilities, since September 2000 there have been occasional call-ups of military reservists, including in connection with the mid-2006 war in Lebanon and the December 2008, November 2012 and July 2014 conflicts with Hamas, and it is possible that there will be additional call-ups in the future. Our operations could be disrupted by the absence of a significant number of our employees related to military service or the absence for extended periods of one or more of our key employees for military service. Such disruption could materially adversely affect our operations, business and results of operations.

Our business is subject to currency exchange risk and fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and other currencies may negatively affect our earnings and results of operations.

The U.S. dollar is both our functional and reporting currency. As a result, our results of operations may be adversely affected by exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and the NIS. A significant portion of the expenses associated with our Israeli operations, including personnel and facilities related expenses, are incurred in NIS. Consequently, inflation in Israel will have the effect of increasing the cost of our operations in Israel unless it is offset on a timely basis by a devaluation of the NIS relative to the U.S. dollar. In addition, if the value of the U.S. dollar decreases against the NIS, our earnings may be negatively impacted. Moreover, exchange rate fluctuations in currency exchange rates in countries other than Israel where we operate, perform our clinical trials or conduct business may also negatively affect our earnings and results of operations.

Potential future revenue may be derived from abroad, including outside of the United States. As a result, our business and share price may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates with these other currencies, which may also have a significant impact on our reported results of operations and cash flows from period to period. Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place. Foreign currency fluctuations could materially adversely affect our results of operations or could positively affect our results of operations in ways that may not necessarily be repeated in future periods.

It may be difficult to enforce a U.S. judgment against us or our officers and directors and to assert U.S. securities laws claims in Israel.

We are incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel. Service of process upon us, our directors and officers and the Israeli experts, if any, named in this prospectus, substantially all of whom reside outside the United States, may be difficult to obtain within the United States. Furthermore, because the majority of our assets and investments, and substantially all of our directors, officers and such Israeli experts, if any, are located outside the United States, any judgment obtained in the United States against us or any of them may be difficult to collect within the United States.

In addition, it may be difficult for an investor to assert U.S. securities law claims in original actions instituted in Israel. Israeli courts may refuse to hear a claim based on an alleged violation of U.S. securities laws reasoning that Israel is not the most appropriate forum to bring such a claim. In addition, even if an Israeli court agrees to hear a claim, it may determine that Israeli law and not U.S. law is applicable to the claim. If U.S. law is found to be applicable, the content of applicable U.S. law must be proved as a fact, which can be a time-consuming and costly process. Certain matters of procedure will also be governed by Israeli law. There is little binding case law in Israel addressing the matters described above. See the section entitled “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities.”

Provisions of Israeli law may delay, prevent or make difficult a change of control and therefore depress the price of our shares.

Israeli corporate law regulates mergers, requires tender offers for acquisitions of shares above specified thresholds, requires special approvals for transactions involving directors, officers or significant shareholders and regulates other matters that may be relevant to these types of transactions. For additional information regarding the regulation of mergers and tender offers under the Israeli Companies Law see “Description of Share Capital—Anti-Takeover Provisions; Mergers and Acquisitions.” For example, under the Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, or the Companies Law, upon the request of a creditor of either party to a proposed merger, the court may delay or prevent the merger if it concludes that there exists a reasonable concern that as a result of the merger the surviving company will be unable to satisfy the obligations of any of the parties to the merger.

Furthermore, Israeli tax considerations may make potential transactions unappealing to us or to our shareholders whose country of residence does not have a tax treaty with Israel exempting such shareholders from Israeli tax. For example, Israeli tax law does not recognize tax-free share exchanges to the same extent as U.S. tax law. With respect to mergers, Israeli tax law allows for tax deferral in certain circumstances that makes the deferral contingent on the fulfillment of numerous conditions, including a holding period of two years from the date of the transaction during which sales and dispositions of shares of the participating companies are restricted. Moreover, with respect to certain share swap transactions, the tax deferral is limited in time, and when the time expires, tax then becomes payable even if no actual disposition of the shares has occurred.

These provisions could cause our ordinary shares to trade at prices below the price for which third parties might be willing to pay to gain control of us. Third parties who are otherwise willing to pay a premium over prevailing market prices to gain control of us may be unable or unwilling to do so because of these provisions of Israeli law.

Your rights and responsibilities as a shareholder will be governed by Israeli law, which may differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders of U.S. companies.

We are incorporated under Israeli law. The rights and responsibilities of the holders of our ordinary shares are governed by our then-current Articles of association and Israeli law. These rights and responsibilities differ in some respects from the rights and responsibilities of shareholders in typical U.S.-based corporations. In particular, a shareholder of an Israeli company has a duty to act in good faith toward the company and other shareholders and to refrain from abusing its power in the company, including, among other things, in voting at the general meeting of shareholders on matters such as amendments to a company’s articles of association, increases in a company’s authorized share capital, mergers and acquisitions and interested party transactions requiring shareholder approval. In addition, a shareholder who knows that it possesses the power to determine the outcome of a shareholder vote or to appoint or prevent the appointment of a director or executive officer in the company has a duty of fairness toward the company. There is limited case law available to assist us in understanding the implications of these provisions that govern shareholders’ actions, and these provisions may be interpreted to impose additional obligations and liabilities on holders of our ordinary shares that are not typically imposed on shareholders of U.S. corporations. See “Description of Share Capital—Our Ordinary Shares.”

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This prospectus includes forward-looking statements that relate to future events or our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts and can be identified by words such as, but not limited to, “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “targets,” “likely,” “will,” “would,” “could,” and similar expressions or phrases. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our management’s current expectations and future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

All forward-looking statements involve risks, assumptions and uncertainties. You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictors of future events. The occurrence of the events described, and the achievement of the expected results, depend on many events, some or all of which are not predictable or within our control. Actual results may differ materially from expected results. See the sections below “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this prospectus for a more complete discussion of these risks, assumptions and uncertainties and for other risks and uncertainties. These risks, assumptions and uncertainties are not necessarily all of the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any of our forward-looking statements. Other unknown or unpredictable factors also could harm our results. All of the forward-looking statements we have included in this prospectus are based on information available to us on the date of this prospectus. We undertake no obligation, and specifically decline any obligation, to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in this prospectus might not occur.

Use of Proceeds

We estimate that we will receive net proceeds of approximately $           million from our sale of ordinary shares (or approximately $           million if the underwriters fully exercise their over-allotment option), after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and the estimated offering expenses payable by us. This assumes an offering price of $           per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated offering price range on the cover page of this prospectus.

As of           , we had cash and cash equivalents of $           million. We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering, together with our cash and cash equivalents to fund research and development expenses of oral PTH, the development of other therapeutics, the repayment of outstanding indebtedness and for working capital and general corporate purposes.

Our expected use of net proceeds from this offering represents our current intentions based upon our present plans and business condition. As of the date of this prospectus, we cannot predict with certainty all of the particular uses for the net proceeds to be received upon the completion of this offering or the amounts that we will actually spend on the uses set forth above. The amounts and timing of our actual use of net proceeds will vary depending on numerous factors, including our ability to obtain additional financing, the relative success and cost of our research, preclinical and clinical development programs, including a change in our planned course of development or the termination of a clinical program necessitated by the results of data received from clinical trials, the amount and timing of additional revenues, if any, received from future collaborations. As a result, management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds, and investors will be relying on our judgment regarding the application of the net proceeds of this offering. In addition, we might decide to postpone or not pursue other clinical trials or preclinical activities if the net proceeds from this offering and our other sources of cash are less than expected.

Based on our planned use of the net proceeds of this offering and our current cash and cash equivalents described above, we estimate that such funds will be sufficient to enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next           months. We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Pending their use, we plan to invest the net proceeds from this offering in short- and intermediate-term interest-bearing financial assets and certificates of deposit.

A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $         per share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) our net proceeds from this offering by $        million (or $           million if the underwriters fully exercise their over-allotment option), assuming the number of shares offered by us remains the same.

We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. An increase (decrease) of shares in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) our net proceeds from this offering by $          million, assuming the public offering price per share remains the same. The information on net proceeds payable to us discussed above is illustrative only and will adjust based on the actual initial public offering price, the actual number of ordinary shares offered by us, and other terms of the offering determined at pricing.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our ordinary shares and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our ordinary shares in the future. We currently intend to retain all future earnings to finance our operations and to expand our business. Any future determination relating to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on a number of factors, which may include future earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and future prospects and other factors the board of directors may deem relevant. Our ability to distribute dividends is limited under Israeli law, as described below under “Description of Share Capital—Our Ordinary Shares—Dividends and Liquidation Rights.”

Capitalization

The following table sets forth our cash and cash equivalents and capitalization as of December 31, 2016:

You should read this table together with our financial statements and the related notes, which we include elsewhere in this prospectus, and the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions” sections and other information contained in this prospectus.

* represents an amount less than one thousand

The table above does not reflect:

Dilution

Our historical deficit as of December 31, 2016, was $           , or $            , per share. Historical net tangible book value (deficit) per share is calculated by subtracting our total liabilities from our total tangible assets, which is total assets less intangible assets, and dividing this amount by the 34,544 issued and outstanding ordinary shares as of December 31, 2016.

Our pro forma net tangible book value (deficit) per share as of December 31, 2016, was $           , or $           per share. Pro forma net tangible book value (deficit) per share is calculated by subtracting our total liabilities from our total tangible assets which is total assets less intangible assets, and dividing this amount by the             issued and outstanding ordinary shares as of December 31, 2016, after giving pro forma effect to the IPO Transactions, as described in “Summary—The Offering.”

After giving effect to the sale by us of the              ordinary shares in this offering, at an assumed initial public offering price of $              per share, the midpoint of the estimated offering price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) at December 31, 2016, would have been $             , or $              per share. This represents an immediate increase in pro forma net tangible book value (deficit) to existing shareholders of $           per share and immediate dilution to new investors of $              per share.

The following table illustrates this per share dilution on a per share basis:

A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $           per share, the midpoint of the estimated offering price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) at December 31, 2016 by approximately $          , or approximately $           per share and the dilution to new investors of $              per share, assuming that the number of shares offered by us remains the same.

We may also increase or decrease the number of shares we are offering. An increase of             shares in the number of shares offered by us would result in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) at December 31, 2016 of approximately $         , or $           per share, and dilution to new investors of $              per share, assuming the public offering price per share remains the same. Similarly, a decrease of shares in the number of shares offered by us would result in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) at December 31, 2016 of approximately $        , or $           per share, and dilution to new investors of $              per share, assuming the public offering price per share remains the same. The dilution information discussed above is illustrative only and will change based on the actual public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

The following table sets forth, as of December 31, 2016, on a pro forma basis for the IPO Transactions, the number of ordinary shares purchased from us, the total consideration paid, or to be paid, and the average price per share paid, or to be paid, by existing shareholders and by the new investors, at an assumed initial public offering price of $           per share, the midpoint of the estimated offering price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, before deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us:

The foregoing tables assume no exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option or of outstanding options or warrants to purchase our shares after December 31, 2016. At December 31, 2016,           ordinary shares were subject to outstanding options at a weighted average exercise price of $           ,           warrants were outstanding, at an exercise price of $           per share, and warrants were outstanding, at an exercise price of $           per share. Pro forma for the IPO Transactions, additional warrants exercisable for           ordinary shares will be outstanding. See “Summary—The Offering.” To the extent these options and warrants are exercised there will be further dilution to new investors.

If the underwriters exercise the over-allotment option in full in this offering, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) will be $           million, or $           per share, representing an immediate increase in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) of approximately $           per share attributable to this offering to our existing shareholders and immediate dilution of $           per share to new investors purchasing ordinary shares in the offering.

Exchange Rates

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high, low, average and period-end exchange rates for the purchase of U.S. dollars expressed in NIS per U.S. dollar. The average rate is calculated by using the average of the Bank of Israel’s reported exchange rates on each day during a monthly period and on the last day of each month during an annual period. On July 13, 2017, the exchange rate as reported by the Bank of Israel was NIS 3.5340 to $1.00.

Selected Financial Data

The following tables set forth our selected financial data. You should read the following selected financial and other data in conjunction with “Summary Financial Data”, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected in the future. Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB.

The selected statements of comprehensive loss data for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2016 and the statements of financial position data as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 are derived from our audited financial statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual results and the timing of events may differ significantly from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including those set forth in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus. You should read the following discussion in conjunction with “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” included elsewhere in this prospectus. We have prepared our financial statements in accordance with IFRS as issued by IASB.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of orally delivered large molecule therapeutics for use in orphan indications and other areas with significant unmet medical need. We are initially applying our technology to develop an oral formulation of parathyroid hormone, or PTH, which has been approved in the United States in injectable form for over a decade. Our lead oral PTH product candidate, EB612,has successfully completed a Phase 2a trial in hyperparathyroidism, a rare condition in which the body fails to produce sufficient amounts of PTH. The FDA and the EMA have granted EB612 orphan drug designation for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. We expect to initiate a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial of EB612 in the first quarter of 2018, and we plan to submit applications for regulatory approval of EB612 in the first half of 2020. We are also developing a distinct oral PTH product candidate, EB613, for the treatment of osteoporosis. We intend to commence a Phase 2a clinical trial of EB613 in the fourth quarter of 2017 and an additional Phase 2b clinical trial in the United States in 2018. We also are preparing to conduct a clinical trial of our oral PTH in bone healing. In addition, we intend to use our technology as a platform for the oral delivery of other protein and large molecule therapeutics as well as novel therapeutics.

To date, we have funded our operations through sales of ordinary shares, preferred shares and warrants, and the incurrence of convertible loans and receipt of government grants. We have no products that have received regulatory approval and have never generated revenue. From our inception through December 31, 2016, we have raised an aggregate of $18.3 million to fund our operations, including $7.2 million from sales of our ordinary shares, preferred shares and warrants, $10.6 million from convertible loans (of which an amount of approximately $1.1 million was repaid in February 2017) and approximately $0.5 million of government grants. We were originally capitalized with $0.6 million of cash from D.N.A Biomedical Solutions Ltd., or D.N.A Biomedical, and a license to certain patent rights relating to the oral administration of proteins from Oramed Ltd., or Oramed, a subsidiary of Oramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and accordingly $0.6 million was recorded on our statements of financial position as an intangible asset based on the fair value of the ordinary shares issued in exchange for the license.

