AMRN

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

☑ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File No. 0-21392

Amarin Corporation plc

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Iconic Offices, The Greenway, Block C Ardilaun Court,

112-114 St Stephens Green, Dublin 2, Ireland

(Address of principal executive offices)

+353 (0) 1 6699 020

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant's executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2022 was approximately $721.2 million, based upon the closing price on the NASDAQ Global Market reported for such date.

406,115,721 shares were outstanding as of February 24, 2023, including 385,785,809 shares held as American Depositary Shares (ADSs), each representing one Ordinary Share, 50 pence par value per share, and 20,329,912 Ordinary Shares.

Table of Contents

PART I

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the progress and timing of our clinical programs, regulatory filings and commercialization activities, and the potential clinical benefits, safety and market potential of our product candidates, as well as more general statements regarding our expectations for future financial and operational performance, regulatory environment, and market trends. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “expects,” “aims,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “projects,” “potential,” or “continue”; the negative of these terms; or other comparable terminology. These statements include but are not limited to statements regarding the commercial success of and benefits and market opportunity for VASCEPA (brand name VAZKEPA in Europe but predominately referenced in this document by its brand name in the United States and other countries where it is approved, VASCEPA or icosapent ethyl) and factors that can affect such success; plans to obtain regulatory approvals and favorable market access and pricing in several jurisdictions, to expand promotion of VASCEPA and statements regarding cost and pricing of VASCEPA and other treatments; interpretation of court decisions; plans with respect to litigation; expectation on determinations and policy positions of the United States Food and Drug Administration, or U.S. FDA; the safety and efficacy of our product and product candidates; expectation regarding the potential for VASCEPA to be partnered, developed and commercialized outside of the United States; expectation on the scope and strength of our intellectual property protection and the likelihood of securing additional patent protection; estimates of the potential markets for our product candidates; estimates of the capacity of manufacturing and other facilities to support our products; our operating and growth strategies; our industry; our projected cash needs, liquidity and capital resources; and our expected future revenues, operations and expenditures.

Forward-looking statements are only current predictions and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to be materially different from those anticipated by such statements. These factors include, among other things, those listed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, performance, or achievements. Except as required by law, we are under no duty to update or revise any of such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K concerning our product candidates, the number of patients that may benefit from these product candidates and the potential commercial opportunity for our product candidates, is based on information from independent industry analysts and third-party sources (including industry publications, surveys, and forecasts), our internal research, and management estimates. Management estimates are derived from publicly available information released by independent industry analysts and third-party sources, as well as data from our internal research, and based on assumptions made by us based on such data and our knowledge of such industry, which we believe to be reasonable. None of the sources cited in this Annual Report on Form 10-K has consented to the inclusion of any data from its reports, nor have we sought their consent. Our internal research has not been verified by any independent source, and we have not independently verified any third-party information. While we believe that such information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is generally reliable, such information is inherently imprecise. In addition, projections, assumptions, and estimates of our future performance are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates made by the independent parties and by us.

1

Item 1. Business

References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Amarin,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Amarin Corporation plc and its subsidiaries, on a consolidated basis, unless otherwise indicated.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes the registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks of other parties.

Amarin Corporation plc is a public limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. Amarin Corporation plc was originally incorporated in England as a private limited company on March 1, 1989 under the Companies Act 1985, and re-registered in England as a public limited company on March 19, 1993.

Our principal office is located at Iconic Offices, The Greenway, Block C Ardilaun Court, 112-114 St Stephens Green, Dublin 2 Ireland. Our registered office is located at One New Change, London EC4M 9AF, England. Our primary office for our European market access team is located at Überbauung Metalli, Gotthardstrasse 2, Zug CH-6300, Switzerland. Our primary office in the United States is located at 440 Route 22, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA. Our telephone number at that location is (908) 719-1315.

For purposes of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our ordinary shares may also be referred to as “common shares” or “common stock.”

Overview

We are a pharmaceutical company focused on the commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular, or CV, health and reduce CV risk. Our commercialized product, VASCEPA® (icosapent ethyl) was first approved by the United States, or U.S., Food and Drug Administration, or U.S. FDA, for use as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride, or TG, levels in adult patients with severe (≥500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia, or the MARINE indication, and commercially launched in 2013. On December 13, 2019, the U.S. FDA approved an indication and label expansion for VASCEPA based on the landmark results of our cardiovascular outcomes trial, REDUCE-IT®, or Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with EPA – Intervention Trial. VASCEPA is the first and only drug approved by the U.S. FDA as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy for reducing persistent cardiovascular risk in select high risk-patients, or the REDUCE-IT indication. On March 26, 2021, the European Commission, or EC, granted approval of the marketing authorization application in the European Union, or EU, for VAZKEPA®, hereinafter along with the U.S. brand name VASCEPA, collectively referred to as VASCEPA, which is the first and only EC approved therapy to reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk statin-treated patients with elevated TG levels. On April 22, 2021, we announced that we received marketing authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, for VAZKEPA in England, Wales and Scotland to reduce cardiovascular risk.

VASCEPA is currently available by prescription in the U.S. and certain other countries throughout the world, as described below. We are responsible for the supply of VASCEPA to all markets in which the branded product is sold, either directly by us or to and through our collaborations with third-party companies. We are not responsible for providing any generic company with drug product. Geographies outside the United States in which VASCEPA is sold and under regulatory review are not subject to the U.S. patent litigation and judgment described below and no similar litigation is pending outside of the United States.

United States

VASCEPA is sold principally to a limited number of major wholesalers, as well as selected regional wholesalers and mail order pharmacy providers, or collectively, our distributors or our customers, most of whom in turn resell VASCEPA to retail pharmacies for subsequent resale to patients and healthcare providers. Since VASCEPA was made commercially available in 2013, more than twenty million estimated normalized total prescriptions of VASCEPA have been reported by Symphony Health. In 2020, following our unsuccessful appeals of a court ruling in favor of two generic drug companies, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., or Dr. Reddy’s, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., or Hikma, and certain of their affiliates, several of our patents covering the MARINE indication were declared invalid. As a result, the following generic versions of VASCEPA have obtained U.S. FDA approval with labeling consistent with the MARINE indication and have entered the U.S. market with a 1-gram capsule:

(1) - Teva launched a 0.5-gram capsule in September 2022 and a 1-gram capsule in January 2023.

2

In June 2022, to address shifts within our U.S. business due to these generic competitors, we announced a comprehensive cost and organizational restructuring plan which is expected to result in savings of $100.0 million over the subsequent twelve months compared to 2021 operating expenses. Our U.S. cost reduction plan included:

In alignment with our U.S. cost reduction plan, our focus is primarily on engaging with our top VASCEPA brand prescribers, maintaining our exclusive formulary coverage with specific payers, and implementing targeted promotional initiatives amid the continued pressure from generic competitors.

Europe

In 2021, we received marketing authorization and regulatory approval in the EU, England, Wales and Scotland.

Launch of VAZKEPA in individual countries depends on the timing of achieving product reimbursement on a country-by-country basis. To date we have filed thirteen dossiers to gain market access in European countries, including in all of the largest countries in Europe. In most European countries, securing product reimbursement is a requisite to launching. In certain countries, such as Denmark, individual patient reimbursement is allowed prior to national, general organization reimbursement. In countries where individual price reimbursement allowed prior to national reimbursement, product can be made available on a patient by patient basis, while national reimbursement negotiations are ongoing. In all countries, securing adequate reimbursement is a requisite for commercial success of any therapeutic. The time required to secure reimbursement tends to vary from country to country and cannot be reliably predicted. While we believe that we have strong arguments regarding the cost effectiveness of VAZKEPA, the success of such reimbursement negotiations have a significant impact on the assessment of the commercial opportunity of VAZKEPA in Europe. Through the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have received and made VAZKEPA available under individual reimbursement or received national reimbursement and launched commercial operations in the following countries, respectively.

In order to launch impactfully throughout Europe, we are building a core team of experienced professionals and highly capable local commercial teams involved with pre-launch planning and other commercial preparation activities and we are leveraging third-party relationships for various support activities. We are implementing an impactful and cost-effective hybrid commercial model balancing optimally digital and face-to-face approach, which will be utilized throughout Europe as launches are rolled out.

Patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease tend to be treated more often by specialists, such as cardiologists rather than by general practitioners. Privacy laws and other factors impact the availability of data to inform European commercial operations at individual physician level. Generally, less data is available and at reduced frequencies than in the United States. However, this greater concentration of at-risk patients being treated by specialists in Europe should allow for more efficient promotion in Europe than in the United States. In Europe, VAZKEPA has the benefit of ten years of market protection, and we have been issued a patent that expires in 2033 with additional pending applications that could extend exclusivity into 2039.

In September 2021, as part of the German reimbursement process, VAZKEPA was made available in Germany with temporary reimbursement while negotiations for final reimbursement were ongoing and VAZKEPA was included in the country's electronic prescribing system as of October 1, 2021. On August 19, 2022, reimbursement negotiations were concluded without agreement. As a result, we discontinued our German business operations as of September 1, 2022. Following the local reimbursement process and initiated by G-KV, we moved to the Arbitration Board. In November 2022, the Arbitration Board process was concluded without reaching a deal. German legislation allows re-submission of a pricing and reimbursement dossier with new data and we plan to resubmit once we have a new dossier ready.

3

Rest of World

China

In February 2015, we entered into an exclusive agreement with Eddingpharm (Asia) Macao Commercial Offshore Limited, or Edding, to develop and commercialize VASCEPA in what we refer to as the China Territory, consisting of the territories of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. On February 23, 2022 the Hong Kong Department of Health completed their evaluation of the clinical trial conducted in China and approved the use of VASCEPA under the REDUCE-IT indication. In China, on October 10, 2022, following the completion of product testing by the China National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, or NIFDC, the final National Medical Products Administration, or NMPA, review of the VASCEPA NDA was initiated with Edding expecting approval by the end of 2022. Due to delays at the Center for Drug Evaluation, or CDE, as a result of the resurgence of COVID-19 in the Beijing area at the end of 2022, Edding has communicated that an approval in Mainland China could be achieved by mid-year of 2023.

Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

In March 2016, we entered into an agreement with Biologix FZCo, or Biologix, to register and commercialize VASCEPA in several Middle Eastern and North African countries. Biologix obtained approval of VASCEPA under the MARINE and REDUCE-IT indications, and subsequently launched commercially in the following countries:

VASCEPA is under registration in additional countries in the MENA region.

Canada

In September 2017, we entered into an agreement with HLS Therapeutics Inc., or HLS, to register, commercialize and distribute VASCEPA in Canada. In March 2019, HLS received formal confirmation from Health Canada that Canadian regulatory authority has granted priority review status for the upcoming New Drug Submission, which was filed in April 2019. In December 2019, HLS received formal confirmation from Health Canada that the Canadian regulatory authority granted approval for VASCEPA to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization or hospitalization for unstable angina) in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides, who are at high risk of cardiovascular events due to: established cardiovascular disease, or diabetes, and at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. In January 2020, HLS obtained regulatory exclusivity designation and launched commercially in February 2020. In July 2020, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health recommended that VASCEPA be reimbursed by participating public drug plans for statin-treated patients with established cardiovascular diseases and elevated triglycerides. In April 2022, HLS completed negotiations with Canada’s pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for the terms and conditions under which VASCEPA would qualify for public market reimbursement in Canada. Following these negotiations, HLS signed a Letter of Intent which allows HLS to work with all participating provincial jurisdictions to secure coverage from publicly funded drug plans across Canada, and for VASCEPA to potentially be added to their respective plans. HLS also received notification by the Patented Medical Prices Review Board that, further to its review, VASCEPA’s price did not trigger the investigation criteria for excessive pricing. As of December 31, 2022, reimbursement coverage is approximately 70% of publicly covered lives and 95% for private coverage. Public reimbursement is now available in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick Northwest Territories and for the Non-Insured Health Benefits program for the First Nations and Inuit people. Coverage of patients with established cardiovascular disease represents a substantial portion of VASCEPA’s approved label in Canada. VASCEPA has the benefit of data protection afforded through Health Canada until the end of 2027, in addition to separate patent protection with expiration dates that could extend into 2039.

Other

We continue to assess other potential partnership opportunities for VASCEPA with companies outside of the United States and Europe with the intention of partnering in all other international markets where VASCEPA receives local regulatory approval. We have completed the first of a three year plan to submit and obtain regulatory approval in 20 additional countries in order to ensure that patients in the top 50 cardiometabolic markets worldwide can benefit from VASCEPA. Through the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have filed for regulatory review in 10 countries and have received approval in seven countries outside of European Medicines Agency, or EMA, regulatory approval authority, including in Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, under the

4

REDUCE-IT indication. In February 2023, we entered into an agreement with CSL Seqirus to secure pricing and reimbursement, commercialize and distribute VAZKEPA in Australia and New Zealand.

Clinical Trials

The REDUCE-IT Study (basis for expanded U.S. FDA approved indication and label expansion in December 2019)

The REDUCE-IT study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of VASCEPA in reducing major cardiovascular events in an at-risk patient population also receiving statin therapy. REDUCE-IT was a multinational, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to evaluate the effectiveness of VASCEPA, as an add-on to statin therapy, in reducing first major cardiovascular events in an at-risk patient population compared to statin therapy alone. The control arm of the study was comprised of patients on optimized statin therapy plus placebo. The active arm of the study was comprised of patients on optimized statin therapy plus VASCEPA. All subjects enrolled in the study had elevated triglyceride levels and either established coronary heart disease or risk factors for coronary heart disease.

In August 2011, we reached agreement with the U.S. FDA on a special protocol assessment, or SPA, agreement for the design of the REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes study. An SPA is an evaluation by the U.S. FDA of a protocol with the goal of reaching an agreement that the Phase 3 trial protocol design, clinical endpoints, and statistical analyses are acceptable to support regulatory approval. The U.S. FDA agreed that, based on the information we submitted to the agency, the design and planned analysis of the REDUCE-IT study adequately addressed the objectives necessary to support a regulatory submission. An SPA is generally binding upon the U.S. FDA unless a substantial scientific issue essential to determining safety or efficacy of the drug is identified after the testing begins.

It is believed that the effects of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid, or EPA, are not due to a single mode of action, such as triglyceride lowering, but rather to multiple mechanisms working together. Studies in the scientific literature explore potentially beneficial effects of EPA on multiple atherosclerosis processes, including endothelial function, oxidative stress, foam cell formation, inflammation/cytokines, plaque formation/progression, platelet aggregation, thrombus formation, and plaque rupture. With respect to triglyceride levels, our scientific rationale for the REDUCE-IT study was supported by (i) epidemiological data that suggests elevated triglyceride levels correlate with increased cardiovascular disease risk, (ii) genetic data that suggest triglyceride and/or triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (as well as LDL-C, known as bad cholesterol) are independently in the causal pathway for cardiovascular disease and (iii) clinical data that suggest substantial triglyceride reduction in patients with elevated baseline triglyceride levels correlates with reduced cardiovascular risk. The REDUCE-IT study was designed to determine the clinical benefit, if any, of stable EPA therapy in statin-treated patients with elevated triglyceride levels.

In September 2011, we engaged a clinical research organization, or CRO, and began initial trial and clinical site preparation for REDUCE-IT. In December 2011, we announced that the first patient was dosed in the study. In 2016, we completed patient enrollment and randomization of 8,179 individual patients into the REDUCE-IT study. Our personnel remained blinded to the efficacy and safety data from the REDUCE-IT study until after the study was completed and the database was locked in 2018.

On November 10, 2018, we announced primary results from our REDUCE-IT study as late-breaking clinical results at the 2018 Scientific Sessions of the AHA and the results were concurrently published in The New England Journal of Medicine. REDUCE-IT met its primary endpoint demonstrating a 25% RRR, to a high degree of statistical significance (p<0.001), in first occurrence of MACE in the intent-to-treat patient population with use of VASCEPA 4 grams/day as compared to placebo. Patients qualified to enroll in REDUCE-IT had LDL-C between 41-100 mg/dL (median baseline LDL-C 75 mg/dL) controlled by statin therapy and various cardiovascular risk factors including persistent elevated TG between 135-499 mg/dL (median baseline 216 mg/dL) and either established cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention cohort) or age 50 or more with diabetes mellitus and at least one other CV risk factor (primary prevention cohort). Approximately 59% of the patients had diabetes at baseline, approximately 71% of the patients had established cardiovascular disease at time of enrollment and approximately 29% were primary prevention subjects at high risk for cardiovascular disease. REDUCE-IT also showed a 26% RRR in its key secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, heart attacks and stroke (p<0.001). We expended more than $300.0 million to fund completion of the REDUCE-IT study.

VASCEPA in the REDUCE-IT study demonstrated a number needed to treat, or NNT, of 21 for the first occurrence of MACE in the 5-point primary composite endpoint. NNT is a statistical concept intended to provide a measurement of the impact of a medicine or therapy by estimating the number of patients that need to be treated in order to have an impact on one person.

An additional seven secondary endpoints were achieved below the key secondary endpoint, in order of sequential statistical testing within the prespecified hierarchy:

5

The next prespecified secondary endpoint in the hierarchy was the only such endpoint that did not achieve statistical significance although it trended positively:

Positive REDUCE-IT results were consistent across various patient subgroups, including female/male, diabetic/non-diabetic and secondary/primary prevention.

Overall adverse event rates in REDUCE-IT were similar across treatment groups and VASCEPA was well tolerated. VASCEPA was associated with an increase (3% vs 2%) in the reported rate of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter requiring hospitalization in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The incidence of atrial fibrillation was greater in patients with a previous history of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. It is not known whether patients with allergies to fish and/or shellfish are at an increased risk of an allergic reaction to VASCEPA. VASCEPA was associated with an increase (12% vs 10%) in the reported rate of bleeding in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The reported incidence of bleeding was greater in patients receiving concomitant antithrombotic medications, such as aspirin, clopidogrel or warfarin.

Common adverse reactions in the cardiovascular outcomes trial (incidence ≥3% and ≥1% more frequent than placebo) were: musculoskeletal pain (4% vs 3%), peripheral edema (7% vs 5%), constipation (5% vs 4%), gout (4% vs 3%), and atrial fibrillation (5% vs 4%). Common adverse reactions in the hypertriglyceridemia trials (incidence >1% more frequent than placebo) were: arthralgia (2% vs 1%) and oropharyngeal pain (1% vs 0.3%). Patients receiving VASCEPA and concomitant anticoagulants and/or anti-platelet agents for bleeding are to be monitored. In the REDUCE-IT trial, cardiovascular benefits appeared not to be influenced significantly by TG levels at baseline (above or below 150 mg/dL baseline range) or as achieved at one year, potentially suggesting mechanisms at work with use of VASCEPA that are independent of baseline TG levels or therapy-driven reduction in TG levels. Determining the mechanisms responsible for the benefit shown in REDUCE-IT was not the focus of REDUCE-IT. As summarized from the primary results of REDUCE-IT in The New England Journal of Medicine, potential VASCEPA mechanisms of action at work in REDUCE-IT may include TG reduction, anti-thrombotic effects, antiplatelet or anticoagulant effects, membrane-stabilizing effects, effects on stabilization and/or regression of coronary plaque and inflammation reduction, each as supported by earlier stage mechanistic studies.