Since inception, we have incurred significant losses. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, our losses were $4.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and losses for the next several years. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $30.6 million. Our losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, depending on the timing of our clinical trials, our expenditures on any other research and development activities, the receipt of government grants and payments under any future collaborations into which we may enter.

As of December 31, 2016, we had cash and cash equivalents of $4.2 million. In order to fund further operations, we may need to raise capital in addition to the net proceeds of this offering. We may seek these funds through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, government grants, strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements. Additional financing may not be available when we need it or may not be available on terms that are favorable to us. Our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, included elsewhere in this prospectus, disclose our determination that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern absent sources of additional liquidity. The financial statements included herein have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern and do not include adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. If we are unable to raise the requisite funds, we will need to curtail or cease operations. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital.”

As of June 30, 2017, we had sixteen employees and one consultant, who provides consulting services to us on a full-time basis. In addition, we have entered into service agreements with three of our directors. Our operations are located in a single facility in Jerusalem, Israel.

Patent Transfer Agreement and Grant Funding

Oramed Patent Transfer Agreement

In 2011, we entered into a patent transfer agreement with Oramed, or the Patent Transfer Agreement, pursuant to which Oramed assigned to us all of its right, title and interest in the patent rights Oramed licensed to us when we were originally capitalized, subject to a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual and sublicensable license granted to Oramed under the assigned patent rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize products or otherwise exploit such patent rights in the fields of diabetes and influenza. Additionally, we agreed not to engage, directly or indirectly, in any activities in the fields of diabetes and influenza. Under the terms of the Patent Transfer Agreement, we agreed to pay Oramed royalties equal to 3% of our net revenues generated , directly or indirectly, from exploitation of the assigned patent rights, including the sale, lease or transfer of the assigned patent rights or sales of products or services covered by the assigned patent rights. See “Business—Oramed Patent Transfer Agreement.”

The Israeli Innovation Authority Grant (formerly: the Office of the Chief Scientist)

We have received grants of approximately $0.5 million from the IIA, to partially fund our research and development. The grants are subject to certain requirements and restrictions under the Israeli Encouragement of Industrial Research, Development and Technological Innovation in Industry Law 5477-1984, or the Research Law. In general, until the grants are repaid with interest, royalties are payable to the Israeli government in the amount of 3% on revenues derived from sales of products or services developed in whole or in part using the IIA grants, including EB612, EB613 and any other oral PTH product candidates we may develop. The royalty rate may increase to 5%, with respect to approved applications filed after we achieve sales of over $70 million in the year prior to the application.

The amount that must be repaid may be increased to three times the amount of the grant received, and the rate of royalties may be accelerated, if manufacturing of the products developed with the grant money is transferred outside of the State of Israel. Moreover, a payment of up to 600% of the grant received may be required upon the transfer of any IIA-funded know-how to a non-Israeli entity. As of December 31, 2016, the total royalty payable to the IIA, including accrued interest, was approximately $0.5 million and we had not paid any royalties to the IIA.

In addition to paying any royalties due, we must abide by other restrictions associated with receiving such grants under the Research Law that continue to apply following repayment to the IIA. See “Business— The Israeli Innovation Authority Grant.”

Financial Overview

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue. We do not expect to receive any revenue from any product candidates that we develop unless and until we obtain regulatory approval and successfully commercialize our products or enter into collaborative agreements with third parties.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred for the development of our drug delivery technology and our product candidates. Those expenses include:

Research and development activities are the primary focus of our business. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later-stage clinical trials. We expect that our research and development expenses will significantly increase in absolute dollars in future periods as we continue to invest in research and development activities related to the development of our product candidates.

Research expenses are recognized as incurred. An intangible asset arising from the development of our product candidates is recognized if certain capitalization conditions are met. During the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, we did not capitalize any development costs.

Our research and development expenses may vary substantially from period to period based on the timing of our research and development activities, including due to timing of initiation of clinical trials and enrollment of patients in clinical trials. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, our research and development expenses were $2.1 million and $2.6 million, respectively. Research and development expenses in 2015 and 2016 were primarily for the development of EB612. Research and development expenses are expected to increase as we advance the clinical development of EB612 and EB613 and our preclinical work on additional product candidates. We currently anticipate such expenses in 2017 to be in the range of $          million. The successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain. At this time we cannot reasonably estimate the nature, timing and estimated costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the development of, or the period, if any, in which material net cash inflows may commence from, any of our product candidates. This is due to numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing drugs, including the uncertainty of:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of EB612, EB613 or any other product candidate that we may develop could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of such product candidate. For example, if the FDA or other regulatory authority were to require us to conduct preclinical and/or clinical studies beyond those which we currently anticipate will be required for the completion of clinical development, if we experience significant delays in enrollment in any clinical trials or if we encounter difficulties in manufacturing our clinical supplies, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of the clinical development.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist principally of salaries and related costs for directors and personnel in executive and finance functions, such as salaries, benefits and share-based compensation. Other general and administrative expenses include facility costs, communication expenses and professional fees for legal services, patent counseling and portfolio maintenance, consulting, auditing and accounting services.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase following the completion of this offering due to many factors, the most significant of which include increased expenses associated with maintaining compliance with listing rules and SEC requirements as a result of becoming a publicly traded company, such as increased legal and accounting services, transfer agent and printing fees, addition of new headcount to support compliance and communication needs and increased insurance premiums.

Financial (Income) Expenses

Financial (income) expenses are comprised mainly of gains or losses resulting from the re-measurement of our convertible loan, preferred shares, warrants to purchase preferred shares and shares and liability to issue preferred shares and warrants. We will continue to record adjustments to the estimated fair value of the convertible loans, preferred shares, warrants to issue preferred shares and shares and liability to issue preferred shares and warrants until each are converted into our ordinary shares, after which we will no longer record any related periodic fair value adjustments.

Prior to the consummation of this offering we will adjust our convertible loan liability and our liability to issue preferred shares and warrants to their fair value as shall be evaluated based on the estimated public offering price. We expect to record additional financial expenses or income from the revaluation of our convertible loan liability, preferred shares and warrants. The liability to issue preferred shares and warrants will be extinguished upon fulfillment of the second milestones as described in the relevant share purchase agreements and as such liabilities will no longer exist once the underlying securities are issued. Under the terms of the applicable agreements, the convertible loans and preferred shares will be automatically converted into our ordinary shares, and the warrants to purchase preferred shares will be automatically converted into warrants to purchase ordinary shares, upon this offering.

Other financial expenses are comprised mainly of exchange rate differences of certain currencies against our functional currency.

Taxes on Income

We have not generated taxable income since our inception and as of December 31, 2016 had carry-forward tax losses of $9.9 million. We anticipate that we will be able to carry forward these tax losses indefinitely to future tax years. Accordingly, we do not expect to pay taxes in Israel until we have taxable income after the full utilization of our carryforward tax losses.

We recognize deferred tax assets on losses for tax purposes carried forward to subsequent years if utilization of the related tax benefit against a future taxable income is probable. We have not created deferred tax assets on our tax loss carryforwards because their utilization is not expected in the foreseeable future.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We describe our significant accounting policies more fully in Note 2 to our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. We believe that the accounting policies below are critical in order to fully understand and evaluate our financial condition and results of operations. The preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported expenses incurred during the reporting periods. Estimates and judgments are continually evaluated and are based on historical experience and other factors, including expectations of future events that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. The resulting accounting estimates will, by definition, seldom equal the related actual results. The estimates and assumptions that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next financial year are discussed below.

Share-Based Compensation

We have adopted a share-based compensation plan for employees, directors and service providers. As part of the plan, we grant employees, directors and service providers, from time to time and at our discretion, options to purchase our ordinary shares. The fair value of the services received in exchange for the grant of the options is recognized as an expense in our statements of comprehensive loss with a corresponding adjustment to equity in our statements of financial position. The total amount is recognized as an expense ratably over the vesting period of the options, which is the period during which all vesting conditions are expected to be met.

We estimate the fair value of our share-based compensation to employees, directors and service providers using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including (a) the expected volatility of our shares, (b) the expected term of the award, (c) the risk-free interest rate, (d) expected dividends and (e) the fair value of ordinary share at the date of grant. Due to the lack of a public market for the trading of our shares and a lack of company-specific historical and implied volatility data, we have based our estimate of expected volatility on the historic volatility of comparable companies that are publicly traded. We will continue to apply this process until a sufficient amount of historical information regarding the volatility of our own share price becomes available.

For options granted in 2015 and 2016 , the fair value per ordinary share used in the Black-Scholes option pricing model was evaluated using a hybrid model that uses an option pricing model within each applicable exit scenario of our company. These valuations are highly subjective.

For the purpose of determining our enterprise value, we used the discounted cash flow, or DCF, method. Under the DCF method, our projected after-tax cash flows were discounted back to present value, using the discount rate. The discount rate, known as the weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, accounts for the time value of money and the appropriate degree of risk inherent in our business. The DCF method requires significant assumptions, in particular, regarding our projected cash flows and the discount rate applicable to our business. For the purpose of that valuation we applied applicable discount rate, commencement of sales and probability of reaching sales.

Following this offering, the fair value of our ordinary shares will be determined based on the closing price of our ordinary shares on the            .

We are also required to estimate forfeitures at the time of grant, and we revise those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from the estimates. Vesting conditions are included in assumptions about the number of options that are expected to vest. At the end of each reporting period, we revise our estimates of the number of options that are expected to vest based on the nonmarket vesting conditions. We recognize the impact of the revision to original estimates, if any, in profit or loss, with a corresponding adjustment to equity.

The following table summarizes the allocation of our share-based compensation expense:

Fair Value of Financial Liabilities Through Profit or Loss

The preferred shares and warrants to purchase preferred shares are classified as financial liabilities because of the liquidation rights and conversion rights associated with the preferred shares and therefore are accounted for at fair value through profit or loss at each balance sheet date. The liability to issue preferred shares and warrants are classified as contingent forward contracts and therefore are also accounted for at fair value through profit or loss at each balance sheet date. To determine the fair value of the convertible loans, preferred shares, warrants and liability to issue preferred shares and warrants, we use our judgment to select a variety of methods and make assumptions that are mainly based on market conditions existing at the end of each reporting period. The estimated fair value of these liabilities might have been different if we had used different estimates and assumptions.

To determine the fair value of the convertible loans, which is a valuation that is not based on observable market data, or a level 3 valuation, the debt component was evaluated based on the discounting of future payments of the debt. The convertible components of the loans (the option to convert the principal amount of the loans and accrued interest into our ordinary shares or those of D.N.A Biomedical, in each case subject to adjustment) and warrants to purchase additional shares upon conversion of the applicable convertible loans, were evaluated based on a combination of the probability weighted expected return method and the back solve option pricing method model using the following parameters:

The weighted average cost of capital, or the discount rate, was calculated by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model to determine the required return on equity and is based on certain assumptions used to determine the appropriate cost of debt and capital structure, as follows:

The probability of reaching sales was determined based on a publicly available research studies of a large number of clinical trials in various size and stages and indications and their associated success rates based on stage of clinical trials.

To determine the fair value of the preferred shares, warrants to purchase preferred shares and shares and liability to issue preferred shares and warrants to purchase preferred shares we prepared a valuation of the fair value of each of these components. The three components were evaluated using a combination of the probability weighted expected return method and the back solve option pricing method model using the following parameters:

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $2.6 million, compared to $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase of $0.5 million, or 25.2%. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily due to an increase of $0.5 million in expenses for salaries and related employee expenses resulting from an increase in the number of employees (of which $0.1 million represented an increase in share-based compensation expenses), an increase of $0.3 million primarily due to expenses for materials and decrease of $0.3 million in expenses for subcontractors and CROs due to the successfully completion of Phase 2a trial in the third quarter of 2015.

General and administrative expenses.  General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $2.7 million, compared to $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase of $1.1 million, or 71.4%. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to an increase of $1.1 million in salaries and related employee expenses of which $1.0 million resulted from an increase in share-based compensation expenses.

Financial (income) expenses, net.  Financial income, net for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $4.2 million, compared to financial expenses, net of $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. Financial income, net for the year ended December 31, 2016 resulted mainly from the change in the fair value of convertible loans, preferred shares , warrants to purchase preferred shares and shares and liability to issue preferred shares and warrants that were recorded as a financial liability at fair value through profit or loss. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we recorded a gain of $4.3 million and a loss of $447,000, respectively, on the fair value of financial liabilities. For the assumptions used in the valuation of the convertible loans and preferred shares components see “—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimate—Fair Value of Financial Liabilities Through Profit or Loss.”

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since inception, we have incurred significant losses. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, our losses were $1.2 million and $4.3 million, respectively. In addition, during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and currently, we have been cash constrained due to our limited funds. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and losses for the next several years. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $30.6 million. Since our inception and through December 31, 2016, we have raised a total of $7.2 million from sales of our ordinary shares, preferred shares and warrants, of which $0.6 million was recorded as an intangible asset based on the fair value of ordinary shares issued in exchange. In addition, we have raised $10.6 million from convertible loans of which an amount of approximately $1.1 million was repaid in February 2017 ) and $0.5 million from IIA grants. As of December 31, 2016, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $4.2 million and additional $1.07 million in restricted cash that was used for the repayment of approximately $1.1 million of convertible loans in February 2017. Our primary uses of cash have been to fund research and development and working capital requirements, and we expect these will continue to be our primary uses of cash.

Funding Requirements

We expect that the net proceeds from this offering and our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our research and development expenses, and working capital requirements for at least           months after this offering and will be sufficient to enable us to:

We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we may use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with the development of our product candidates, and the extent to which we may enter into collaborations with third parties for development of these or other product candidates, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays and operating expenses associated with completing the development of our current and future product candidates. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Until such time, if any, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings, government grants, strategic collaborations and licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external sources of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of our then-existing shareholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that may adversely affect your rights as a holder of our ordinary shares. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or 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 our oral PTH product candidates and any other product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, included elsewhere in this prospectus, disclose our determination that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as of such date; and in its report accompanying our audited financial statements included herein, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph stating that our recurring losses from operations and lack of sufficient working capital raise substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. This means that our management and our independent registered public accounting firm have substantial doubt about our ability to continue our operations without an additional infusion of capital from external sources. The audited financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis and do not include any adjustments that may be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to finance our operations, our business would be in jeopardy and we might not be able to continue operations and might have to liquidate our assets. In that case, investors might receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our financial statements, and it is likely that investors in this offering would lose all or a part of their investment.

Cash Flows

The following table sets forth the primary sources and uses of cash for each of the periods set forth below:

Cash Used in Operating Activities

Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $3.1 million and consisted primarily of our operating loss of $5.4 million arising mainly from research and development expenses and general and administrative expenses, partially offset by $1.5 million of share based compensation and by a $0.4 million decrease in working capital.

Cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was $3.5 million and consisted primarily of our operating loss of $ 3.7 million arising primarily from research and development activities and general and administrative expenses partially offset by $0.4 million of share based compensation. The decrease in cash used in operating activities by 10% from 2015 to 2016 was mainly due to a change in our working capital due to a decrease in prepaid expenses in the amount of $0.5 million of which $0.2 was for inventory of materials and $0.24 million for professional services, partially offset by $0.15 million decrease in account payables.

Cash Used in Investing Activities

Cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2016 consisted primarily of an investment in restricted deposits of $1.1 million to secure the repayment of short term convertible loans.

Cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 was immaterial and resulted from purchase of fixed assets.

Cash Provided by Financing Activities

Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2016 resulted from net proceeds of $7.2 million from convertible loan and warrants to purchase ordinary shares.

Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2015 in the amount of $4.5 million resulted from proceeds of $2.5 million from issuance of preferred shares and warrants and $2.0 million from the incurrence of convertible loans and issuance of warrants.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following tables summarize our contractual obligations and commitments as of December 31, 2016 that will affect our future liquidity:

Convertible Loans

2012 Convertible Loan

On November 13, 2012 and December 31, 2012, we entered into loan agreements with certain lenders (the “2012 Convertible Loans”). Pursuant to these agreements, the lenders loaned us an aggregate amount of $1.2 million. The 2012 Convertible Loans bear interest at a rate of 0.6% per year, which is to be repaid every five years, and are due and payable after a term of twenty years. Interest expenses of $138,000 to be incurred through maturity are included in the table above. Each of the lenders has the right during the term to convert its respective loan amount into our ordinary shares at a conversion price of $240.26 per ordinary share (subject to adjustment), and for a period of the initial five years of the term of the loan agreement to exchange all such ordinary shares received into ordinary

shares of D.N.A Biomedical at the rate of one of our ordinary shares for 5,590 ordinary shares of D.N.A Biomedical (also subject to adjustment). Under the terms of the 2012 Convertible Loans, the outstanding loan amounts will be automatically converted into our ordinary shares upon the consummation of this offering, and therefore these loans will no longer be outstanding after this offering.

2015 Convertible Loan

On August 5, 2015, the Company entered into a Convertible Promissory Note and Loan Agreement (the “2015 Convertible Loan”) with certain lenders. Pursuant to the loan agreement for the 2015 Convertible Loan, the lenders loaned us an aggregate amount of $2.005 million. The 2015 Convertible Loan bore interest at a rate of 5% per year. The loan would also be automatically converted upon occurrence of the following events: an initial public offering, a private placement of equity securities or securities convertible into equity securities in an aggregate amount of no less than $10 million or a change of control (each, a “2015 Triggering Event”). In connection with any such 2015 Triggering Event, the 2015 Convertible Loans would have been converted into the equity securities and/ or securities convertible into equity securities of the Company that were issued in such a transaction, at a 25% discount.

In addition, the Company issued to each lender under the 2015 Convertible Loan warrants to purchase an additional 40% of the amount of our securities that would have been issued to such lender as a result of the automatic conversion following a 2015 Triggering Event (the “2015 Warrants”). The 2015 Warrants were exercisable for the earlier of two years from the warrant issuance date or one year from consummation of an IPO. As part of the 2016 Convertible Loan as detailed below, we granted the lenders a right to roll-over the 2015 Convertible Loan into the 2016 Convertible Loan. The lenders elected to roll-over an amount of $1.057 million into the 2016 Convertible Loan and the reminder, in an amount of $1.053 million (including interest and principal), was repaid by the Company in February 2017. There remain no amounts outstanding under the 2015 Convertible Loans, and no 2015 Warrants remain outstanding.

2016 Convertible Loan

On June 14, 2016, the Company entered into a convertible loan agreement (the “2016 Convertible Loan”) with certain lenders for an aggregate amount of approximately $7.44 million. In addition, an amount of $1.057 million of the 2015 Convertible Loan rolled over to the 2016 Convertible Loan. The 2016 Convertible Loan is for a term of 18 months and bears interest at a rate of 5% per year. The 2016 Convertible Loan will automatically convert upon the occurrence of any of the following events: an initial public offering of at least $20 million, a private placement of the Company's equity securities in an aggregate amount of not less than $10 million, or a change of control (each, a “2016 Triggering Event”). Furthermore, in case of a private placement in an aggregate amount of between $4 million to $10 million the lenders have the right to convert the 2016 Convertible Loan. In each case of conversion, the 2016 Convertible Loan will convert into the same equity securities and/or securities convertible into equity securities of the Company that were issued in such a transaction at the lower of (i) a 25% discount to the applicable price per share of such security or (ii) the price per share of such securities calculated at a valuation of $65 million on a fully diluted basis.

In addition, the Company issued to each lender under the 2016 Convertible Loan warrants to purchase an additional 40% of the amount of our securities issued to such lender as a result of the automatic conversion following a 2016 Triggering Event (the “2016 Warrants”). The 2016 Warrants will be exercisable upon conversion of the 2016 Convertible Loan and thereafter until June 2020.

In addition, each lender in the 2016 Convertible Loan have the right to invest, in the next share issuance by the Company, an amount not to exceed the amount such lender invested in the 2016 Convertible Loan, at a price per share in such issuance.

Severance Obligations

We have long-term liabilities for severance pay that are calculated pursuant to Israeli law generally based on the most recent salary of the relevant employees multiplied by the number of years of employment to the extent not covered by our regular deposits with defined contribution plans. As of December 31, 2016, our severance pay liability, net was $51,000. Because the timing of any such payments is not fixed and determinable, we have not included these liabilities in the table above.

Contingencies

We also have obligations to make future payments to third parties that become due and payable on the achievement of certain milestones, such as royalties upon sale of products. We have not included these commitments in our statements of financial position or in the table above because the achievement and timing of these milestones is not fixed and determinable. These potential future commitments include:

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Since our inception, we have not engaged in any off-balance sheet arrangements.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

We are exposed to market risks in the ordinary course of our business. Market risk represents the risk of loss that may impact our financial position due to adverse changes in financial market prices and rates. Our market risk exposure is primarily a result of foreign currency exchange rates.

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

Our functional currency and reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. Fluctuations in the New Israel Shekel, or the NIS, to U.S. dollar exchange rate may affect our results because some of our assets and liabilities are linked to the NIS and a portion of our operating expenses are denominated in NIS. In the future, we also may be exposed to additional currency fluctuations against the U.S. dollar. We do not hedge our foreign currency exchange risk. In the future, we may enter into formal currency hedging transactions to decrease the risk of financial exposure from fluctuations in the exchange rates of our principal operating currencies. These measures, however, may not adequately protect us from the material adverse effects of such fluctuations.

Inflation Risk

We do not believe that inflation had a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations in the last two fiscal years. If our costs were to become subject to significant inflationary pressures, we may not be able to fully offset such higher costs through hedging transactions. Our inability or failure to do so could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Recently Issued and Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

IFRS 9 “Financial Instruments”

The complete version of IFRS 9 replaces most of the guidance in IAS 39. IFRS 9 retains but simplifies the mixed measurement model and establishes three primary measurement categories for financial assets: amortized cost, fair value through other comprehensive income and fair value through profit and loss. The basis of classification depends on the entity’s business model and the contractual cash flow characteristics of the financial asset. Investments in equity instruments are required to be measured at fair value through profit or loss with the irrevocable option at inception to present changes in fair value in other comprehensive income. There is now a new expected credit losses model that replaces the incurred loss impairment model used in IAS 39. For financial liabilities, there were no changes to classification and measurement except for the recognition of changes in own credit risk in other comprehensive income, and for liabilities designated at fair value through profit or loss. The standard is effective for accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption of this standard on its financial statements.

IFRS 16 “Leases”

In January 2016, the IASB issued IFRS 16, Leases, which sets out the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both parties to a contract and replaces the previous leases standard, IAS 17, Leases. IFRS 16 eliminates the classification of leases for the lessee as either operating leases or finance leases as required by IAS 17 and instead introduces a single lessee accounting model whereby a lessee is required to recognize assets and liabilities for all leases with a term that is greater than 12 months, unless the underlying asset is of low value, and to recognize depreciation of lease assets separately from interest on lease liabilities in the income statement. As IFRS 16 substantially carries forward the lessor accounting requirements in IAS 17, a lessor will continue to classify its leases as operating leases or finance leases and to account for those two types of leases differently. IFRS 16 is effective from January 1, 2019 with early adoption allowed only if IFRS 15, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, is also applied. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption of this standard on its financial statements.

JOBS Act Exemptions

On April 5, 2012, the U.S. Congress enacted the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This means that an “emerging growth company” can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. Accordingly, we are electing to delay such adoption of new or revised accounting standards. As a result, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with these standards.

Subject to certain conditions set forth in the JOBS Act, as an “emerging growth company,” we intend to rely on other exemptions, including without limitation, (i) providing an auditor’s attestation report on our system of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 and, (ii) complying with any requirement that may be adopted by the PCAOB regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements (auditor discussion and analysis). These exemptions will apply for a period of five years following the completion of our initial public offering or until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” We would cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.07 billion in annual revenue, have more than $700 million in market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This provision allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of some accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. Given that we currently report and expect to continue to report under IFRS as issued by the IASB, we will not be able to avail ourselves of this extended transition period and, as a result, we will adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required by the IASB.

Business

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of orally delivered large molecule therapeutics for use in orphan indications and other areas with significant unmet medical need. We are initially applying our technology to develop an oral formulation of parathyroid hormone, or PTH, which has been approved in the United States in injectable form for over a decade. Our lead oral PTH product candidate, EB612, has successfully completed a Phase 2a trial for hypoparathyroidism, a rare condition in which the body fails to produce sufficient amounts of PTH. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, have granted EB612 orphan drug designation for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. We expect to initiate a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial of EB612 in the first quarter of 2018, and we plan to submit applications for regulatory approval of EB612 in the first half of 2020.

Hypoparathyroidism is a rare condition in which the body does not produce sufficient amounts of PTH, or the PTH produced lacks biologic activity. Individuals with a deficiency of PTH typically exhibit abnormally low levels of calcium in the blood, or hypocalcemia, and high levels of phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia. Hypoparathyroidism is estimated to affect approximately 58,700 individuals in the United States. Historically, the treatments for hypoparathyroidism have been calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements and phosphate binders, the chronic use of which results in serious side effects with significant costs to the healthcare system. Natpara^®, a once-daily injectable form of PTH, has been approved for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. Our lead product candidate, EB612, is delivered orally and can be administered in customized doses several times a day. Multiple dosing per day has been shown to more effectively treat the symptoms of hypoparathyroidism than a once-daily injection, thus reducing the serious side effects of supplement treatment and improving patient outcomes. We believe patients generally prefer oral drugs. For these reasons, we believe EB612 is clinically superior to existing therapies and has the potential to become the standard of care for hypoparathyroidism.

In the third quarter of 2015 we successfully completed our Phase 2a trial for EB612. The end points in the trial were met, and 17 subjects completed the four-month trial and reported no related adverse events. Although our trial Phase 2a trial involved a smaller number of patients, was conducted for a shorter duration and did not include an initial optimization period in comparison to the design of the pivotal trial used for regulatory approval of Natpara, the REPLACE study, our Phase 2a trial still showed similar efficacy. We believe that EB612 will have inherent advantages compared to injectable forms, including convenience of application, the fact that no special preparations are required and the fact that no restrictive storage conditions are necessary. Additionally, we believe that EB612 will have an enhanced clinical profile as compared to Natpara, with an additional positive effect on elevated urinary calcium, as well as reduced side effects. We believe this combination of advantages and long term clinical benefits will be very compelling to both patients and physicians.

Based on consultations with key opinion leaders in the hypoparathyroidism field who have reviewed our Phase 2a results and are familiar with the REPLACE study are planning for a Phase 2b/3 trial, designed to possibly be a pivotal study for registration. This Phase 2b/3 study will be designed to repeat the REPLACE study in virtually every aspect, as well as to achieve a reduction in urinary calcium.

We are also developing a distinct oral PTH product candidate, EB613, for the treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass, deterioration of bone tissue and increased bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. An estimated 10 million people in the United States already have osteoporosis, and another approximately 43 million have low bone mass placing them at increased risk for osteoporosis. PTH plays a key role in the ongoing process of formation and degradation of bones. Forteo^®, a once-daily injectable form of PTH, has been approved for the treatment of osteoporosis in the United States for over 10 years and is widely considered one of the most effective treatments due to its ability to build bone. Because our product candidate EB613 is oral, we believe it will reduce the treatment burden on patients and lead to significantly higher patient and physician acceptance compared to an injectable form of PTH. We intend to commence a Phase 2a clinical trial of EB613 in the fourth quarter of 2017. After completing this trial we intend to collaborate with a strategic partner to further develop and commercialize EB613. We also are preparing to conduct a clinical trial of our oral PTH in non-union fractures, one indication within the field of bone healing.