The U.S. FDA granted Priority Review designation to our March 2019 supplemental new drug application, or sNDA, seeking an expanded indication for VASCEPA in the United States based on the positive results of the REDUCE-IT study. The U.S. FDA grants Priority Review designation to applications for drugs that, if approved, have the potential to offer significant improvements in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of serious conditions when compared to standard applications. In November 2019, the U.S. FDA held an Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, or EMDAC, meeting to review the REDUCE-IT sNDA. The EMDAC voted unanimously (16-0) to recommend approval of an indication and label expansion for VASCEPA to reduce cardiovascular events in high-risk patients based on the REDUCE-IT results. On December 13, 2019, the U.S. FDA approved a new indication and label expansion for VASCEPA capsules. VASCEPA is the first and only drug approved by the U.S. FDA as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adult patients with elevated TG levels (≥150 mg/dL) and either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus and two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Based on REDUCE-IT results, as of the date of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, 30 clinical treatment guidelines, consensus statements or scientific statements from medical societies or journals have been updated recommending the use of icosapent ethyl in appropriate at-risk patients, including those statements which we were informed of by our global partners in Canada, China and the Middle East as well as guidelines which were newly received during the fourth quarter of 2022 as listed below:

6

During 2022, we announced the following data which added to our growing body of knowledge on VASCEPA as a result of our continued analysis of the REDUCE-IT trial results:

The MARINE Trial (first U.S. FDA-approved label for VASCEPA approved in July 2012)

The MARINE trial was a Phase 3, multi-center, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, 12-week study for patients with very high triglycerides which was completed in 2010.

In November 2010, we reported topline data for the MARINE trial. In the trial, VASCEPA met its primary endpoint at doses of 4 grams and 2 grams per day with median placebo-adjusted reductions in triglyceride levels of 33% (p < 0.0001) compared to placebo for 4 grams and 20% (p = 0.0051) compared to placebo for 2 grams. The median baseline triglyceride levels were 703 mg/dL, 680 mg/dL and 657 mg/dL for the patient groups treated with placebo, 4 grams of VASCEPA and 2 grams of VASCEPA, respectively. VASCEPA was well tolerated in the MARINE trial, with a safety profile comparable to placebo and there were no treatment-related serious adverse events observed.

Observed Clinical Safety of VASCEPA in MARINE, ANCHOR and Early Development

In the MARINE and ANCHOR trials, patients dosed with VASCEPA demonstrated a safety profile similar to placebo. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events in the MARINE study or in the ANCHOR study. In the MARINE and ANCHOR trials, the most commonly reported adverse reaction (incidence >2% and greater than placebo) in VASCEPA treated patients was arthralgia (joint pain) (2.3% for VASCEPA vs. 1.0% for placebo). There was no reported adverse reaction > 3% and greater than placebo.

Prior to commencing the REDUCE-IT, MARINE and ANCHOR trials, we conducted a pre-clinical program for VASCEPA, including toxicology and pharmacology studies. In addition, we previously investigated VASCEPA in central nervous system disorders in several double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, including Phase 3 trials in Huntington’s disease. Over 1,000 patients

7

were dosed with VASCEPA in these studies, with over 100 receiving continuous treatment for a year or more. In all studies performed to date, VASCEPA has shown a favorable safety and tolerability profile.

In addition to the REDUCE-IT, MARINE and ANCHOR trials, we completed a 28-day pharmacokinetic study in healthy volunteers, a 26-week study to evaluate the toxicity of VASCEPA in transgenic mice and multiple pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies in healthy subjects in which we evaluated the effect of VASCEPA on certain common prescription drugs. All findings from these studies were consistent with our expectations and confirmed the overall safety profile of VASCEPA.

Clinical Study in China

Edding completed a Phase 3 study of VASCEPA in China, the study design of which was similar to, but larger than, our MARINE study. In November 2020, along with Edding, we announced statistically significant topline positive results. The study, which investigated VASCEPA as a treatment for patients with very high triglycerides (≥500 mg/dL), met its primary efficacy endpoint as defined in the clinical trial protocol and demonstrated a safety profile similar to placebo. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events in this study. On February 23, 2022, the Hong Kong Department of Health completed their evaluation and approved the use of VASCEPA under the REDUCE-IT indication. Edding has communicated that an approval in Mainland China could be achieved by mid-year of 2023.

Collaboration with Mochida

In Japan, ethyl-EPA is marketed under the product name of Epadel by Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Mochida, and is indicated for hyperlipidemia and peripheral vascular disease. In an outcomes study called the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study, or JELIS study, which consisted of more than 18,000 patients followed over multiple years, Epadel, when used in conjunction with statins, was shown to reduce cardiovascular events by 19% compared to the use of statins alone. In this study, cardiovascular events decreased by approximately 53% compared to statins alone in the subset of primary prevention patients with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL (median of 272 mg/dL at entry) and HDL-C <40 mg/dL.

In June 2018, we entered into a multi-faceted collaboration with Mochida related to the development and commercialization of drug products and indications based on the active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA, the omega-3 acid, EPA. Among other terms in the agreement, we obtained an exclusive license to certain Mochida intellectual property to advance our interests in the United States and certain other territories. In addition, the parties will collaborate to research and develop new products and indications based on EPA for our commercialization in the United States and certain other territories. The potential new product and indication opportunities contemplated under this agreement are currently in early stages of development. Upon closing of the collaboration agreement, we made a non-refundable, non-creditable upfront payment of approximately $2.7 million. In addition, the agreement provides for milestone payments from us upon the achievement of certain product development milestones and royalties on net sales of future products arising from the collaboration, if any.

In November 2022, the data related to RESPECT-EPA was presented at the American Heart Association, or AHA, 2022 Scientific Sessions, A Randomized Trial for Evaluation in Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy - Statin and Eicosapentaenoic Acid and PROMINENT, Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes Study. The RESPECT-EPA clinical trial is an independent study funded by the Japanese Heart Foundation and is the third study to show CV benefit consistent with REDUCE-IT and JELIS. The study achieved a borderline statistical significance with a 21.5% reduction in the primary composite endpoint measuring cardiovascular risk and achieved a statistically significant 26.6% reduction in the secondary composite endpoint.

Fixed-Dose Combination

On January 10, 2022, we announced that we have initiated development of a fixed-dose combination product that has both icosapent ethyl and a statin.

Potential Benefits and Market Opportunity for VASCEPA

VASCEPA, encapsulated in 1-gram capsules, is 1-gram of icosapent ethyl, or ethyl-EPA, and contains no docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA. Icosapent ethyl is the only active ingredient. We believe that icosapent ethyl, in the stable form as it is presented in VASCEPA, is more effective than if combined with other omega-3 molecules. In particular, based on clinical evidence, we believe that the removal of DHA mitigates against the LDL-C raising effect observed in omega-3 compositions that include DHA. Based on the results of the REDUCE-IT trial, VASCEPA was the first omega-3 based product, or any type of product, to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in cardiovascular risk beyond cholesterol lowering therapy in high-risk patients approved for treatment. Prior to REDUCE-IT, based on the MARINE trial, VASCEPA was the first omega-3 based product to demonstrate statistically significant triglyceride reduction without a statistically significant increase in LDL-C in this very high triglyceride population.

8

Guidelines for the management of very high triglyceride levels (500 mg/dL) suggest that reducing triglyceride levels is the primary treatment goal in these patients to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis. Treating LDL-C remains an important secondary goal. Other important parameters to consider in patients with very high triglycerides include levels of apolipoprotein B, or apo B, non-HDL-C, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or VLDL-C. The effect of VASCEPA on the risk for pancreatitis in patients with hypertriglyceridemia has not been determined.

We believe that the results of the REDUCE-IT, ANCHOR and MARINE clinical trials of VASCEPA and VASCEPA’s EPA only/DHA-free composition position VASCEPA to achieve a global “best-in-class” prescription therapy in studied patient populations. Potential mechanisms of action at work in the reduction of cardiovascular events seen in REDUCE-IT as discussed in The New England Journal of Medicine publication of REDUCE-IT primary results include TG reduction, anti-thrombotic effects, antiplatelet or anticoagulant effects, membrane-stabilizing effects, effects on stabilization and/or regression of coronary plaque and inflammation reduction. Mechanisms responsible for the benefit shown in REDUCE-IT were not studied in REDUCE-IT as that was not the purpose of an outcomes study. While the mechanisms of action of VASCEPA have been broadly studied and continue to be studied, similar to other drugs with multifactorial mechanisms of action, such as aspirin, statins and metformin, we may never fully determine to what extent, if any, each of these effects or others may be responsible for the CV risk reduction benefit demonstrated in REDUCE-IT.

United States

Heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events represent the leading cause of death and disability among men and women in western societies. According to the Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2022 Update from the AHA, CVD is the underlying cause of death in approximately one out of every three deaths – one death approximately every 36 seconds. Approximately 127 million adults in the United States live with one or more types of cardiovascular disease with an estimated 1 million new or recurrent coronary events and 795,000 new or recurrent strokes occurring each year. An estimated 28 million adults 20 years of age have high total serum cholesterol levels (240 mg/dL), and an estimated 70 million adults 20 years of age have borderline high or high low-density lipoprotein (“bad”) cholesterol, or LDL-C, levels (130 mg/dL). According to the Cardiovascular Disease: A Costly Burden for America Projections Through 2035 from the AHA, 45% of the United States population is projected to have some form of CVD by 2035 and total costs of CVD are expected to reach $1.1 trillion in 2035, with direct medical costs projected to reach $749.0 billion and indirect costs estimated to reach $368.0 billion.

It is estimated that more than 50 million adults in the United States have elevated triglyceride levels ≥150 mg/dL. Additionally, approximately 2 to 3 million adults in the United States have very high triglyceride levels (500 mg/dL), the condition for which VASCEPA received its initial drug approval from the U.S. FDA in 2012 based on the MARINE clinical trial. There are approximately 5 to 15 million people in the United States that meet the specific REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria. Additionally, the U.S. FDA-approved label for VASCEPA mentions maximally tolerated statin therapy in the indication statement. Since 1976, mean triglyceride levels have increased, along with the growing epidemic of obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In contrast, mean LDL-C levels have decreased. Multiple primary and secondary prevention trials have shown a significant RRR of 25% to 35% in the risk of cardiovascular events with statin therapy, leaving significant persistent residual CV risk despite the achievement of target LDL-C levels.