Our product candidates utilize our proprietary technology for the oral delivery of large molecules. Drug development has shifted towards the use of peptides, proteins and other large molecules for the treatment of various diseases. Between 1993 and 2004, large-molecule clinical approval success rates have outpaced small molecules by about two-to-one. Large molecules have been particularly widely used in orphan indications. Oral drug delivery reduces the treatment burden on patients relative to injectable drugs and provides significantly more flexibility, both in size of dose and number of doses per day, than injectable drugs, which are frequently administered once per day by preset injection pen. However, peptides, proteins and other large molecule therapeutics can currently only be delivered via injections and other non-oral pathways because oral administration leads to poor absorption into the blood stream as well as enzymatic degradation within the gastrointestinal tract.

Our proprietary oral drug delivery technology is designed to address both of these issues by utilizing a combination of a synthetic absorption enhancer, to facilitate the enhanced absorption of large molecules and protease inhibitors to prevent enzymatic degradation.

We also intend to use our technology as a platform for the oral delivery of other protein and large molecule therapeutics. We initially intend to focus on the development of products based on previously approved therapeutic agents. We believe this will allow us to more efficiently and predictably advance product candidates through the development cycle based on well-defined clinical and regulatory approval pathways. We have conducted initial feasibility studies with a number of candidates and intend to commence clinical development for our next, non-PTH, product candidate by the end of 2018.

The following chart summarizes important information about each of our current product candidates, including their indications, and their current stage of development. We have not out-licensed any intellectual property rights to our PTH product candidates listed below, and, therefore, have retained the ability to pursue their worldwide commercialization.

We commenced operations in August 2010 after receiving startup financing in the form of $0.6 million in cash from D.N.A Biomedical Solutions Ltd. and a license from Oramed Ltd., a subsidiary of Oramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to certain patent rights relating to the oral administration of proteins. These previously licensed patent rights were assigned to us in 2011, subject to an exclusive, royalty-free license in specified fields under such patent rights that we granted to Oramed Ltd.

We subsequently advanced our oral PTH product candidates from preclinical studies in animals to a Phase 2a clinical trial of EB612 in hypoparathyroidism in less than five years.

While our operations are currently focused in our offices in Israel, we intend to build a substantial U.S. presence to execute on our later stage development of our products, including clinical operations, regulatory operations, and commercialization. The following chart summarizes important information about each of our current product candidates, including their indications, and their current stage of development. We have not out-licensed any intellectual property rights to our PTH product candidates listed below, and, therefore, have retained the ability to pursue their worldwide commercialization.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of orally delivered large molecule therapeutics in indications with significant unmet medical need. The key elements of our strategy to achieve this goal are to:

Our Technology

We are focused on the development and commercialization of product candidates that leverage our proprietary technology for the oral delivery of large molecule therapeutics. Recently, drug development has shifted towards the use of peptides, proteins and other large molecules for the treatment of various diseases. By lowering the treatment burden on patients, oral drug delivery leads to higher patient and physician acceptance. In addition, oral drug delivery provides significantly more flexibility, both in size of dose and number of doses per day, than injectable drugs, which are frequently administered by preset injection pen and only once per day.

Currently, peptides, proteins and other large molecule therapeutics can only be delivered via injections and other non-oral pathways because oral administration leads to poor absorption into the blood stream (bioavailability) due to enzymatic degradation within the gastrointestinal tract and poor permeability though the intestinal wall. Most oral drug delivery technologies attempting to overcome this hurdle nevertheless manage to attain only very low bioavailability (less than 1%). Orally-delivered large molecules with low systemic levels present high variability of dose exposure, both between patients and within the same patient at different times of administration since small changes in the level of absorption lead to significant changes in the bioavailability. Absorption variability is generally decreased as the drug bioavailability is increased.

Oral formulations of large molecules must therefore ensure that the large molecule is able to pass through the intestinal wall so that it can be absorbed into the bloodstream and that the large molecule therapeutic is not exposed to enzymatic degradation in order to protect its biological activity and availability for absorption.

Our proprietary technology is designed to address both of these issues by utilizing a combination of a synthetic absorption enhancer, or carrier molecule, to facilitate the enhanced absorption of large molecules, and protease inhibitors to prevent enzymatic degradation. By designing our product candidates to address both the issues of absorption and degradation, we have been able to significantly increase bioavailability and decrease the variability of the PTH dose delivered in our clinical trials to date.

Our carrier molecule is designed to create a weak association with our chosen large molecule therapeutic, leaving the therapeutic agent chemically unmodified. The carrier molecule enables transport across the intestinal membrane via transcellular absorption without compromising the integrity of the intestinal wall. Because of the weak association between the carrier molecule and the therapeutic agent, the interaction is designed to be reversible and occurs spontaneously by simple dilution on entering the blood. We selected protease inhibitors that act by specifically inhibiting a number of gastrointestinal enzymes designed to assist in the degradation and digestion of proteins without interfering with normal gastrointestinal activity.

In order for large molecule therapeutics to be benefit from the use of our oral delivery technology, they must demonstrate a number of specific characteristics, including:

Based on these criteria, the first product candidate we chose to pursue was PTH, which has the potential for therapeutic use in a number of indications including hypoparathyroidism, osteoporosis and non-union fractures.

Our Product Candidates

The following chart summarizes important information about each of our current product candidates, including their indications and their current stage of development. We have not out-licensed any intellectual property rights to our PTH product candidates listed below, and, therefore, have retained the ability to pursue their worldwide commercialization.

Oral PTH Therapeutics

PTH is a hormone that regulates the levels of calcium and phosphorus in the blood. The naturally occurring form of PTH that is found in the human body is composed of 84 amino acids, although only the first 34 amino acids are believed to be responsible for its biological effects. A recombinant form of PTH that is comprised of only the first 34 amino acids, or PTH (1-34), can be used as a treatment for a number of indications, including hypoparathyroidism, osteoporosis and non-union fractures. An injectable form of PTH (1-34), marketed under the name Forteo, has been approved in the United States for more than ten years and has been used by millions of patients for the treatment of osteoporosis. An injectable form of full length PTH (1-84), marketed under the name Natpara, has also recently been approved for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. We are developing a number of distinct oral PTH (1-34) tablets, with significant differences in dose and pharmacokinetic, or PK, profile that can be used for a number of proposed indications. We believe that our oral PTH product candidates, if approved, have the potential to become the standard of care for patients with hypoparathyroidism, osteoporosis and non-union fractures.

PTH regulates calcium and phosphate homeostasis and bone metabolism in the body. In normal healthy individuals, PTH is generally produced at a very low basal level of 15-25 pg/ml (pg = 10-¹² g). On top of the basal PTH levels, there are physiological pulses two to three times per day presented as transient increases in PTH levels reaching up to 35 pg/ml. While the basal level helps maintain calcium and phosphate homeostasis, the pulses help encourage bone turnover through activation of both osteoblasts and osteoclasts, the two main types of cells that are responsible for the process through which bones are constantly being remodeled. These pulses also allow for the release of calcium from bone and the excretion of phosphorous by the kidneys during times when calcium is scarce and phosphorous is too high. Absent these pulses, it is difficult for the body to regulate normal homeostatic processes.

EB612 for Hypoparathyroidism

Hypoparathyroidism

We are focused on the development of oral PTH (1-34) for hypoparathyroidism, which, if approved, we believe has the potential to become the standard of care for hypoparathyroidism. Hypoparathyroidism is a rare condition in which the parathyroid glands fail to produce sufficient amounts of PTH or the PTH produced lacks biologic activity. Individuals with a deficiency of parathyroid hormone may exhibit hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. Hypocalcemia can cause one or more of a variety of symptoms, including weakness, muscle cramps, excessive nervousness, headaches and uncontrollable twitching and cramping spasms of muscles such as those of the hands, feet, arms, legs and face, which is known as tetany. Numbness and tingling around the mouth and in the fingers and toes can also occur. Acute hypocalcemia can result in cardiac failure, failure of nervous system functions and death. Hyperphosphatemia can result in soft tissue calcium deposition, which may lead to severe issues, including damage to the circulatory system and central nervous system. The most common cause of hypoparathyroidism is damage to, or removal of, the parathyroid glands due to surgery for another condition. Hypoparathyroidism can also be caused by an autoimmune process, or idiopathic reasons or occur in association with a number of different underlying disorders. In rare cases, hypoparathyroidism may occur as a genetic disorder.

The prevalence of hypoparathyroidism is estimated to be 37 per 100,000 in the United States, with 78% of cases caused by surgery, 7% due to genetic disorder and 6% due to idiopathic origin. Although incidence rates have been difficult to quantify, it is estimated that chronic hypoparathyroidism, which affects patients for more than six months, affects approximately 58,700 individuals in the United States, with an estimated 43% of these chronic cases characterized as mild, 39% characterized as moderate, and 18% characterized as severe. The FDA has granted orphan drug designation to our oral PTH for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism.

Historically, the treatments for hypoparathyroidism have been calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements and phosphate binders. Although calcium and vitamin D can help alleviate hypocalcemia, their chronic use results in many serious side effects with significant costs to the healthcare system. Hypoparathyroid patients often need to take large doses of calcium throughout the day in order to maintain calcium homeostasis in the serum, or blood plasma, throughout the day for normal body functioning. It then falls upon the kidneys to dispose of excess calcium and maintain precise control of serum calcium levels. Over potentially years of treatment, kidney stones may develop, and ultimately kidney failure may occur. Even with the use of calcium and vitamin D supplements and other medications, the majority of patients with hypoparathyroidism continue to experience multiple severe physical and cognitive symptoms.

Until recently, hypoparathyroidism was the only hormonal insufficiency state that did not have an approved hormone replacement therapy. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company that was acquired by Shire plc in February 2015, developed Natpara, a recombinant form of human PTH (1-84), as an injectable hormone replacement therapy for the underlying cause of hypoparathyroidism, lack of PTH. Natpara is administered once daily with a pre-set injection pen. Natpara was approved by the FDA in January 2015 launched commercially in the United States later in 2015.

In September 2014, an advisory committee of the FDA reviewed the Natpara BLA. This advisory committee review of Natpara highlighted a number of observations. In its briefing to the advisory committee, the FDA noted that Natpara had limited clinical benefit in controlling excessive calcium in the urine, or hypercalciuria, a condition commonly associated with hypoparathyroidism and the most commonly identifiable cause of calcium kidney stone disease. Additional analysis by the FDA also noted that, due to a change in trial protocol that was made after the initiation of the trial, the responder rate for the pivotal single-dose trial’s primary efficacy endpoint was 32.1% under the original trial protocol versus the 54.8% that was ultimately reported. The FDA stated in its briefing report that the results of this alternate analysis may be more clinically relevant, particularly if a clinician’s goal is to keep a patient’s serum calcium in the lower half of the normal range.

We believe EB612 is differentiated from Natpara for the following reasons:

EB612, if approved, could be administered several times a day in customized doses and could therefore more specifically regulate calcium and phosphate levels throughout the day without the side effects associated with a highly concentrated once-daily injection. We believe this would alleviate the symptoms of hypoparathyroidism while reducing the need for calcium and vitamin D supplements, thus also lessening the side effects of supplement treatment. As a result of its dose flexibility and the greater patient acceptance of oral formulations, we believe EB612, if approved, will address a larger segment of the hypoparathyroid population than Natpara. For these reasons, we believe that EB612, if approved, has the potential to become the standard of care for hypoparathyroidism.

Overview of EB612

Our lead product candidate, EB612, is an oral formulation of PTH (1-34). To date, no oral PTH formulation has been successfully developed because PTH, like many other hormonally active peptides, degrades rapidly in the intestinal tract when taken orally. EB612 is a synthetic form of the first 34 amino acids of human PTH to which we have applied our proprietary technology for the oral delivery of large molecule therapeutics. This technology permits oral administration, enabling more frequent dosing throughout the day and greater sensitivity and flexibility in dosing than injectable formulations of PTH. The carrier molecule and selection of protease inhibitors that are used in our technology are well-characterized and have been used in large clinical trials. We have attempted to optimize EB612 to enable the most cost effective and safe formulation while maintaining the required effect. These components, when used separately, have been shown to be safe in doses significantly higher than those used in the clinical trials for our current product candidates.

Our oral PTH (1-34) also displayed positive pharmacokinetic profiles, or PK, and pharmacodynamic, or PD, properties, in particular compared to commercially available injectable PTH (1-34) (Forteo).

The following summarizes our clinical development of EB612 to date:

We have conducted a Phase 1a clinical trial with multiple formulations of our oral PTH to evaluate safety and collect bioavailability, PK and PD data in 42 healthy volunteers.

We conducted an extended Phase 1b clinical trial in an additional 30 subjects to test a variety of manufacturing technologies with multiple formulations and dosing regimens of our oral PTH.

We completed a Phase 2a trial. The end points in the trial were met, and 17 subjects completed the four-month trial and reported no related adverse events.

We believe that EB612 will have inherent advantages compared to injectable forms, including convenience of application, the fact that no special preparations are required and the fact that no restrictive storage conditions are necessary. Additionally, we believe that EB612 will have an enhanced clinical profile as compared to Natpara, with an additional positive effect on elevated urinary calcium, as well as reduced side effects. We believe this combination of advantages and long term clinical benefits will be very compelling to both patients and physicians.

Phase 2a Clinical Trial

In 2015, we successfully completed a Phase 2a clinical trial of EB612 in hypoparathyroidism patients. The end points in the trial were met, and 17 subjects completed the four-month trial and reported no related adverse events.

While we have not conducted direct head-to-head studies comparing EB612 to Natpara, based on a review of the clinical data presented in Natpara’s REPLACE study and our Phase 2a results, we believe EB612 provides a more favorable therapy for hypoparathyroidism patients. Although our Phase 2a study involved a smaller number of subjects (N=17 vs. N=84 + 40 placebo), lasted for a shorter duration (4 month vs. 6 months) and did not include an optimization period of ~2-16 weeks prior to treatment initiation, our results showed a greater absolute reduction in calcium supplements (1278 ±880mg vs. 1152 ±1219mg) while the patients’ albumin adjusted serum calcium increased slightly as opposed to a slight decrease in the REPLACE study (baseline vs. end of treatment). Furthermore, based on results from our Phase 2a trial, as compared to Natpara injection, we believe that EB612 carries a lower risk of adverse events.

In the Phase 2a trial there were no related serious or significant adverse events and there was one unrelated serious adverse event of hypercalcemia which occurred in one patient prior to the administration of the study drug for the first time. In addition, one patient who withdrew from the trial after the first day, reported possibly drug-related adverse events. The trial report concluded that the patient’s events were unlikely related to EB612, but this conclusion could not be confirmed following the patient’s withdrawal from the study.

Based on consultations with key opinion leaders in the hypoparathyroidism field who have reviewed our Phase 2a results and are familiar with the REPLACE study are planning for a Phase 2b/3 trial, designed to possibly be a pivotal study for registration. This Phase 2b/3 study will be designed to repeat the REPLACE study in virtually every aspect, as well as to achieve a reduction in urinary calcium.We anticipate commencing this Phase 2b/3 clinical trial in the first quarter of 2018 and that final data will be released in second half of 2019.

Phase 1b Clinical Trial

In order to continually improve our formulations and evaluate different manufacturing technologies, we undertook an extended Phase 1b clinical trial. This clinical trial was designed to emulate multiple Phase 1b clinical trials, in that it evaluated production methods, and multiple formulations and administration regimens of our oral PTH (1-34) for safety, bioavailability, PK and PD data. This open-label clinical trial is designed to compare our various oral formulations of PTH (1-34) to injectable PTH (1-34) in 30 healthy male volunteers. Each subject was administered a 20 μg dose of injectable PTH (1-34) during the first visit to establish a baseline for comparison. Subsequently, different formulations of our oral PTH are administered during eight successive visits, each separated by at least a 48-hour washout period. The different formulations include modifications in PTH dose (0.5mg – 2.5mg) and ratios of PTH to excipients, as well as changes in production method and administration parameters. The primary purpose of this clinical trial is to allow us to test a variety of manufacturing technologies. As a result of this clinical trial we have been able to further optimize the formulation and achieve an increased bioavailability and reduced variability.

Completed Phase 1 a Clinical Trial

Following proof-of-concept and safety studies in various animal models, we conducted a Phase 1a clinical trial to assess the safety and pharmacokinetic profile of our oral PTH. The clinical trial was designed as a three-stage study in 42 healthy volunteers. The first stage, in which 24 subjects participated, was blinded and placebo-controlled for the study drug and placebo, and open label for subcutaneous injection of PTH (1-34). In the second, dose-escalation, stage, six new subjects were administered different formulations with modifications in PTH dose and ratios of PTH to excipients, with doses up to 1.5 mg. In the third stage, the best formulation of our oral PTH, selected based on data from the second stage, was compared to placebo and subcutaneous injection of PTH (1-34) in 12 healthy subjects. The primary endpoint of the clinical trial was safety. Bioavailability was also evaluated, and in the second and third stages PK and PD data were also collected.

The clinical trial began in August 2011 and was completed in early 2013. This clinical trial was conducted over an extended period of time as multiple formulations of oral PTH (1-34) were tested. In typical Phase 1 clinical trials, one formulation is tested for safety and, perhaps, PK and PD profile. Therefore, the results from our Phase 1a clinical trial effectively represent the equivalent of nine separate Phase 1 clinical trials. By combining these nine clinical trials into one protocol, we were able to achieve significant economies of scale and time.

No significant adverse events were reported in any of the 72 subjects participating in the Phase 1 clinical trials (including the Phase 1b clinical trial detailed above). However, there were some expected transient and minor drug related adverse events such as minor hypercalcemia in one subject and minor tachycardia in two subjects. There were also two possibly related mild adverse events: anemia (following a placebo treatment and likely to be unrelated) and nausea. There was also one subject who experienced three mild adverse musculoskeletal and connective tissue events that were considered possibly related to study treatment.

The PK and PD data indicated that our oral PTH (1-34) can successfully mimic injectable PTH (1-34)’s peak serum concentration levels after drug administration and prior to the administration of a second dose, or Cmax, as well as time to maximal concentration, or Tmax. The PK profile of the absorbed PTH (1-34) was characterized by a sharp increase in concentration, forming a peak concentration within 60 minutes post-drug administration, followed by a rapid decrease, which leads to the anabolic, or bone-building effect of PTH. In some formulations the average Cmax achieved by our oral PTH (1-34) was similar to the Cmax following the subcutaneous injection of the commercial PTH (1-34) or greater. There was a significant inter-patient and intra-patient variability, which is believed to be associated with the variability of the gastric state of the volunteers and on the various treatment visit days. In later visits of the clinical trial we were able to decrease the variability through optimization of our formulation.

Analysis of the PD profile of our oral PTH (1-34) indicated that a biomarker of PTH activity, cyclic AMP, was activated in a similar manner to that of injectable PTH (1-34) Furthermore, analysis of serum calcium indicated that an increase can be obtained by a single dose of our oral PTH (1-34) as indicated in the graph below:

Change in serum concentrations of albumin corrected calcium (green line) and the plasma concentrations of PTH (1-34) (blue line) following the administration of oral PTH (1-34) (0.75mg) in ten healthy volunteers.

These data effectively show that oral PTH (1-34) reaches the circulation, remains intact and has biological potency similar to that observed with injectable PTH (1-34). At present, we estimate that there are at least four million patient years’ experience with injectable PTH (1-34). We believe that reaching a similar peak plasma concentration and PD profile as with the injectable PTH (1-34) significantly decreases the risk that our oral PTH (1-34) will not have the desired clinical effect.

The graph below shows a linear dose/response relationship of oral PTH. An increase in absorption variability was observed with the dose increase in phase 1 studies.

Dose – response relationship of oral PTH(1-34) in healthy volunteers.

We then focused our efforts, along with the increase in bioavailability, on the reduction of the variability. An optimized formulation showed an approximately three-fold increase in bioavailability (from 0.5% to about 1.5%) and two-fold decrease in variability of the maximal plasma levels of PTH (1-34).

Optimization of oral PTH(1-34) product. A fixed dose of 1.5mg was administered using different formulations (N= 9-10). Along with the significant increase in bioavailability (blue bars) the variability (green line) of the maximal plasma levels was markedly decreased.

Preclinical and Clinical Development of EB612

In preclinical, Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical development, EB612 exhibited negligible safety issues and displayed compelling PK and PD properties, in particular compared to commercially available injectable PTH (1-84) Natpara and PTH (1-34) (Forteo). We have refined our formulation of EB612 and tested the new formulation in a Phase 2a clinical trial in hypoparathyroid patients. In a triple cohort Phase 1b study, we continued to further optimize our production methods and formulation of EB612 following the Phase 2a and in anticipation of a larger Phase 2b that we expect will result in further improvements and reduction in the variability.

Planned Additional Clinical Development and Regulatory Pathway

As part of our regulatory pathway to conducting the Phase 2b/3 and based on initial feedback from the FDA and regulatory consultants, we intend to conduct a short four-arm PK/PD study comparing two of our dose regimens with two controls: placebo and Natpara. This PK/PD study will include 10 to 15 hypoparathyroidism patients for a treatment and monitoring duration of 24 hours per treatment arm. This study is designed to provide a bridge from our completed Phase 2a trial, which was conducted prior to the marketing approval of Natpara and our planned Phase 2b/3 study. This study may also provide valuable “head to head” data that will further inform our Phase 2b/3 study design.

We plan on submitting an IND for this study in the fourth quarter of 2017 and completing the study shortly after receiving an IND approval. We will then provide the additional data required to expand the IND to allow for the larger Phase 2b/3 study. We hope to initiate our Phase 2b/3 study in the first quarter of 2018. If our results from the Phase 2b/3 clinical trial are successful and the trial is acceptable as a pivotal trial, as intended, we plan to submit a BLA to the FDA for regulatory approval of EB612 in the second half of 2019. In parallel, we expect to pursue marketing approval in the European Union and Japan with the appropriate regulatory agencies.

In April 2014 we received orphan drug designation from the FDA for our oral PTH in hypoparathyroidism. If a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity. In January 2015, the FDA approved Natpara, an injectable form of PTH, for hypoparathyroidism, and awarded Natpara orphan drug exclusivity until January 23, 2022. While Natpara has orphan drug exclusivity for hypoparathyroidism, we believe that we will be able to demonstrate that our oral formulation of PTH is clinically superior to Natpara in that it demonstrates greater effectiveness or safety than Natpara or that it otherwise makes a major contribution to patient care, and therefore, we believe that Natpara’s orphan drug exclusivity will not prevent the FDA from approving our BLA for EB612 prior to the expiration of Natpara’s exclusivity period. In June 2016, we received approval from the European Commission granting orphan status to our oral PTH in Europe.

EB613 for Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis

We are also developing a distinct oral PTH product candidate, EB613, for the treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass, deterioration of bone tissue and increased bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. It most commonly affects older populations, primarily postmenopausal women. All bones are subject to an ongoing process of formation and degradation, whereby bone tissue is removed from the skeleton and new bone tissue is formed. Two main types of cells are responsible for this process: osteoclasts, which break down bone tissue, and osteoblasts, which secrete new bone tissue. Osteoporosis develops as the delicate balance between bone resorption by osteoclasts and bone formation by osteoblasts is not maintained, and not enough bone tissue is formed, leading to frail and fracture-prone bones. These weak and brittle bones become susceptible to fractures caused by fall, mild stress or even a cough. The condition can even be fatal, as 25% of those who fracture a hip will die within six months of injury.

Osteoporosis often leads to loss of mobility, admission to nursing homes and dependence on caregivers. These debilitating effects of osteoporosis have substantial costs. The prevalence of osteoporosis is growing and, according to the National Osteoporosis Foundation, or NOF, is significantly under-recognized and under-treated in the population. While the aging of the population is a primary driver of an increase in cases, osteoporosis is also increasing from the use of drugs that induce bone loss, such as chronic use of glucocorticoids and aromatase inhibitors that are increasingly used for breast cancer and the hormone therapies used for prostate cancer.

The NOF has estimated that 10 million people in the United States already have osteoporosis, and another approximately 43 million have low bone mass placing them at increased risk for osteoporosis. In addition, the NOF has estimated that osteoporosis is responsible for more than two million fractures in the United States each year resulting in an estimated $19 billion in costs annually. The NOF expects that the number of fractures in the United States due to osteoporosis will rise to three million by 2025, resulting in an estimated $25.3 billion in costs each year. Worldwide, osteoporosis affects an estimated 200 million women according to the International Osteoporosis Foundation, or IOF, and causes more than 8.9 million fractures annually, which is equivalent to an osteoporotic fracture occurring approximately every three seconds. The IOF has estimated that 1.6 million hip fractures occur worldwide each year, and by 2050 this number could reach between 4.5 million and 6.3 million. The IOF estimates that in Europe alone, the annual cost of osteoporotic fractures could surpass €76 billion by 2050.

The goal of pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis is to maintain or increase bone strength, to prevent factures throughout the patient’s life and to minimize osteoporosis-related morbidity and mortality by reducing the risk of fracture. Current treatments for osteoporosis generally fall into two categories: antiresorptive medications to slow bone loss and anabolic medications to increase the rate of bone formation. The global osteoporosis drug market was dominated for many years by bisphosphonates, which slow bone loss, although bisphosphonates’ market share has declined over recent years due to the occurrence of serious side effects, as well as the introduction of newly developed pharmacological treatments.

The primary current treatments for osteoporosis are summarized in the table below.

In osteoporosis patients, who have normal basal levels of PTH, therapeutic administration of PTH activates osteoclasts and osteoblasts. While both types of cells are activated when PTH is administered, osteoblasts are activated for a longer period, increasing bone formation and bone mass. Injectable PTH (1-34), in the form of Eli Lilly’s Forteo, is therefore one of the most effective osteoporosis medications on the market today and demonstrably more efficacious than bisphosphonates. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that over a period of 18 months bone mineral density at the lumbar spine in a group of patients with steroid-induced osteoporosis treated with Forteo increased twice as much as that in the group treated with a form of bisphosphonate.

Unlike our oral delivery system, Forteo is administered by injection, which has significant drawbacks. Patients may reject this treatment due to the discomfort and local irritation usually associated with a daily injectable regimen. Additionally, subcutaneous injection of PTH (1-34) has been shown to induce immunological reactions in approximately 3% of the patient population, often leading to discontinuance of therapy. We believe an oral form of PTH (1-34) would significantly improve patient and physician acceptance. Eli Lilly has attempted numerous collaborations with alternative delivery systems, including a micro needle patch system, which eventually did not reach fruition. An attempt with Zosano Pharma’s patch terminated in 2015, as did another collaboration with Transpharma, also a patch, which was terminated in 2011. In 2005 Eli Lilly attempted a nasal delivery system with Alkermes only to be terminated in 2007. While the patch technology may reduce the discomfort associated with an injection, we believe patients will prefer an oral form of PTH (1-34) over a patch form of delivery.

Several pharmaceutical companies have previously attempted to develop an orally administered form of PTH. GlaxoSmithKline had partnered with Unigene Laboratories to develop a form of oral PTH but terminated the collaboration in 2011 following the release of Phase 2 clinical trial data, potentially due to poor control of kinetics and variability and the need for as much as 10 mg of PTH per tablet. Eli Lilly attempted to develop an oral PTH in collaboration with Emisphere, which Emisphere terminated following patent infringement claims in 2004. Emisphere then went on to develop their own oral PTH in collaboration with Novartis but suspended development in 2011 at the same time that they suspended their oral calcitonin program, which was subject to EMA safety restrictions. We believe Novartis discontinued the product for reasons that were unrelated to the product itself, and that our formulation of EB613 achieves the maximum concentration necessary for therapeutic effect with three times less active pharmaceutical ingredient, and lower variability, than that observed with Novartis’ suspended product.

We also believe that our oral delivery technology is superior to other oral technologies that were and still may be in development for osteoporosis patients. The table below presents a comparison and integration of available clinical trial results to date.

Preclinical and Clinical Development of EB613

EB613 is PTH (1-34) combined with our proprietary technology for the oral delivery of large molecule therapeutics. We are optimizing the PK profile of EB613 specifically for the treatment of osteoporosis, and we expect that our dose and formulation will be significantly modified from that of EB612. Our development combines the proven efficacy of PTH in increasing bone formation in osteoporosis patients with the additional benefit of permitting oral administration, which reduces the treatment burden on patients, leading to higher patient and physician acceptance. We believe each dose of oral PTH would trigger a Cmax peak, stimulating osteoclasts and osteoblasts, thereby increasing overall bone formation.