Europe and Rest of World

Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of disease burden in the world. There are more than 500 million people reportedly living with cardiovascular diseases globally, with 290 million in China. In the European Union, there are approximately 60 million people reportedly living with cardiovascular disease, including approximately 38 million diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, stroke or peripheral heart disease. The proportion of patients dying from cardiovascular disease is reportedly higher in Europe than in the United States and there are more patients on statin therapy in Europe in aggregate compared to the United States. Caring for cardiovascular disease in Europe is expensive with annual spending estimated to currently exceed €200 billion annually.

Manufacturing and Supply for VASCEPA

We manage the manufacturing and supply of VASCEPA and have done so since we began clinical development of VASCEPA prior to the drug’s marketing approval by the U.S. FDA in 2012. We rely on contract manufacturers in each step of our commercial and clinical product supply chain. These steps include API, manufacturing, encapsulation of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, product packaging and supply-related logistics. Our approach to product supply procurement is designed to mitigate risk of supply interruption and maintain an environment of cost competition through diversification of contract manufacturers at each stage of the supply chain and lack of reliance on any single supplier.

The regulatory process generally requires extensive details as part of the submission provided to a country or region in connection with a company's request for regulatory approval. Suppliers must be specifically identified as part of the submission for

9

qualification and approval for commercialization in a country or region. As a result, only supply, as approved, may be used in finished goods available for sale in a specific country or region. The U.S. FDA has approved several international large-scale API manufacturers, global encapsulation leaders and multiple U.S.-based packagers for use in the manufacturing of VASCEPA. All of our manufacturing facilities were approved by the U.S. FDA following successful preapproval inspections and they remain active manufacturers of VASCEPA under U.S. FDA authority. The European Regulatory Authorities has approved an additional European-based packager for use in the manufacturing of VAZKEPA for the European markets.

The API material that constitutes ethyl-EPA is a chemical modification of a naturally occurring substance that is derived from specific fish sourced from qualified producers. The fishing from which the raw material for VASCEPA is derived is regulated by local government agencies under policies designed to ensure sustainability of the marine life supply. A limited number of other manufacturers have the ability, scale, know-how, sufficient supply chain capability and suitable, industrial-scale facilities to produce ethyl-EPA to the required level of purity. We have worked with our suppliers to build required scale, quality and cost-efficiency needed to meet our current and anticipated future market requirements. Among the conditions for U.S. FDA approval of a pharmaceutical product is the requirement that the manufacturer’s quality control and manufacturing procedures are validated and conform to pharmaceutical current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, which, under applicable regulations, must be followed at all times. The U.S. FDA typically inspects manufacturing facilities before regulatory approval of a product candidate, such as VASCEPA, and on a periodic basis after the initial approval. Consistent with cGMP regulations, pharmaceutical manufacturers must expend resources and time to ensure compliance with product specifications as well as production, record keeping, quality control, reporting, and other regulatory requirements.

Similar to the U.S. FDA, regulators in other countries in which we, or our partners, sell or seek to sell VASCEPA, regulate manufacturer’s quality control and manufacturing procedures. For Europe, various suppliers have been inspected and approved by European regulatory authorities and we do not anticipate supply availability limiting our launch in Europe.

Production of VASCEPA, from sourcing of starting materials through stocking of finished goods inventory requires significant coordination between companies and considerable lead-times. We are often making purchasing decisions for supply more than a year in advance of anticipated product sales. Planning for capacity expansion also requires significant lead-times as, for example, creation of new manufacturing facilities for API can require multiple years to construct, equip and qualify.

In 2022, we reviewed our contractual supplier purchase obligations and have taken steps to amend supplier agreements to align supply arrangements with current and future market demand, while we decrease our current inventory levels primarily related to North America approved inventory. As of December 31, 2022, we had inventory of $392.4 million, of which approximately 90% is inventory approved for use in North America. We continue to negotiate with our contract suppliers to align our supply arrangements with current and future global market demand.

Competition

General

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to our product. It is probable that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to our product will increase. Many of these and other existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market products. These companies may develop and introduce products and processes competitive with, more efficient than or superior to ours. In addition, other technologies or products may be developed that have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing the intended purposes of our products, which might render our technology and products noncompetitive or obsolete.

United States

Our competitors include large, well-established pharmaceutical and generic companies, specialty and generic pharmaceutical sales and marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies.

In 2020, following our unsuccessful appeals of a court ruling in favor of two generic drug companies, Dr. Reddy's, and Hikma, and certain of their affiliates, or collectively, the Defendants, several of the Company's patents covering the MARINE indication were declared invalid. As a result, the following generic versions of VASCEPA have obtained U.S. FDA approval with labeling consistent with the MARINE indication of VASCEPA, have entered the U.S. market and represent our main competitors:

10

(1) - Teva launched a 0.5-gram capsule in September 2022 and a 1-gram capsule in January 2023.

Woodward Pharma Services LLC currently sells Lovaza®, which it acquired from GlaxoSmithKline plc in the third quarter of 2021. Lovaza, a prescription-only omega-3 fatty acid indicated for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia was approved by the U.S. FDA in 2004 and has been on the market in the United States since 2005. Multiple generic versions of Lovaza are available in the United States. Other large companies with competitive products include AbbVie, Inc., which currently sells Tricor® and Trilipix® for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia and Niaspan®, which is primarily used to raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or HDL-C, but is also used to lower triglycerides. Multiple generic versions of Tricor, Trilipix and Niaspan are also available in the United States. We compete with these drugs, and in particular, multiple low-cost generic versions of these drugs, in our U.S. FDA-approved indicated uses, even though such products do not have U.S. FDA approval to reduce CV risk on top of statin therapy.

AstraZeneca conducted a long-term outcomes study to assess Statin Residual Risk Reduction With EpaNova in HiGh Cardiovascular Risk PatienTs With Hypertriglyceridemia, or STRENGTH. The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (corn oil), parallel group design that is believed to have enrolled approximately 13,000 patients with hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL and high risk for cardiovascular disease randomized 1:1 to either corn oil plus statin or Epanova plus statin, once daily. On January 13, 2020, following the recommendation of an independent Data Monitoring Committee, AstraZeneca decided to close the STRENGTH trial due to its low likelihood of demonstrating benefit to patients with mixed dyslipidemia who are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Full data from the STRENGTH trial was presented at the AHA’s Scientific Sessions in November 2020 confirming that Epanova failed to meet the primary endpoint of CV risk reduction, and published in Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, in December 2020. In addition, in March 2017, Kowa Research Institute (a subsidiary of the Japanese company Kowa Co., Ltd) initiated a Phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes trial titled PROMINENT examining the effect of pemafibrate (experimental name K-877) in reducing cardiovascular events in Type II diabetic patients with hypertriglyceridemia. In April 2022, Kowa Research Institute announced the decision to not continue the PROMINENT study as the primary endpoint was unlikely to be met. Results of the PROMINENT trial were presented at the 2022 AHA Scientific Session in November 2022, confirming that pemafibrate did not lower the incidence of cardiovascular events among the studied population.

We are also aware of other pharmaceutical companies that are developing products that, if successfully developed, approved and marketed, would compete with VASCEPA. It is not fully clear at this time what the impact of COVID-19 will be on each of these programs.

Based on prior communications from the U.S. FDA, including communications in connection with its review of the ANCHOR indication for VASCEPA, it is our understanding that the U.S. FDA is not prepared to approve any therapy for treatment of cardiovascular risk based on biomarker modification without cardiovascular outcomes study data, with the potential exception of therapies which lower LDL-cholesterol, depending on the circumstances. In particular, it is our understanding that the U.S. FDA is not prepared to approve any therapy based primarily on data demonstrating lowering of triglyceride levels. In our view, this position from the U.S. FDA did not change based on the REDUCE-IT study particularly in light of significant independence of the positive benefit demonstrated in the REDUCE-IT study from triglyceride levels and benefit from the REDUCE-IT study supporting that the positive effects of VASCEPA are unique to VASCEPA and extend beyond triglyceride reduction. If the U.S. FDA were to change this position, it could potentially have a negative impact on us by making it easier for other products to achieve a cardiovascular risk reduction indication without the need in advance to conduct a long and expensive cardiovascular outcomes study.

VASCEPA also faces competition from dietary supplement manufacturers marketing omega-3 products as nutritional supplements. Such products are classified as food, not as prescription drugs or as over-the-counter drugs, by the U.S. FDA in the United States. Most regulatory regimes outside the United States are similar in this regard. Some of the promoters of such products have greater resources than us and are not restricted to the same standards as are prescription drugs with respect to promotional claims or manufacturing quality, consistency and subsequent product stability. We have taken successful legal action against supplement manufacturers attempting to use the REDUCE-IT results to promote their products. Still, we cannot be sure physicians and pharmacists will view the U.S. FDA-approved, prescription-only status, and EPA-only purity and stability of VASCEPA or the U.S. FDA’s stringent regulatory oversight, as significant advantages versus omega-3 dietary supplements regardless of clinical study results and other scientific data.

11

Europe and Rest of World

On March 26, 2021, the EC granted approval of the marketing authorization application in the EU for VAZKEPA as an approved therapy to reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk statin-treated patients with elevated TG levels, which is based on the REDUCE-IT indication. There is currently no other drug that is approved for cardiovascular risk reduction in at-risk patients in Europe. In addition, there is currently no other direct competition for Canada and the Middle East. However, consistent with the U.S., our competitors include large, well-established pharmaceutical companies, specialty and generic pharmaceutical companies, marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies.

Recent CV outcomes trials and meta-analyses with low and high dose omega-3 fatty acid mixtures containing DHA have not shown substantial benefit in patients receiving contemporary medical therapy, including statins. Due to failed low dose omega-3 CV outcomes trials, the European regulatory authorities have concluded that omega-3 fatty acid medicines (specifically Lovaza®/Omacor®) at a dose of 1-gram per day are not effective in preventing further events for patients who have had a heart attack. The STRENGTH trial of an omega-3 mixture studied at 4-grams per day also failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit.

In addition, VASCEPA also faces competition from dietary supplement manufacturers marketing omega-3 productions as nutritional supplements. In Europe, such products are classified as food, not as prescription drugs or as over-the-counter drugs.