In preclinical and Phase 1 clinical development, EB613 exhibited negligible safety issues and displayed compelling PK and PD properties, in particular compared to commercially available injectable PTH (1-34) (Forteo). The graph below shows the PK profile of a subcutaneous injection with injectable PTH (1-34), EB613 and placebo from our Phase 1 clinical trial. Both the injectable PTH (1-34) and the oral PTH (1-34) have a rapid increase in plasma concentrations followed by a fast elimination phase. This is significant for attaining the desired anabolic effect by transiently activating the biological pathways and possibly even more so with our oral PTH as its profile is sharper than the injection. In addition, the data show that the PK profile with EB613 is sharper and shows a more rapid return to baseline. It is believed that the prolonged increase in PTH levels may reduce the desired anabolic effect.

Planned Clinical Development

We are preparing a Phase 2a trial of EB613 in osteoporosis in the fourth quarter of 2017. With these Phase 2a results we plan to partner with a larger biopharmaceutical company for the clinical development and commercialization of this product.

Bone Healing / Non-union Fractures

Currently, no pharmacological treatments are available to stimulate bone healing. A number of studies suggest that PTH could be beneficial in the treatment of fractures and could thus be a potentially new treatment option for the induction of bone healing. Non-union fractures occur when the normal process of bone healing is interrupted and a fracture does not heal properly or does not heal at all. By definition, a non-union fracture will not heal on its own. Most non-union fractures require surgery, which can involve bone grafts or stabilizing the affected bone by affixing rods, plates or screws. Risks of surgery include neurovascular injury, infection and hemorrhage.

In the United States, there are approximately seven million new fractures each year, with approximately 300,000 delayed union or non-union fractures. Estimates for the average non-union treatment cost vary from approximately $25,000 to $45,000.

Depending on the nature of the fracture, non-surgical solutions can include electrical stimulation or fitting external braces. Other more experimental techniques exist as well, including ultrasound stimulation, which has been approved by the FDA for treating fresh fracture since the 1990s. Unlike in osteoporosis treatment, a pharmacological solution is not the norm for fractures. The major drawbacks of the more traditional methods are invasiveness and the risks inherent with surgery. In addition, bone grafting is associated with considerable morbidity, including chronic pain, injury to nerves and muscles and blood loss. Surgical cost is another significant concern. Experimental techniques, such as stimulation of the bone with electricity or sound show some promise for healing, but data demonstrating its effectiveness remains limited.

Entera’s Potential Solution for Non-union Fractures

Studies have suggested that PTH can accelerate bone healing. PTH increases the activity and number of osteoblasts, which are responsible for bone formation, making it critical for cases where bone healing is delayed.

We intend to investigate the efficacy of EB613 for non-union fractures. We may either pursue fracture treatment as an additional use of EB613 or further modify the formulation if studies suggest we could achieve a PK profile that is more efficacious for bone fractures. As non-union fractures and bone healing are non-chronic conditions, generally entailing three to six months of treatment, we believe the acceptance of oral PTH will be higher than other potential pharmacological alternatives. We believe we will be able to use the data generated with EB613 in Phase 1 clinical trials relating to osteoporosis to progress directly to a Phase 2a clinical trial of our oral PTH product candidates for non-union bone fractures.

Future Development of Orally Delivered Large Molecule Therapeutics

We intend to use our technology as a platform for the oral delivery of low-bioavailability therapeutics, which may include small molecules with very low absorption due to their poor permeability properties (BCS class 3 drugs), proteins and other large molecule therapeutics. We have conducted initial feasibility studies with a number of candidates and intend to commence clinical development for our next, non-PTH product candidate by the end of 2017. We expect that the key criteria in selecting our next clinical candidate will include: the size of the molecule and other chemical characteristics that would be advantageous with our technology, whether the molecule is best delivered through the intestinal tract rather than through injection, and the drug’s dosing schedule, more specifically, whether it is prescribed for at least three months and would be likely be best administered at least once a day. Additionally, we may target large proteins that are prone to inducing damaging immune responses when injected subcutaneously. In some cases, the immune response to the injection is so severe as to reduce or eliminate all physiological effect of the drug upon the illness, as in the case of interferon. We are also considering whether to partner the development of any such additional product candidates and are in early stage discussions with a number of external parties.

Commercialization Strategy

We are initially focused on developing an oral PTH (1-34), for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism, or EB612. We are also developing an oral PTH (1-34), with a significantly modified formulation for the treatment of osteoporosis, or EB613, and plan to also conduct clinical trials of EB613 for the treatment of non-union fractures. We are also investigating applying our oral drug delivery platform to other FDA-approved proteins or large molecule therapeutics.

We have not yet established sales, marketing or product distribution operations because our product candidates are in clinical development. Prior to receiving regulatory approval for EB612, if approved, we plan to build a focused sales and marketing organization in the United States and other jurisdictions where we anticipate obtaining approval to sell EB612 once approved. We believe that we can independently commercialize EB612 with a small salesforce by targeting a relatively small prescriber base of primarily endocrinologists in centers of excellence. We would, however, evaluate other opportunities to commercialize EB612 and other products candidates for orphan indications, if attractive. We may seek a partner to develop EB613, and anticipate that any such partner would be responsible for, or substantially support, late stage clinical trials of EB613 as well as submitting applications for regulatory approvals and registrations.

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from many different sources, including large pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and generic drug companies and academic and government institutions. We believe that the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our oral PTH product candidates for hypoparathyroidism, osteoporosis and non-union fractures, and any other product candidates that we develop, are the efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, convenience in dosing, product labeling, price and availability of reimbursement from the government and other third-parties. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors have products that are better in one or more of these categories.

We expect that, if approved, our oral PTH product candidates for hypoparathyroidism, osteoporosis and non-union fractures, and other product candidates that we develop, would compete with a number of existing products. Furthermore, we believe that we face competition with regard to our oral drug delivery platform, as we believe that other non-invasive medical drug delivery technologies, including alternative oral delivery systems as well as transdermal patches, are being developed by other parties. Many of our potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, commercial and human resources than we do and significantly more experience in the discovery, development and regulatory approvals of product candidates, and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining FDA approval for product candidates and achieving widespread market acceptance. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates.”

EB612 for Hypoparathyroidism

Historically, the treatments for hypoparathyroidism have been calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements and phosphate binders, however many serious side effects result from this therapy. Our product candidate EB612 is designed to deliver PTH to hypoparathyroid patients to directly address the underlying PTH deficiency. Because our product would be a branded pharmaceutical, in contrast to the over-the-counter supplements currently used by those with the condition, we believe that the market acceptance will be strongest among patients whose disease is not well-controlled by over-the-counter supplements, or in those patients who continue to suffer from side effects associated with therapy or symptoms associated with poor management of their condition.

We believe that our key competitor in hypoparathyroidism treatment is Shire plc, which is marketing Natpara, an injectable bioengineered recombinant form of PTH (1-84) that was approved by the FDA in January 2015. Natpara has been granted orphan drug designation for hypoparathyroidism by the FDA as the first approved product for this indication, has orphan drug market exclusivity for seven years in the United States. Orphan drug market exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity. Therefore, we will only be able to obtain regulatory approval for EB612, which also has orphan drug designation for hypoparathyroidism, if we demonstrate EB612’s clinical superiority over Natpara in that it demonstrates greater effectiveness or safety than Natpara or that it otherwise makes a major contribution to patient care. We believe that we will be able to demonstrate that our oral formulation of PTH is clinically superior to Natpara in terms of efficacy and safety, and therefore, that Natpara’s orphan drug exclusivity will not prevent the FDA from approving our BLA for oral PTH prior to the expiration of Natpara’s market exclusivity period.

In addition, Ascendis Pharma has reported that it is developing a long-acting oral, prodrug formulation of PTH for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism. Ascendis’ oral PTH product is currently in preclinical development, and Ascendis has reported that it plans to initiate a Phase 1 trial for the drug in the third quarter of 2017.

EB613 for Osteoporosis

Current treatments for osteoporosis generally fall into two categories: antiresorptive medications to slow bone loss and anabolic medications to increase the rate of bone formation. The global osteoporosis drug market has traditionally been dominated by bisphosphonates, which slow bone loss. Although bisphosphonates’ market share has declined due to the occurrence of serious side effects, as well as the introduction of newly developed pharmacological treatments, many of the new drugs have serious side effects of their own. Eli Lilly’s Forteo, is one

of the most effective osteoporosis medications. We anticipate that our product candidate EB613 if approved, will compete with Forteo. We believe that EB613 may prove to be superior to Forteo due to its oral administration, potentially leading to greater patient acceptance and its sharper pharmacokinetic profile which is expected to have more potent anabolic effect. However, our competitors in this market are large pharmaceutical companies with greater resources than us and the alternatives therapies have been on the market for many years and have widespread market acceptance.

Bone Healing

There are currently no approved pharmacological treatments to stimulate bone healing. We anticipate that, if approved, our oral PTH product candidate for the treatment of non-union fractures would compete with non-pharmacological treatments such as electrical stimulation as well as off-label use of Forteo.

The Israeli Innovation Authority Grant

We have received grants of approximately $0.5 million from the IIA to partially fund our research and development. The grants are subject to certain requirements and restrictions in the Encouragement of Industrial Research, Development and Technological Innovation in Industry Law, 5744-1984, or the Research Law. In general, until the grants are repaid with interest, royalties are payable to the Israeli government in the amount of 3% on revenues derived from sales of products or services developed in whole or in part using the IIA grants, including EB612, EB613 and any other oral PTH product candidates we may develop. The royalty rate may increase to 5%, with respect to approved applications filed after we achieve sales of over $70 million in the year prior to the application.

The amount that must be repaid may be increased to three times the amount of the grant received, and the rate of royalties may be accelerated if manufacturing of the products developed with the grant money is transferred outside of the State of Israel. As of December 31, 2016, the total royalty payable to the IIA, including accrued interest, was approximately $0.5 million. As of December 31, 2016, we had not paid any royalties to the IIA.

In addition to paying any royalties due, we must abide by other restrictions associated with receiving such grants under the Research Law that continue to apply following repayment to the IIA. These restrictions may impair our ability to outsource manufacturing, engage in change of control transactions or otherwise transfer our “know-how” (as defined in the Research Law) outside of Israel, and may require us to obtain the approval of the IIA for certain actions and transactions and pay additional royalties and other amounts to the IIA. We may not receive the required approvals for any proposed transfer and, even if received, we may be required to pay the IIA a portion of the consideration that we receive upon any sale of such technology to a non-Israeli entity up to 600% of the grant amounts plus interest. In addition, any change of control and any change of ownership of our ordinary shares (including by way of an initial public offering) that would make a non-Israeli citizen or resident an “interested party,” as defined in the Research Law, requires written notice to the IIA. Such a non-Israeli interested party is required to sign an undertaking towards the IIA in which it undertakes to comply with the Research. An IPO of the Company requires the prior approval of the IIA. Shareholders in an IPO are not required to sign an IIA undertaking. If we fail to comply with the Research Law, we may be forced to return the grants and/or be subject to monetary fines and/or criminal charges.

Oramed Patent Transfer Agreement

In 2010, in connection with our establishment as a joint venture between D.N.A Biomedical Solutions Ltd., or D.N.A Biomedical, and Oramed Ltd., or Oramed, a subsidiary of Oramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., we entered into a patent license agreement with Oramed pursuant to which Oramed granted us a worldwide, royalty-bearing, exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual and sublicensable license under certain Oramed patent rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize products for certain indications to be specified by us and Oramed, other than diabetes, obesity and influenza. In February 2011, D.N.A Biomedical and Oramed entered into a share purchase agreement for the sale by Oramed to D.N.A Biomedical of 47% of our ordinary shares. In connection with this transaction, in February 2011 we entered into a patent transfer agreement with Oramed, or the Patent Transfer Agreement, to replace the original 2010 license agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Patent Transfer Agreement, Oramed assigned to us all of its right, title and interest in the previously licensed patent rights, and in return we granted to Oramed a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual and sublicensable license under the assigned patent rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize products or otherwise exploit such patent rights in the fields of diabetes and influenza. Additionally, we agreed not to engage, directly or indirectly, in any activities in

the fields of diabetes and influenza. In consideration for such assignment, we agreed to pay Oramed royalties equal to 3% of our net revenues generated, directly or indirectly, from exploitation of the assigned patent rights, including the sale, lease or transfer of the assigned patent rights or sales of products or services covered by the assigned patent rights. Either party may terminate the Patent Transfer Agreement for the other party’s uncured material breach upon 45 days’ written notice (and immediately upon written notice in the event of an incurable breach), or if the other party undergoes certain insolvency-related events. The royalty obligations imposed on us will survive termination of the Patent Transfer Agreement.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect the proprietary nature of our product candidates, technology, and know-how; operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others; and prevent others from infringing on our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, seeking patent protection in the United States and in certain other jurisdictions for our product candidates and other technology that we consider important to the development of our business, where such protection is available. We believe that our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain patent protection for our intellectual property. We also intend to rely on trade secret protection, know-how and the exploitation of in-licensing opportunities to develop our proprietary position.

Patent Rights

As of June 30, 2017, our global patent portfolio included the following patents and patent applications:

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the United States, a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the useful patent term lost, if any, during the FDA regulatory review process. However, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product’s approval by the FDA. The patent term extension period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of the BLA for the product, plus the time between the submission date of the BLA and the approval of the application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is

eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. Only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Moreover, we may not receive an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Similar provisions are available in the European Union and certain other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. However, the length of any extension could be less than we request.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patent rights, we also rely on unpatented trade secrets and know-how to protect our proprietary technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers, our board of directors, or our Board, technical review board, and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not to be disclosed to third parties except in specific limited circumstances. We also generally require signed confidentiality or material transfer agreements from any company that is to receive our confidential information. In the case of employees, consultants, and contractors, the agreements also generally provide that all inventions conceived by the individual while rendering services to us shall be assigned to us as our exclusive property. There can be no assurance, however, that we have entered into agreements with all applicable parties, that all persons who we desire to sign such agreements will sign, or if they do, that these agreements will not be breached, that we would have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our unpatented trade secrets or know-how will not otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors. Additionally, to the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For this and a more comprehensive discussion of risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate facilities for large scale product manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing, nor do we expect to in the future. Our current facility is limited to small-mid scale product manufacturing, storage and distribution of materials for clinical studies. Our facility has ISO:9001:2008 quality management systems accreditation from The Standards Institution of Israel for the production and development of functional excipients and oral drug formulations to be used in clinical trials. The facility includes a dedicated clean room designed as a Class C / ISO 8 clean room for tablet production and a dedicated chemical synthesis clean room designed as a Class C ISO 8 clean room. All personnel involved in these activities have the relevant background, expertise and training in the relevant company standard operating procedures.

Our manufacturing activities include the chemical synthesis of one of our non-active but functional drug components as well as the formulation and production of the final drug, packaging, storage and distribution. The testing and release of materials to be used in the manufacturing process as well as the testing and release of the manufactured products is overseen by our QA/QC department and relies on internal and external tests. We have signed a contract with a UK-based contract manufacturing organization, to produce and supply pills for trials performed worldwide. This contract is not exclusive and Entera may enter into additional contracts as it sees fit to support its activities and mitigate risk. Various materials included in the drug formulation and materials procured for the chemical synthesis are commercially available from various accredited suppliers. We do not have supply contracts with all these vendors and are not bound to any specific vendor at this point in time. However, it is our intention to complete such contracts in anticipation of commercial manufacturing activities, so that when approved, we will have such contracts in place.

In March 2017, we contracted with an FDA/ EMA inspected- GMP subcontractor in the UK to outsource activities for technical transfer and tablet production for our international clinical trials.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in other countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Review and Approval of Drugs and Biologics in the United States

In the United States, our product candidates are regulated by the FDA as biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and regulations implemented by the agency. The failure to comply with the applicable requirements at any time during the product development process, including preclinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may subject an applicant to delays in the conduct of clinical trials, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the FDA’s refusal to allow an applicant to proceed with clinical testing, refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, warning letters, adverse publicity, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, and civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA or Department of Justice, or other governmental entities.

The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following steps:

Preclinical Studies and Investigational New Drug Application

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animals. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application. Some preclinical tests may continue even after submission of the IND application. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trial can begin.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the clinical trials to commence or allowing the clinical trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the IND process, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical trial or cause suspension of an ongoing clinical trial, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing planned clinical trials in a timely manner.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with cGCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a clinical trial outside the United States is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA so long as the clinical trial is conducted consistent with the spirit of GCP and in compliance with an international guideline for the ethical conduct of clinical research known as the Declaration of Helsinki and/or the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the clinical trial is performed, whichever provides the greater protection to the participants in the clinical trial.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with the FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group may recommend continuing the clinical trial as planned, make changes in clinical trial conduct, or cessation of the clinical trial at designated check points based on access to certain data from the clinical trial.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Additional studies may be required after approval.

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness after BLA approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs or biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement or to request a change in the product labeling. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Compliance with Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined.

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both U.S. and non-U.S. manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether U.S. or non-U.S., is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated.

Review and Approval of a Biologic License Application

The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product. The BLA also must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. According to the FDA’s fee schedule, effective from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017, the user fee for an application requiring clinical data, such as an NDA, is $2,038,100.

The FDA has 60 days after submission of the application to conduct an initial review to determine whether it is sufficient to accept for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. Under the goals and policies under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or the PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months for a priority review of the application. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority applications. The review process may often be significantly extended by FDA

requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests, or the applicant otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Under the FDCA and the PHSA, the FDA may approve a BLA if it determines that the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility where the product will be manufactured meets standards designed to ensure that it continues to be safe, pure and potent.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a complete response letter, which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a complete response letter may submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA. Such resubmissions are classified under PDUFA as either Class 1 or Class 2. The classification of a resubmission is based on the information submitted by an applicant in response to an action letter. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has two months to review a Class 1 resubmission and six months to review a Class 2 resubmission from the date of receipt. The FDA will not approve an application until issues identified in the complete response letter have been addressed.

The FDA may also refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to further assess the product’s safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including a REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs are fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for fast track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a fast track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the fast track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, in 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. This law established a new regulatory scheme allowing for expedited review of products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the 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. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

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 clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a product, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a product.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Post-Approval Regulation

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, including any post-approval requirements that the FDA may have imposed as a condition of approval. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon drug manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

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

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Biologics may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Orphan Drug Designation

Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop drugs intended for rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the drug for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the drug in the United States.

Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits, waiver of the BLA user fee and may confer market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the drug’s marketing approval, if granted by the FDA, if a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that drug for the disease for which it has such designation. This means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a BLA to market the same biologic even in a different formulation for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan drug exclusivity or where the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient product quantity. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan product when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development, or OOPD, at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests made under the regulatory provisions. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first, approved product. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation, and only the first sponsor that obtains approval for that drug for the orphan indication will obtain market exclusivity, effectively preventing the FDA from approving products under development by competitors for the same drug and same indication, unless the competitor is able to demonstrate that the product under development is clinically superior to the approved product or the approved product is not available in sufficient quantities. To permit the FDA to end another manufacturer’s orphan exclusivity period, the FDA must determine that the manufacturer has demonstrated clinical superiority by showing the later drug is safer, more effective, or makes a major contribution to patient care.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a subsequent application for a different drug for the same indication. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. To date, five biosimilars have been licensed under the BPCIA, although numerous biosimilars have been approved in Europe. The FDA has issued several draft guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation, which are still being worked out by the FDA.

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

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products.

Patent Term Extension

A patent claiming a new drug or biologic product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years beyond the expiration date of a U.S. patent as partial compensation for the useful patent term lost, if any, during the FDA regulatory review process. However, a patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of the product’s approval by the FDA. The patent term extension period granted is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the first IND and the submission date of the BLA for the product, plus the time between the submission date of the BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the products. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Regulation Outside the United States

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Regulation and Marketing Authorization in the European Union

The EMA is the scientific agency of the European Union that coordinates the evaluation and monitoring of new and approved medicinal products. It is responsible for the scientific evaluation of applications for EU marketing authorizations, as well as the development of technical guidance and the provision of scientific advice to sponsors. The EMA decentralizes its scientific assessment of medicines by working through a network of about 4,500 experts throughout the European Union, nominated by the member states. The EMA draws on resources of over 40 National Competent Authorities, or the NCAs, of EU member states.

The process regarding approval of medicinal products in the European Union follows roughly the same lines as in the United States and likewise generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential efficacy and toxicity in animals. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant EU regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA when seeking approval to start a clinical trial, and with the MAA when seeking marketing authorization.

Clinical Trial Approval

Requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union including cGCP, are implemented in the currently Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC. Pursuant to Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC, as amended, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the EU member states. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of a EU member state in which a trial is planned to be conducted, or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. To this end, a CTA is submitted, which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier, or IMPD, and further supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and other applicable guidance documents. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application in that country.

In April 2014, the European Union legislative body passed the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the EU, the new EU clinical trials legislation was passed as a regulation which is directly applicable in all EU member states. All clinical trials performed in the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC until the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 will become applicable. According to the current plans of the EMA, the new Clinical Trials Regulation will become applicable in 2019. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC will, however, still apply three years from the date of entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation to (i) clinical trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year after the entry into application if the sponsor opts for the old system.

The new Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trial in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include:

Marketing Authorization

Authorization to market a product in the member states of the European Union proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized authorization procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure or a national procedure.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization that is valid in all EU member states based on a single application. Certain medicinal products, including products developed by means of biotechnological processes must undergo the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization, which, if granted by the European Commission, is automatically valid in all – currently 28 – European Union member states. Sponsors may elect to file an MAA through the centralized procedures for other classes of products. The EMA and the European Commission administer this centralized authorization procedure pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. The other European Economic Area member states (namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) are also obligated to recognize the Commission decision.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, this procedure is mandatory for:

The centralized authorization procedure is optional for other medicinal products if they contain a new active substance or if the applicant shows that the medicinal product concerned constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization is in the interest of patients in the European Union.

Administrative Procedure

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products for human use on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each member state’s national authority for medicinal products, with one of them appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co-ordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the Committee acting as a Co-Rapporteur. After approval, the Rapporteur(s) continue to monitor the product throughout its life cycle. The CHMP has 210 days, to adopt an opinion as to whether a marketing authorization should be granted. The process usually takes longer in case additional information is requested, which triggers clock-stops in the procedural timelines. The process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the regulatory authorities of member states and a number of experts. When an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in respect of a drug which is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, the applicant may pursuant to Article 14(9) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 request an accelerated assessment procedure. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time-limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time-limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report, or EPAR, is produced. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on which this conclusion was reached. After the adoption of the CHMP opinion, a decision on the MAA must be adopted by the European Commission, after consulting the European Union member states, which in total can take more than 60 days. After a drug has been authorized and launched, it is a condition of maintaining the marketing authorization that all aspects relating to its quality, safety and efficacy must be kept under review.

Conditional Approval

In specific circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14(7) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for products (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (1) the risk-benefit balance of the product is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) the product fulfills unmet medical needs, and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Marketing Authorization Under Exceptional Circumstances

As per Art. 14(8) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, products for which the applicant can demonstrate that comprehensive data (in line with the requirements laid down in Annex I of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended) cannot be provided (due to specific reasons foreseen in the legislation) might be eligible for marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances. This type of authorization is reviewed annually to reassess the risk-benefit balance. The fulfillment of any specific procedures/obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is aimed at the provision of information on the safe and effective use of the product and will normally not lead to the completion of a full dossier/approval.

Market Authorizations Granted by Authorities of EU Member States

In general, if the centralized procedure is not followed, there are three alternative procedures to obtain a marketing authorization in (one or several) EU member states as prescribed in Directive 2001/83/EC:

A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Union.

Pediatric Studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Paediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the paediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver, or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, the so called Paediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Paediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine in children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine in children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population.

Before a marketing authorization application can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

Period of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization will be valid for five years in principle, and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization will be valid for an unlimited period, unless the Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization that is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization will cease to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 the European Commission can grant such orphan medicinal product designation to products for which the sponsor can establish that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the European Union, or (2) a life threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would generate a sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. In addition, the sponsor must establish that there is no other satisfactory method approved in the European Union of diagnosing, preventing or treating the condition, or if such a method exists, the proposed orphan drug will be of significant benefit to patients.

Orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized EU marketing authorization (see “Centralized Authorization Procedure”), as well as 10 years of market exclusivity following a marketing authorization. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA, nor the European Commission nor the Member States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. In addition, a competing similar medicinal product may be authorized prior to the expiration of the market exclusivity period, including if it is shown to be safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the already approved orphan drug or if the holder of the marketing authorization for the already approved orphan drug is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the product.

If the MAA of a medicinal product designated as an orphan drug includes the results of all studies conducted in compliance with an agreed PIP, and a corresponding statement is subsequently included in the marketing authorization granted, the ten-year period of market exclusivity will be extended to twelve years.

Regulatory Data Protection

European Union legislation also provides for a system of regulatory data and market exclusivity. According to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities approved on the basis of complete independent data package benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder, or MAH, obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator is able to gain the period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical test, pre-clinical tests and clinical trials. However, products designated as orphan medicinal products enjoy, upon receiving marketing authorization, a period of 10 years of orphan market exclusivity (see also “Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity”). Depending upon the timing and duration of the EU marketing authorization process, products may be eligible for up to five years’ supplementary protection certificates, or SPCs, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. Such SPCs extend the rights under the basic patent for the drug.

Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization Has Been Obtained

If we obtain authorization for a medicinal product in the European Union, we will be required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products:

Pharmacovigilance and Other Requirements

We will, for example, have to comply with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed.

Other requirements relate to, for example, the manufacturing of products and active pharmaceutical ingredients in accordance with good manufacturing practice standards. EU regulators may conduct inspections to verify our compliance with applicable requirements, and we will have to continue to expend time, money and effort to remain compliant. Non-compliance with EU requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties in the European Union. Similarly, failure to comply with the EU’s requirements regarding the protection of individual personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Individual European Union member states may also impose various sanctions and penalties in case we do not comply with locally applicable requirements.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing of authorized drugs, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s cGMP requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. The EMA enforces its cGMP requirements through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. The EMA may have a coordinating role for these inspections while the responsibility for carrying them out rests with the member states competent authority under whose responsibility the manufacturer falls. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs and lost revenues, and could subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil and criminal penalties.

Marketing and Promotion

The marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union notably under Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. The applicable regulations aim to ensure that information provided by holders of marketing authorizations regarding their products is truthful, balanced and accurately reflects the safety and efficacy claims authorized by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

Clinical Testing in Israel

In order to conduct clinical trials on humans in Israel, prior authorization must be obtained (depending on the nature of the trial) from either the medical director of the institution in which the clinical studies are scheduled to be conducted, or from the general manager of the Israeli Ministry of Health, as required under the Guidelines for Clinical Trials in Human Subjects implemented pursuant to the Israeli Public Health Regulations (Clinical Trials in Human Subjects), 5740-1980, as amended from time to time. Pursuant to the Israeli Public Health Regulations, such authorization generally cannot be granted unless, among other things, the relevant institutions ethics committee has provided its prior approval of the testing. In certain circumstances, such as in the cases of genetic trials or special fertility trials, a written opinion provided by the Ministry of Health’s ethics committee is also required in order to receive such authorization.

The institutional ethics committee must, among other things, evaluate the anticipated benefits that are likely to be derived from the project to determine if it justifies the risks and inconvenience to be inflicted on the participating human subjects, and it must also ensure that adequate protection exists for the rights and safety of the participants as well as the accuracy of the information gathered in the course of the clinical testing.

Other Healthcare Laws

Health care providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other health care laws and regulations. In the United States, such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other health care laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded health care programs.