Limitations of Current Therapies

HTG is a prevalent lipid disorder in approximately 25% of the U.S. adult population. Both epidemiological and genetic data have shown associations between HTG and coronary heart disease. Many of those patients are taking statin therapy directed at lowering the risk of CVD by lowering their LDL-C levels, primarily. Recently, real world administrative database analyses have reported an increased CVD risk as well as direct healthcare costs associated with HTG despite statin therapy and controlled LDL-C compared to those with TG<150 mg/dL.

Regulatory Matters

Government Regulation and Regulatory Matters

Any product development activities related to VASCEPA or products that we may develop or acquire in the future will be subject to extensive regulation by various government authorities, including the U.S. FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries, which regulate the design, research, clinical and nonclinical development, testing, manufacturing, storage, distribution, import, export, labeling, advertising and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Generally, before a new drug can be sold, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific to each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority. The data are generated in two distinct development stages: preclinical and clinical. Drugs must be approved by regulatory authorities before they are first marketed for example, by the U.S. FDA through the new drug application, or NDA, process in the United States or the marketing authorization application, or MAA, process under the EMA in the EU. For new chemical entities, the preclinical development stage generally involves synthesizing the active component, developing the formulation, determining the manufacturing process and controls, as well as carrying out non-human toxicology, pharmacology and drug metabolism studies which support subsequent clinical testing.

The clinical stage of development can generally be divided into Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. In Phase 1, generally, a small number of healthy volunteers are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these studies is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the drug. Phase 2 trials typically involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected. Phase 3 trials generally involve large numbers of patients at multiple sites, in multiple countries and are designed to provide the pivotal data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use and its safety in use, provide an adequate basis for physician labeling and may include comparisons with placebo and/or other comparator treatments. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing.

United States Drug Development and Approval

In the United States, the process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the U.S. FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

12

Prior to the start of human clinical studies for a new drug in the United States, preclinical laboratory and animal tests are often performed under the U.S. FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices regulations, or GLP, and an IND is filed with the U.S. FDA. Similar filings are required in other countries; however, data requirements and other information needed for a complete submission may differ in other countries. The amount of data that must be supplied in the IND depends on the phase of the study. Phase 1 studies typically require less data than larger Phase 3 studies. A clinical plan must be submitted to the U.S. FDA prior to commencement of a clinical trial. If the U.S. FDA has concerns about the clinical plan or the safety of the proposed studies, it may suspend or terminate the study at any time. Studies must be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, including the requirement that subjects provide their informed consent, and regular reporting of study progress and any adverse experiences is required. Studies are also subject to review by independent institutional review boards, or IRBs, responsible for overseeing studies at particular sites and protecting human research study subjects. An independent IRB may also suspend or terminate a study once initiated.

U.S. FDA Review Process

The results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other information, including manufacturing information and information on the composition of the drug and proposed labeling, are submitted to the U.S. FDA in an NDA requesting approval to market the drug for one or more specified indications. Each NDA is typically accompanied by a user fee and there is also an annual prescription drug product program fee for human drugs. The U.S. FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a drug is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The U.S. FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new drug and may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the U.S. FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The U.S. FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

After the U.S. FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form, and usually describes all the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the U.S. FDA. The complete response letter may require additional clinical data and/or additional clinical trial(s), and/or other information. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, withdraw the application, or request a hearing. Even if such data and information is submitted, the U.S. FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

Following the approval process of any drug product, the U.S. FDA may require post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products or it may place conditions on approvals including potential requirements or risk management plans that could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Off-label Promotion in the United States

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, has been interpreted by the U.S. FDA and the U.S. government to make it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to promote their U.S. FDA-approved products for uses that have not been approved by the U.S. FDA. Companies that market drugs for off-label uses or indications have been subject to related costly litigation, criminal penalties and civil liability under the FDCA and the False Claims Act. However, recent case law has called into question the extent to which government in the United States, including the U.S. FDA, can, and is willing to seek to, prevent truthful and non-misleading speech related to off-label uses of U.S. FDA-approved products such as VASCEPA.

If our promotional activities or other operations are found to be in violation of any law or governmental regulation through existing or new interpretations, we may be subject to prolonged litigation, penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Also, if governmental parties or our competitors view our claims as misleading or false, we could also be subject to liability based on fair competition-based statutes, such as the Lanham Act. Any of such negative circumstances could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Post-Marketing Requirements in the United States

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company generally must engage in numerous specific monitoring and recordkeeping activities, such as routine safety surveillance, and must continue to submit periodic and other reports to the applicable regulatory agencies, including any cases of adverse events and appropriate quality control records. Such reports submitted to the U.S. FDA may result in changes to the label and/or other post-marketing requirements or actions, including product withdrawal. Additionally, under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, or FDORA, sponsors of approved drugs must provide six months’ notice to the FDA of any changes in marketing status, such as the withdrawal of a drug, and failure to do so could result in the

13

FDA placing the product on a list of discontinued products, which would revoke the product’s ability to be marketed.These are viable risks once a product is on the market. Additionally, modifications or enhancements to the products or labeling or changes of site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the U.S. FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state and foreign regulations. In the United States, the U.S. FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the U.S. FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or the PDMA, a part of the FDCA.

In the United States, once a product is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the U.S. FDA. U.S. FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with pharmaceutical cGMPs, and NDA holders must list their products and register their manufacturing establishments with the U.S. FDA and certain state agencies. Third-party manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs, and those supplying products, ingredients, and components of them, are also required to register their establishments with the U.S. FDA and certain state agencies. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. NDA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the U.S. FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMPs, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such facilities or the ability to distribute products manufactured, processed or tested by them. In addition, manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying the U.S. FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States.

U.S. FDA Marketing Exclusivity and Generic Competition

The FDCA, as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, provides for market exclusivity provisions that can help protect the exclusivity of new drugs by delaying the acceptance and final approval of certain competitive drug applications. New chemical entity, or NCE, marketing exclusivity precludes approval during the five-year exclusivity period of certain 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs submitted by another company for another version of the drug. The timelines and conditions under the ANDA process that permit the start of patent litigation and allow the U.S. FDA to approve generic versions of brand name drugs like VASCEPA differ based on whether a drug receives three-year, or five-year, NCE marketing exclusivity.

NCE marketing exclusivity precludes approval during the five-year exclusivity period of certain 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs submitted by another company for another version of the drug. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. In such case, the pioneer drug company is afforded the benefit of a 30-month stay against the launch of such a competitive product that extends from the end of the five-year exclusivity period. A pioneer company could also be afforded extensions to the stay under applicable regulations, including a six-month pediatric exclusivity extension or a judicial extension if applicable requirements are met. In May 2016, after litigation, the U.S. FDA determined that VASCEPA was entitled to NCE marketing exclusivity. The related 30-month stay expired on January 26, 2020, seven-and-a-half years after U.S. FDA approval of VASCEPA.

A three-year period of exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments is generally granted for a drug product that contains an active moiety that has been previously approved, when the application contains reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. Accordingly, we expect to receive three-year exclusivity in connection with any future regulatory approvals of VASCEPA. For example, we received such three-year regulatory exclusivity in connection with the approval based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes study results. Such three-year exclusivity protection precludes the U.S. FDA from approving a marketing application for an ANDA, a product candidate that the U.S. FDA views as having the same conditions of approval as VASCEPA (for example, the same indication and/or other conditions of use), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted to the U.S. FDA with VASCEPA as the reference product, for a period of three years from the date of U.S. FDA approval. The U.S. FDA may accept and commence review of such applications during the three-year exclusivity period. Such three-year exclusivity grant does not prevent a company from challenging the validity of patents at any time, subject to any prior four-year period pending from a grant of five-year exclusivity. This three-year form of exclusivity may also not prevent the U.S. FDA from approving an NDA that relies only on its own data to support the change or innovation.

Regulatory exclusivity is in addition to exclusivity afforded by issued patents related to VASCEPA.

14

European Union Drug Development and Approval

The below EU rules relating to drug development, approval and post-approval are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the EU Member States, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Clinical Trials Regulation

In April 2014, the EU adopted Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which replaced the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on January 31, 2022 and overhauled the system of approvals for clinical trials. Specifically, the new Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States, such that no national implementing legislation in each EU Member State is required, aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For example, the new Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure through a single entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications.

Drug Review and Approval

Medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization. To obtain regulatory approval of a medicinal product in the EU, a company must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. Centralized marketing authorizations are issued by the EC through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the CHMP of the EMA and are valid throughout the EU as well as Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines, and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions, and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EU, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the EU.

Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an MAA considerably beyond 210 days. Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, it provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the EC, who makes the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA's recommendation. Accelerated assessments may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is 150 days, excluding clock stops, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

National marketing authorizations, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EU and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EU, this national marketing authorization can be recognized in other EU Member States through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national marketing authorization in any EU Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure.

Now that the United Kingdom, which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has left the EU, Great Britain is no longer covered by centralized marketing authorizations, while under the Northern Ireland Protocol centralized marketing authorizations continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland. All medicinal products with a centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January 1, 2021. For a period of three years from January 1, 2021, the MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the EC on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to quickly grant a Great Britain marketing authorization despite a separate application being required. On January 24, 2023, the MHRA announced that a new international recognition framework will be put in place from January 1, 2024. Under this new framework, the MHRA will have regard to decisions on the approval of a marketing authorization made by the EMA and certain other regulators when considering whether to grant a UK marketing authorization. The MHRA also has the power to have regard to marketing authorizations approved in EU Member States through decentralized or mutual recognition procedures with a view to more quickly granting a marketing authorization in the UK or Great Britain.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization in the EU is valid for five years, in principle, and it may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk benefit balance by the EMA for a centrally authorized product, or by the competent authority of the authorizing Member State for a nationally authorized product. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the EC or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal period. Any authorization that is not followed by the placement of the product on the EU market, in the

15

case of the centralized procedure, or on the market of the authorizing Member State for a nationally authorized product, within three years after authorization, or if the product is removed from the market for three consecutive years, ceases to be valid.

Data and Market Exclusivity

In the EU, upon receiving marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator's pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU, during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. During the additional two year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator's data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar 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 obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison to the existing therapies. There is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EMA to be an innovative medicinal product and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Even if a product is considered to be an innovative medicinal product so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained a marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete and independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

Regulatory Requirements after obtaining Marketing Authorization

Where a marketing authorization for a medicinal product in the EU is obtained, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. These include:

Foreign Regulation of New Drug Compounds

In addition to regulations in the United States, we may be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products.

Whether or not we obtain U.S. FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in all or most foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, or CTA, much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the U.S. FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. Similarly, clinical trials conducted in countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, require review and approval of clinical trial proposals by an ethics committee, which provides a combined ethical and scientific review process. Most countries in which clinical studies are conducted require the approval of the clinical trial proposals by both the national regulatory body and an ethics committee.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP, which have their origin in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, the applicable regulatory requirements, and guidelines developed by the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, for GCP practices in clinical trials.

16

Fraud and Abuse Laws and Data Regulation

In addition to U.S. FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws restrict certain marketing practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. These laws include Anti-Kickback Statutes and false claims statutes.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for a referral or the purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any healthcare facility, item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. Liability may be established without a person or entity having actual knowledge of the federal anti-kickback statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Moreover, there are no safe harbors for many common practices, such as educational and research grants or patient or product support programs. On November 20, 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, Office of Inspector General, or OIG, finalized further modifications to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Under the final rules, OIG added safe harbor protections under the Anti-Kickback Statute for certain coordinated care and value-based arrangements among clinicians, providers, and others. These rules, with exceptions, became effective January 19, 2021. We continue to evaluate what effect, if any, these rules will have on our business.

The federal civil and criminal false claim laws, including the civil monetary penalty laws and the civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment of government funds, or knowingly making or using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly concealing, or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money or transmit properly to the federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the statute and to share in any monetary recovery. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been investigated or faced enforcement actions under the federal civil False Claims Act for a variety of alleged improper marketing activities, including allegations that they caused false claims to be submitted because of the company’s marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus allegedly non-reimbursable, uses. Federal enforcement agencies also have showed increased interest in pharmaceutical companies’ product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement and co-pay support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies also are subject to other federal false claims laws, including, among others, federal criminal healthcare fraud and false statement statutes that extend to non-government health benefit programs.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, including the Final Omnibus Rule published in January 2013, collectively referred to herein as HIPAA, among other things, imposes criminal and civil liability for knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payor and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. In addition, HITECH imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. It requires certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments Program, requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to direct or indirect payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held in the company by physicians and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, applicable manufacturers are also required to report information regarding

17

payments and transfers of value provided to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives.

The federal government price reporting laws require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics in an accurate and timely manner to government programs. Additionally, federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.

Many foreign countries and the majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, which may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. Other states or localities may have laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers; restrict the ability of manufacturers to offer co-pay support to patients for certain prescription drugs; require drug manufacturers to report information related to clinical trials, or information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; relate to insurance fraud in the case of claims involving private insurers; and/or require identification or licensing of sales representatives.

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, and drug pricing information. Certain state and local laws require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws, including for example the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, and the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The CCPA creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers (as defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA will require covered companies to provide certain disclosures to consumers about its data collection, use and sharing practices, and to provide affected California residents with ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, and the California Attorney General has commenced enforcement against violators as of July 1, 2020. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact our business activities.

The REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial was conducted in part through clinical sites in the EEA. As a result, we are subject to additional privacy restrictions pursuant to European data protection laws, such as the GDPR. We may decide to conduct clinical trials or continue to enroll subjects in our ongoing or future clinical trials, which may result in us becoming subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EEA including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, ensuring certain accountability measures are in place and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. Further, since the UK's exit of the EU, often referred to as Brexit, companies have to now comply with the GDPR and also the United Kingdom GDPR, or UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act of 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR follows fines up to the greater of £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. The GDPR and UK GDPR, and other applicable data protection laws, impose restrictions in relation to the international transfer of personal data. For example, in order to transfer data outside of the EEA or the UK to a non-adequate country, the GDPR and UK GDPR (as applicable) requires us to enter into an appropriate transfer mechanism, and may require us to take additional steps to ensure an essentially equivalent level of data protection. These transfer mechanisms are subject to change, and implementing new or revised transfer mechanisms or ensuring an essentially equivalent protection may involve additional expense and potentially increased compliance risk. In the event a legislator, government, regulator or court imposes additional restrictions on international transfers, there may be operational interruption in the performance of services for customers and internal processing of employee information. Such restrictions may also increase our obligations in relation to carrying out international transfers of personal data, and incur additional expense and increased regulatory liabilities. On June 28,

18

2021, the EC adopted an adequacy decision in respect of transfers of personal data to the UK for a four year period until June 27, 2025. Similarly, the UK has determined that it considers all of the EEA to be adequate for the purposes of data protection. This ensures that data flows between the UK and the EEA remain unaffected.

Despite Brexit, the GDPR and UK GDPR remain largely aligned. Currently, the most impactful point of divergence between the GDPR and the UK GDPR relates to these transfer mechanisms as explained above. There may be further divergence in the future, including with regard to administrative burdens. The UK has announced plans to reform the country’s data protection legal framework in its Data Reform Bill, which will introduce significant changes from the GDPR. This may lead to additional compliance costs and could increase our overall risk exposure as we may no longer be able to take a unified approach across the EEA and the UK, and we will need to amend our processes and procedures to align with the new framework.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the exceptions or safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Such a challenge could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business.

If our promotional activities or other operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations or guidance that apply to us through existing or new interpretations, we may be subject to prolonged litigation, penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Also, if governmental parties or our competitors view our claims as misleading or false, we could also be subject to liability based on fair competition-based statutes, such as the Lanham Act. Any of such negative circumstances could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

In the U.S., to help patients afford our approved product, we may utilize programs to assist them, including patient assistance programs, or PAPs and co-pay coupon programs for eligible patients. PAPs are regulated by and subject to guidance from HHS OIG. In addition, at least one insurer has directed its network pharmacies to no longer accept co-pay coupons for certain specialty drugs identified by the insurer. Our co-pay coupon programs could become the target of similar insurer actions. In addition, in November 2013, the CMS issued guidance to the issuers of qualified health plans sold through the ACA's, as defined herein, marketplaces encouraging such plans to reject patient cost-sharing support from third parties and indicating that the CMS intends to monitor the provision of such support and may take regulatory action to limit it in the future. The CMS subsequently issued a rule requiring individual market qualified health plans to accept third-party premium and cost-sharing payments from certain government-related entities. In September 2014, the OIG of the HHS issued a Special Advisory Bulletin warning manufacturers that they may be subject to sanctions under the federal anti-kickback statute and/or civil monetary penalty laws if they do not take appropriate steps to exclude Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons. Accordingly, companies exclude these Part D beneficiaries from using co-pay coupons.

On December 2, 2020, the HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between PBMs and manufacturers. Pursuant to court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. This deadline was delayed to January 1, 2027 by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 further delayed implementation of this rule to January 1, 2032. Further, on December 31, 2020, CMS published a new rule, effective January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers to ensure the full value of co-pay assistance is passed on to the patient or these dollars will count toward the Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price calculation of the drug. On May 21, 2021, PhRMA sued the HHS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to stop the implementation of the rule claiming that the rule contradicts federal law surrounding Medicaid rebates. On May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted PhRMA’s motion for summary judgement invalidating the Medicaid Accumulator Rule. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business.

United States Healthcare Reform and Legislation

In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the United States federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, imposed new requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for

19

Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for our products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payers. In addition, there has been renewed interest in amending the Social Security Act to allow Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs covered under Medicare Part B. If this were to be enacted by Congress and signed by the President, the prices we obtain for our products covered under Part B could be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain, and it could exert a similar lowering pressure on payments from non-governmental payers.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, established by the MMA and provided additional funding by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, conducts comparative effectiveness research on different treatments for the same illness. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payers, it is possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third-party payers do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products 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 on a profitable basis.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which has substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers and has significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry are the following:

20

Certain provisions of the ACA have yet to be implemented and others have been subject to judicial challenges, as well as efforts to repeal or replace them or to alter their interpretation or implementation. Prior to the Biden administration, on October 13, 2017, former President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating the cost-sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. The former Trump administration concluded that cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments to insurance companies required under the ACA have not received necessary appropriations from Congress and announced that it will discontinue these payments immediately until those appropriations are made. Several state Attorney Generals filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in two separate cases that the federal government is liable for the full amount of unpaid CSRs for the years preceding and including 2017. For CSR claims made by health insurance companies for the years 2018 and later, further litigation will be required to determine to amounts due, if any. Further, on June 14, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12.0 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued the payments were owed to them. On April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, concluding that the government has an obligation to pay these risk corridor payments under the relevant formula.

Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017, or the Tax Act, which included a provision that decreased the tax-based shared responsibility payment for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” to $0, effective January 1, 2019. On December 14, 2018, a federal district court in Texas ruled the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On December 18, 2019, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and remanded the case to the lower court to reconsider its earlier invalidation of the full ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden issued an Executive Order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The Executive Order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, re-examining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. We continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement could have on our business.

Further, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 among other things, amended the Medicare statute, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1865), which repeals the “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the health insurance provider tax based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. It is impossible to determine whether similar taxes could be instated in the future. 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, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

It is unclear how the ACA and its implementation, as well as efforts to repeal, replace, or invalidate, the ACA or its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, and other legislative changes adopted since, will affect our business. It is possible that the ACA will continue to exert pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes, and judicial challenges related to the ACA remain possible. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA as well as its possible repeal, replacement, or invalidation, in whole or in part, has on our business.

Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Our ability to successfully commercialize our product therefore depends significantly on the availability of adequate financial coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including, in the United States, governmental payors such as Medicare and Medicaid, as

21

well as managed care organizations, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement and copayment levels. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medicines and examining their cost effectiveness, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of our products. Even with studies, our products may be considered less safe, less effective or less cost effective than other products, and third-party payors may not provide coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, in whole or in part. Reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the U.S. FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree.

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to government control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with government authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory approval for a product and may require a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of a product to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in commercialization.

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

Price negotiations are conducted in each EU (and UK) country for new medicines between the manufacturer and the national government pricing committee, or the parties. In many cases, there is no specific timeline for negotiation conclusion and the dynamics depends on the discussions between both parties. Analyzing a benchmark of innovative cardiovascular and metabolic products in recent years, the average time to price negotiation from marketing authorization ranged from 12 months in England to 52 months in countries like France. Recent macro-economic context has put additional pressure on EU authorities in their ability to allocate large budgets for innovative medicines. After this negotiation phase concludes between the parties, a confidential agreement is signed for usually 3 to 5 years with a specific public budget allocation and a price is published, or the list price. For retail products like VAZKEPA in the UK, Sweden or Finland there are no confidential deals with authorities impacting net prices.

A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024.

22

In August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA was signed into law. The IRA includes several provisions that will impact our business to varying degrees, including provisions that reduce the out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D beneficiaries to $2,000 starting in 2025; impose new manufacturer financial liability on certain drugs in Medicare Part D, allow the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare Part B and Part D price caps for certain high-cost drugs and biologics without generic or biosimilar competition, require companies to pay rebates to Medicare for certain drug prices that increase faster than inflation, and delay the rebate rule that would limit the fees that pharmacy benefit managers can charge. Further, under the IRA, orphan drugs are exempted from the Medicare drug price negotiation program, but only if they have one rare disease designation and for which the only approved indication is for that disease or condition. If a product receives multiple rare disease designations or has multiple approved indications, it will not qualify for the orphan drug exemption.

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry in the United States to fundamental changes. There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. We anticipate that the United States Congress, state legislatures and the private sector will continue to consider and may adopt healthcare policies intended to curb rising healthcare costs. These cost containment measures include: controls on government funded reimbursement for drugs; new or increased requirements to pay prescription drug rebates to government healthcare programs; controls on healthcare providers; challenges to the pricing of drugs or limits or prohibitions on reimbursement for specific products through other means; requirements to try less expensive products or generics before a more expensive branded product; changes in drug importation laws; expansion of use of managed care systems in which healthcare providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare for a fixed cost per person; and public funding for cost effectiveness research, which may be used by government and private third-party payors to make coverage and payment decisions. Further, federal budgetary concerns could result in the implementation of significant federal spending cuts, including cuts in Medicare and other health related spending in the near term. For example, on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the temporary suspension, a 1% payment reduction was effective beginning April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and the 2% payment reduction resumed on July 1, 2022.

Payors also are increasingly considering new metrics as the basis for reimbursement rates, such as average sales price, average manufacturer price and actual acquisition cost. CMS surveys and publishes retail community pharmacy acquisition cost information in the form of National Average Drug Acquisition Cost files to provide state Medicaid agencies with a basis of comparison for their own reimbursement and pricing methodologies and rates. It is difficult to project the impact of these evolving reimbursement mechanics on the willingness of payors to cover our products. We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, the 340B drug pricing program, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or VA, Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, pricing program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and Part B of the Medicare program.

23

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program also participate in the 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the average manufacturer price and Medicaid rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. There have been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FY’s 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs, or SCODs. The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, i.e., before the full court, but was denied on October 16, 2020. Plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court on February 10, 2021. On Friday July 2, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the petition. On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that HHS’s 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were contrary to the statute and unlawful. We continue to review developments impacting the 340B program. It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any.

In order to be eligible to have our products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we participate in the VA/FSS pricing program. Under this program, we are obligated to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to four federal agencies - the VA, U.S. Department of Defense, Public Health Service and U.S. Coast Guard - that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price, or FCP. The FCP is based on the non-federal average manufacturer price, or Non-FAMP, which we calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. We also participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate program, 340B program, and VA/FSS pricing program, and the risks relating to price reporting and other obligations under these programs, are further discussed under the heading “If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Recently, there have been several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and adopted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, President Biden signed an Executive Order on July 9, 2021 affirming the administration's policy to (i) support legislative reforms that would lower the prices of prescription drug and biologics, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, imposing inflation caps and supporting the development and market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars; and (ii) support the enactment of a public health insurance option. Among other things, the Executive Order also directs HHS to provide a report on actions to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs, to enhance the domestic drug supply chain, to reduce the price that the Federal government pays for drugs, and to address price gouging in the industry; and directs the U.S. FDA to work with states and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and the U.S. FDA's implementing regulations. The U.S. FDA released such implementing regulations on September 24, 2020, which went into effect on November 30, 2020, providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita. On December 29, 2021, CMS rescinded the Most Favored Nations rule. Further, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. If implemented, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for any of our products. Additionally, on December 2, 2020, HHS published a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Pursuant to the court order, the removal and addition of the aforementioned safe harbors were delayed and recent legislation imposed a moratorium on implementation of the rule until January 1, 2026. This deadline was delayed to January 1, 2027 by the Bipartisan Safer Communities

24

Act. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 further delayed implementation of this rule to January 1, 2032. Further, on December 31, 2020, CMS published a new rule, effective January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers to ensure the full value of co-pay assistance is passed on to the patient or these dollars will count toward the Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price calculation of the drug. On May 21, 2021, PhRMA sued the HHS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to stop the implementation of the rule claiming that the rule contradicts federal law surrounding Medicaid rebates. On May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted PhRMA’s motion for summary judgement invalidating the Medicaid Accumulator Rule. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the Biden administration and Congress have indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs.

In addition, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for U.S. FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining U.S. FDA permission under the U.S. FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. For example, the State of California enacted legislation that requires notice for exceeding specified limits on annual drug price increases and other legislation that seeks to limit the use of co-pay cards in certain situations.

Other Regulatory Matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion, importation, and other activities related to approved products are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities, including, in the United States, the U.S. FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and local governments. Sales, marketing and scientific/educational programs must comply with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the False Claims Act and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. In addition, even if a firm complies with U.S. FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or effectiveness of a product could lead the U.S. FDA to modify or withdraw a product approval. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations or statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Patents, Proprietary Technology, Trade Secrets

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our drug candidates, technology and know-how, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. While certain key patents related to our product based on the MARINE clinical study were determined to be invalid as obvious by a district court in the United States, it remains the case that our ability to successfully implement our business plan and to protect our products with our intellectual property will depend in large part on our ability to:

25

We have prosecuted, and are currently prosecuting, multiple patent applications to protect the intellectual property developed during the VASCEPA development program. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we had more than 100 patent applications in the United States that have been either issued or allowed, most of which are listed in the FDA publication entitled Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations also known as the FDA Orange Book. There are more than 30 additional patent applications pending in the United States.

Currently-issued U.S. patents will expire between 2027 and 2033 and contain claims directed to the methods of using icosapent ethyl to treat hypertriglyceridemia, severe hypertriglyceridemia and cardiovascular risk reduction. Our VASCEPA patent portfolio also includes many granted patents in foreign jurisdictions including pending foreign and Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT patent applications. Currently-granted European patents directed to the same subject matter as above will expire between 2027 and 2033, and may be subject to a potential further extension of a patent right. Granted patents in other foreign jurisdictions will expire between 2030 and 2033 and may be subject to a potential further patent term extension, depending on the country. Pending applications covering VASCEPA/VAZKEPA may, if granted, provide exclusivity for the drug until 2039.

Patents and applications described above are either owned by Amarin or exclusively licensed from others.

We have pending patent applications worldwide related to potential new uses of icosapent ethyl or other derivatives of EPA and potential new formulations thereof. Patents maturing from such pending applications would expire between 2030 and 2043.

A Notice of Allowance is issued after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, makes a determination that a patent can be granted from an application. A Notice of Allowance does not afford patent protection until the underlying patent is issued by the USPTO. No assurance can be given that applications with issued notices of allowance will be issued as patents or that any of our pending patent applications will issue as patents. No assurance can be given that, if and when issued, our patents will prevent competitors from competing with VASCEPA. For example, we may choose to not assert all issued patents in patent litigation and patents or claims within patents may be determined to be invalid.

Geographies outside the United States in which VASCEPA is sold or under regulatory review are not subject to the U.S. patent litigation and judgment. No litigation involving potential generic versions of VASCEPA is pending outside the United States. Outside the United States, VASCEPA is currently available by prescription in certain European countries, Canada, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. In Canada, VASCEPA has the benefit of data protection afforded through Health Canada until the end of 2027, in addition to separate patent protection with expiration dates that could extend into 2039. We are pursuing additional regulatory approvals for VASCEPA in Europe, China and the Middle East. In China and the Middle East, we are pursuing such regulatory approvals and subsequent commercialization of VASCEPA with commercial partners. The EC approval provides ten years of market protection in the EU. Furthermore, patent protection in Europe includes: one allowed patent related to the use of a pharmaceutical composition comprised of 4g of 96% EPA ethyl ester to treat the REDUCE-IT population expiring 2033. In addition, pending patent applications in Europe, if granted, may have the potential to extend exclusivity into 2039.

We may be dependent in some cases upon third-party licensors to pursue filing, prosecution and maintenance of patent rights or applications owned or controlled by those parties, including, for example, under our collaboration with Mochida. It is possible that third parties will obtain patents or other proprietary rights that might be necessary or useful to us. In cases where third parties are first to invent a particular product or technology, or first to file after various provisions of the America Invents Act of 2011 went into effect on March 16, 2013, it is possible that those parties will obtain patents that will be sufficiently broad so as to prevent us from utilizing such technology or commercializing our current and future products.

Although we intend to make reasonable efforts to protect our current and future intellectual property rights and to ensure that any proprietary technology we acquire or develop does not infringe the rights of other parties, we may not be able to ascertain the existence of all potentially conflicting claims. Therefore, there is a risk that third parties may make claims of infringement against our current or future products or technologies. In addition, third parties may be able to obtain patents that prevent the sale of our current or future products or require us to obtain a license and pay significant fees or royalties in order to continue selling such products.

We may in the future discover the existence of products that infringe patents that we own or that have been licensed to us. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to stop such an infringement, such proceedings could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. No assurances can be given that we would prevail, and it is possible that, during such a proceeding, our patent rights could be held to be invalid, unenforceable or both. Although we intend to protect our trade secrets and proprietary know-how through confidentiality agreements with our manufacturers, employees and consultants, we may not be able to prevent parties subject to such confidentiality agreements from breaching these agreements or third parties from independently developing or learning of our trade secrets.

26

We anticipate that competitors may from time to time oppose our efforts to obtain patent protection for new technologies or to submit patented technologies for regulatory approvals. Competitors may seek to oppose our patent applications to delay the approval process or to challenge our granted patents, for example, by requesting a reexamination of our patent at the USPTO, or by filing an opposition in a foreign patent office, even if the opposition or challenge has little or no merit. For example, one of our patents was revoked in an opposition proceeding in Europe due to a determination of improper claim amendments under a provision of law not applicable in the United States. Such proceedings are generally highly technical, expensive, and time consuming, and there can be no assurance that such a challenge would not result in the narrowing or complete revocation of any patent of ours that was so challenged.

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2022, we had approximately 365 full-time employees located in fifteen countries. Attracting, developing and retaining key scientific, technical, research, marketing, sales and other personnel is critical to our ability to implement and execute our business plan and is key to the success of the business. Our ability to recruit and retain such talent depends on a number of factors, including compensation and benefits, talent development, career opportunities and work environment.

Diversity and Inclusion

We believe that a diverse and inclusive workforce helps us better connect our work with the needs of our patients, physicians, partners and other stakeholders. In our hiring and recruiting of prospective candidates, we give priority to attitude, intelligence, competency for the position and assessment of what they can contribute to our company. We promote employees based on merit with emphasis on accomplishments over effort while supporting the benefits of diversity. In our hiring, promotion, compensation, retention and other employment practices, we regularly evaluate whether women and minority populations are being treated equally. We seek ways to continually improve in this area. While we acknowledge and support the benefits of diversity, individual hiring and promotion decisions are made irrespective of personal characteristics such as race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age.

In the above table, executive leadership is defined as positions of vice president and above. Management is defined as positions of director, manager or equivalent roles.

Employee Development & Engagement

We believe in a direct management-employee engagement model by which managers and employees maintain a regular dialogue about working conditions, compensation, compliance, safety and advancement opportunities. We communicate frequently and transparently with our employees through a variety of communication methods, including written communications and quarterly town hall meetings. We believe these engagement efforts keep our employees informed about our strategy, purpose and priorities, which is consistent with our core values of integrity, operational excellence, collaboration and commitment to quality and we believe this engagement motivates our employees to do their best work. Our core values promote an empowering, supportive atmosphere where we work together to put patients first and improve patient care through our actions and products. We encourage employees to share ideas and learn from each other, while expecting high standards of quality and continuous improvement.

Compensation and Benefits

We are committed to rewarding, supporting, and developing our employees who make it possible to deliver on our strategy. To that end, we offer a comprehensive rewards program aimed at the varying health and financial needs of our employees. Our program includes market-competitive salaries and wages, bonuses and broad-based stock grants, healthcare benefits, retirement plans with employer matching provisions, paid time off and family leave and a strong commitment to corporate wellness. In addition, we have implemented a hybrid workplace model for our offices throughout the world. We utilize independent consultants to help us ensure that

27

our compensation and benefits are competitive with market practices and compliant with laws and regulations in the various geographies in which we operate.

Organizational Structure

At March 1, 2023, we had the following subsidiaries:

As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our principal operating activities were being conducted by Amarin Corporation plc, together with Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited and Amarin Pharma, Inc. Operating activity being conducted by the European subsidiaries were in support of Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Ester Neurosciences Limited had no operating activities.

Available Information

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K (including exhibits), and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are made available free of charge on or through our website at www.amarincorp.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC also maintains a website, www.sec.gov, that contains reports and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. We are not, however, including the information contained on our website, or information that may be accessed through links on our website, as part of, or incorporating such information by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Financial Information

The financial information required under this Item 1 is incorporated herein by reference to Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

28

Item 1A. Risk Factors

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking information based on our current expectations. Because our actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements that we make or that are made on our behalf, this section includes a discussion of important factors that could affect our actual future results, including, but not limited to, our ability to successfully commercialize VASCEPA and VAZKEPA, collectively referred to as VASCEPA, our capital resources, the progress and timing of our clinical programs, the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, risks associated with regulatory filings, the potential clinical benefits and market potential of our product candidates, commercial market estimates, future development efforts, patent protection, effects of healthcare reform, reliance on third parties, effects of tax reform, and other risks set forth below.

Summary Risk Factors

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

29

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below and in the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the SEC. If any such risks and uncertainties actually occur, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks summarized above or described in full below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Commercialization and Development of VASCEPA

We are substantially dependent upon VASCEPA (icosapent ethyl), its commercialization in the United States and its development, launch and commercialization in Europe and other major markets.

We currently derive substantially all of our revenue from sales of VASCEPA. We may be substantially dependent on sales of VASCEPA for many years. Our financial condition and the success of our company will be materially adversely affected, we may have to further restructure our current operations, and our business prospects will be limited if we experience any negative developments relating to VASCEPA. For example, in the first quarter of 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued a ruling in favor of two generic drug companies, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., or Dr. Reddy's, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., or Hikma, and certain of their affiliates, that declared as invalid several patents of ours protecting the first U.S. FDA-approved use of our drug, to reduce severely high triglyceride levels, or the MARINE indication. We were unsuccessful in our appeals and our stock price was adversely and materially impacted by the ruling, the results of the appeals process and the introduction of generic competition. If other proprietary rights protecting VASCEPA or its use are challenged, our stock price could further decline, particularly if such challenges, which are costly to defend, are successful.

Although we are exploring ways to broaden our development and commercial pipeline, such efforts are likely to be time consuming, costly and may utilize resources that could otherwise be focused on commercializing VASCEPA. For example, it took over a decade of preceding product development before we received marketing approval for VAZKEPA in March 2021 from the European Commission, or the EC.

Likewise, if we seek to diversify our development programs or product offerings through licensing or acquisitions, such transactions are also time-consuming, may be dilutive to existing shareholdings, and may be initially disruptive to operations. These transactions may not be available on favorable terms, or at all. These dynamics can restrict our ability to respond rapidly to adverse business conditions for VASCEPA. If development of, or demand for, VASCEPA does not meet expectations, we may not have the ability to effectively shift our resources to the development of alternative products, or do so in a timely manner, without suffering material adverse effects on our business. As a result, the lack of alternative markets and products we develop could constrain our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability.

In the United States, we face increasing competition from generic drug companies in the near term and our revenues and results of operations could continue to be materially and adversely affected.

Following the patent litigation rulings against us, generic versions of VASCEPA began launching in the United States in November 2020, and several generic versions are currently available including for both the 0.5-gram and 1-gram capsules, and we expect that VASCEPA could face more competition from generic companies in the United States. Increasing sales of generic versions of VASCEPA could continue to have a material and adverse impact on our revenues and results of operations in the United States.

Generally, once a generic version of a drug is available in the market, the generic version is typically used in many U.S. states to fill a prescription for any use of the drug, subject to state substitution laws. Although, we intend to vigorously defend our intellectual property rights related to VASCEPA, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in preventing use of generic versions of VASCEPA in indications for which they have not been approved by U.S. FDA, even if such use is determined to infringe certain of our patent claims.

30

Given the changing dynamic in the U.S. market, we initiated cost and organizational restructuring plans which reduced our U.S. commercial team from approximately 300 sales representatives to approximately 75 sales representatives by the end of 2022. Although this streamlining has resulted in an improved expense structure, such efforts could impact employee morale and make hiring and retaining talented personnel more challenging, may not result in all of the cost-savings or other benefits we anticipate and are costly to implement.

In Europe, we are seeking relevant pricing approvals in various countries; however, we may not be successful in obtaining such approvals in a timely manner or at all and even if successfully obtained, we may not be successful in commercializing VAZKEPA in Europe.

We continue our development efforts to support commercialization of VASCEPA in major markets outside the United States, particularly in light of the level of competition, including from generic products, in the United States. This process is conducted on a country-by-country basis and is time-consuming and complex, and, even though the EC approved the marketing authorization for VAZKEPA in March 2021, and we have received positive national pricing and reimbursement decisions in England and Wales, Sweden and Finland, there is no guarantee that we will be able to negotiate and obtain further reimbursement and pricing terms on favorable terms, or at all, in the countries where we are pursuing commercialization. Further, successful progress or pricing terms in one country may not be indicative of our outcomes in other jurisdictions. For example, although the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, announced final guidance for reimbursement for VAZKEPA® and use across the National Health Service, or NHS, in England and Wales, we decided to discontinue business operations in Germany following the conclusion of negotiations with the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds during which a viable agreement on the reimbursement price of VAZKEPA could not be reached. The Arbitration Board process concluded without an agreement in November 2022 and although we plan to resubmit a pricing and reimbursement dossier with new data in Germany once we have a new dossier ready, we may be unable to resume commercial operations in Germany. We may not be successful in obtaining additional approvals in a timely manner with acceptable terms, or in additional countries and if we are unable to do so, and continue to face increased competition in the United States, our financial position could be materially and adversely impacted.

We have been developing VAZKEPA on our own in Europe, where we have limited experience. We are exploring possible strategic collaborations in smaller markets within Europe and in other major markets, which will increase our reliance on third parties, over whom we have limited control. We currently have multiple partners for the development and commercialization of VASCEPA in select geographies and are assessing potential partners to commercialize VASCEPA in other parts of the world. For example, we have strategic collaborations for the development and commercialization of VASCEPA in Canada, the Middle East and Greater China. However, we cannot make any guarantees as to the success of