Environmental, Health and Safety

We are further subject to various foreign, national, federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental, health and safety matters, including the handling, disposal, release, and use of and maintenance of a registry for hazardous materials, among others. Although we do not believe that we will be required to make material operating or capital expenditures in connection with such laws and regulations, we may be required to incur significant costs to comply with these laws and regulations in the future, and complying with these laws and regulations may result in a material adverse effect upon our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, our failure to comply with such laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation, result in an interruption or delay in the development or manufacture of our products, or increase the costs for the development or manufacture of our products.

Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any drug products for which we plan to seek regulatory approval. Sales of any of our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. Concerns about drug pricing have been expressed by members of Congress and the new administration. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a drug product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA, EMA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and examining the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit. The U.S. government, state legislatures and non-U.S. governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. Adoption of such controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceuticals such as the product candidates that we are developing and could adversely affect our net revenue and results.

Pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. The conduct of such studies could be expensive and result in delays in our commercializing efforts. The European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very

intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

The marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on drug pricing. Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and drug pricing regulation may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Health Care Reform

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of significant legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The ACA was enacted in the United States in March 2010 and contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products, including, for example, increased rebates for drugs subject to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, effective April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will stay in effect through 2025, unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further 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 new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations.

President Trump and the majorities of both houses of Congress have stated their intention to repeal and replace the ACA. On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. In May 2017, the House of Representatives voted to pass the American Healthcare Act of 2017, which repeals certain portions of the ACA and adds material new provisions. On June 22, 2017, the Senate introduced its own healthcare reform bill. Considerable uncertainty remains about whether the Senate bill will pass or how it will be reconciled with the House version, and if it does and President Trump signs it into law, about the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation on us, our industry or the market for drug products like ours. Though the full future impact of the new administration and the U.S. Congress on our business remains unclear, legislative and regulatory changes may continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures, as well as legal changes by foreign governments, will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Corporate History and Organization

We were established in June 2010 as a joint venture of D.N.A Biomedical and Oramed to pursue the development of pharmaceutical products for the oral delivery of proteins. In connection with our founding, Oramed licensed to us the use of certain of its patent rights relating to the oral delivery of drugs. In February 2011, Oramed sold the majority of its holdings in us to D.N.A Biomedical and, assigned to us its patent rights that it had previously licensed to us, in exchange for an exclusive license to use the assigned patent rights in the fields of diabetes and influenza and for royalties of 3% of our net revenues generated from the use or other exploitation of the assigned

patent rights. In March 2011, D.N.A Biomedical and Oramed terminated the joint venture. We began operations in August 2010, and our operations to date have included developing our drug delivery technology for the oral administration of proteins and large molecules, in particular our oral PTH (1-34) product candidates.

Employees

As of June 30, 2017, we had sixteen employees and one consultant who provides consulting services to us on a full-time basis. In addition, we have entered into service agreements with three of our directors. Four of our employees have either PhDs or MDs. All of our employees are located in Israel. We believe that we maintain good relations with all of our employees and consultants. We are not a party to any collective labor agreements.

Facilities

Our corporate headquarters and research facilities are located in Jerusalem, Israel, where we lease office and laboratory space pursuant to a lease agreement that will expire on June 30, 2023, with a one-time option for early termination by the Company on June 30, 2020. This facility also houses our clinical development, clinical operations, regulatory and management functions.

We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our needs. We believe that suitable additional space would be available if required in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

Legal Proceedings

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

Management

Executive Officers and Directors

The following table sets forth the name, age and position of each of our executive officers and directors as of the date of this prospectus:

Executive Officers

Dr. Phillip Schwartz has served as our Chief Executive Officer and as a Director since our inception in 2010. He previously served as the manager of clinical affairs at Endo Pharmaceuticals from 2005 to 2010 and at Serono from 2002 to 2005, and held multiple positions in medical affairs, business development and clinical trial development at each of Endo Pharmaceuticals and Serono. He has also worked as an external consultant for a number of venture capital firms. Dr. Schwartz has more than twenty years of biotech and pharmaceutical industry experience. He has also consulted privately and as an associate of Health Advances, LLC for more than 20 large biotech and pharmaceutical companies from 2000 to 2002. He has multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals and has presented papers at numerous international conferences. Dr. Schwartz completed his B.A. in psychology and architecture at Columbia University in 1987, and during that time he also worked in the neurobiology laboratory of Nobel Laureate Professor Torsten Wiesel of the Rockefeller University. Dr. Schwartz then studied immunology with Professor Irun Cohen at the Weizmann Institute, receiving his M.Sc. in 1991. In 1997, Dr. Schwartz received his Ph.D. in neurobiology/development/oncology from Harvard Medical School. In addition to his scientific training, Dr. Schwartz completed numerous clinical courses as part of his program at Harvard Medical School. After completing his Ph.D., Dr. Schwartz was a fellow in pediatric oncology at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and an officer of Harvard University Medical School.

Mira Rosenzweig has served as our Chief Financial Officer since May 2014. Ms. Rosenzweig served as the Chief Financial Officer of Paskal Technologies Ltd., a company that provides solutions for the agriculture industry, from May 2013 to May 2014. Prior to that, from September 2008 to November 2011, Ms. Rosenzweig served as the vice president and chief financial officer of Camtek Ltd. (NASDAQ: CAMT), a company that provides automated solutions for the semiconductors and printed circuit board industries. From August 2006 to August 2008, Ms. Rosenzweig served as director of finance and from August 2001 to 2006 as a controller and in various other positions for Elron Electronic Industries Ltd., then-traded on NASDAQ. Ms. Rosenzweig is a certified public accountant and holds a B.A. in Accounting and Economics from the University of Haifa, Israel.

Dr. Hillel Galitzer has served as our Chief Operating Officer since February 2014, and served as our Director of Scientific Development from July 2012. Between August 2010 and February 2014, Dr. Galitzer was an analyst and chief operating officer for Hadasit Bio Holdings Ltd., a publicly traded company on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and OTC markets. He has more than ten years of experience in medical research and molecular biology. He is the co-founder and former chief operating officer of Optivasive Inc. He has written numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals and has lectured and presented in international conferences and universities. Dr. Galitzer received his Ph.D. from the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem, where he was mentored by two world renowned researchers in the areas of parathyroid hormone and calcium regulation, his M.B.A. from Bar Ilan University in Israel and his B.Med.Sc. from the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem.

Dr. Miriam Blum has served as our Chief Medical Officer since January 2015. Dr. Blum completed her residency in internal medicine and fellowships in endocrinology and bone metabolism at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Dr. Blum has received multiple research grants in bone metabolism as well as the prestigious NIH K23 grant for exceptional young investigators. She has supervised multiple academic and pharmaceutical clinical trials in vitamin D and calcium metabolism. Dr. Blum was formerly Associate Professor and attending physician at Tufts University Medical School and The New England Medical Center. She received an M.D. from SUNY Downstate Medical School. Dr. Blum is the wife of Dr. Phillip Schwartz, our Chief Executive Officer and director.

Directors

Luke M. Beshar has served as a director since December 2015, and as the executive chairman of our board of directors since December 2016. Previously, Mr. Beshar served as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since November 2007 and January 2012, respectively, until February 2015, when NPS Pharmaceuticals was acquired by Shire plc. Prior to that he served in several managerial positions with NPS Pharmaceuticals, Netexit, Inc. Camberx Corporation, Cegedim Inc., Expanets, Inc., PNY Technologies, Inc., Dendrite International, WSR Corporation, the Genlyte Group, Inc. and Bairnco Corporation. Mr. Beshar has been an independent director of Trillium Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIL), since March 2014 and Regenxbio Inc. (NASDAQ: RGNX) since April 2015. He is a Member of the New York Society of Certified Public Accountants. He has a B.A. in Accounting and Finance from Michigan State University and is a graduate of the Executive Program of the Darden Graduate Business School at the University of Virginia.

Dr. Roger Garceau has served as director since March 2016 and as our Chief Development Advisor since December 2016. Prior to joining Entera, Dr. Garceau served as Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. since December 2008 and January 2013 respectively, until February 2015, when NPS Pharmaceuticals was acquired by Shire plc. Previously, Dr. Garceau has also served in several managerial positions with NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sanofi-aventis and Pharmacia Corporation. Dr Garceau has been a non-executive director of Enterome SA since December 2016. Dr. Garceau is a board-certified pediatrician and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Garceau holds B.S. in Biology from Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut and an M.D. from the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Zeev Bronfeld has served as a member of our board of directors since 2010 and as chairman of our board of directors since September 2014 and until November 2016. Mr. Bronfeld, is a co-founder of Bio-Cell Ltd., an Israeli publicly traded holding company specializing in biotechnology companies, and served as its chief executive officer from 1986 until December 2014. Since 2003 Mr. Bronfeld also served as the chief executive officer of M.B.R.T Development and Investments Ltd. Mr. Bronfeld has vast experience in the management and value building of biotechnology companies. From 2010 through July 2014, he served as the chairman of the board of Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. (NYSE: PLX) and has been a director on its board since 2006. In addition, Mr. Bronfeld serves on the board of directors of D.N.A Biomedical Solutions Ltd. and of The Trendlines Group Ltd. Until December 2016 he served as a director of D. Medical Industries Ltd. and Nasvax Ltd. Until January 2017, Mr. Bronfeld also served as a director of Macrocure Ltd. Mr. Bronfeld is also a director of number of privately-held companies, including, Contipi Medical Ltd. and as chairman of the board of TransBiodiesel Ltd. Mr. Bronfeld holds a B.A. in Economics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mr. Bronfeld serves on our board of directors as a designee of D.N.A Biomedical.

David Ben Ami has served as a member of our board of directors since 2014. Mr. Ben-Ami has more than 25 years of experience with activities in management, business development and corporate strategy in the life sciences industry. He served as chief executive officer of NVR Labs from 2005 to 2010, country director of Boston Scientific, Israel from 2003 to 2005, and director of business development of Teva Israel from 1999 to 2003. In

2008, he co-founded Macrocure. Mr. Ben-Ami currently serves as the chairman of the board of directors of Macrocure and also sits on the board of directors of Degania Silicone Ltd. He received his M.B.A. and B.A. in Economics & Management from Tel-Aviv University. Mr. Ben Ami serves on our board of directors as a designee of the Centillion Fund.

Chaim Davis has served as a member of our board of directors since 2013. Mr. Davis is the managing member of the Revach Fund L.P., a sector-specific lifescience fund focusing on micro to mid-cap companies, which he founded in 2005. He has also served as a consultant to other hedge funds including Gem Partners, KOM Capital Management and Maot Group. From 2010 to 2014, he served as a director of AtheroNova Inc. (OTCBQ: AHRO), and from 2001 to 2004, he served as a healthcare analyst at The Garnet Group. Mr. Davis received his B.A. from Columbia University. Mr. Davis serves on our board of directors as a designee of the lenders under our convertible financing agreements.

Gerald Lieberman has served as a member of our board of directors since 2014. Mr. Lieberman was the former president and chief operating officer of AllianceBernstein L.P. until 2009. There, he was elected chief operating officer and a director in November 2003 and added the title of president in November 2004. Prior to that, Mr. Lieberman was senior vice president for finance and administration at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc. He has also held senior roles at Fidelity Investments and Citicorp. From 2011 to 2014 he served on the board of directors of Forest Laboratories Inc., which was acquired by Actavis plc in 2014. Mr. Lieberman currently serves on the board of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Mr. Lieberman earned a B.S. with honors from the University of Connecticut and attended New York University’s Graduate School of Business Administration. He is a certified public accountant.

Yonatan Malca has served as a member of our board of directors since 2011. Mr. Malca currently serves as a Chief Executive Officer and Director of D.N.A Biomedical Solutions Ltd., a position he has held since 2010. Mr. Malca also serves as a director of Arko Holdings Ltd. and of Tamda Ltd., both of which are Israeli public companies. Mr. Malca also serves on the board of directors of a number of private companies, including as chairman of the board of directors of Cardioart Technologies LTD, a medical device company, and Beamed Ltd., a medical device company (a subsidiary of D.N.A. Biomedical). Mr. Malca received a B.A. and an M.A. from Bar Ilan University. Mr. Malca serves on our board of directors as a designee of D.N.A Biomedical.

Arrangements for Election of Directors

Pursuant to the terms of the amended and restated investors’ rights agreement among us, the Centillion Fund, or Centillion, and the other parties thereto, following the consummation of this offering, for as long as Centillion and its affiliates hold an aggregate of at least 10% of our issued and outstanding ordinary shares, we will nominate, if so requested by Centillion and as permitted by applicable law, a designee of Centillion for election by our shareholders as a member of our board of directors and will recommend that our shareholders vote in favor of such election. David Ben Ami, a member of our board of directors, was nominated by Centillion pursuant to its director designation right. Following the consummation of this offering, Centillion will hold approximately % of our issued and outstanding ordinary shares, and in the event that Centillion exercises in full all of the warrants to purchase our ordinary shares that we will have issued to it as of such date, Centillion will hold approximately % of our issued and outstanding ordinary shares.

For as long as the 2016 Convertible Loan has not been repaid to Pontifax (Israre), Pontifax (Cayman) IV L.P. and Pontiax (China) IV Fund L.P., a lender group under the 2016 Convertible Loan (together, the “Pontifax Funds”), and thereafter for as long as the Pontifax Funds hold at least 1% of the issued and outstanding share capital of the Company on a fully diluted basis, the Pontifax Funds have the right to appoint one director to our Board, on behalf of the lenders under the 2016 Convertible Loan. The Pontifax Funds’ right to appoint a director will terminate immediately prior to an IPO by the Company. The Pontifax Funds have not yet exercised this right.

Corporate Governance Practices

We are incorporated in Israel and therefore are subject to various corporate governance practices under the Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, or the Companies Law, relating to such matters as external directors, financial experts, our audit committee, our compensation committee and our internal auditor. These matters are in addition to the requirements of          and other relevant provisions of U.S. securities laws. As a foreign private issuer whose shares will be listed on           , we have the option to follow certain Israeli corporate governance practices rather

than those of              , except to the extent that such laws would be contrary to U.S. securities laws and provided that we disclose the practices that we are not following and describe the home country practices we follow instead. We intend to rely on this “foreign private issuer exemption” with respect to the following             requirements: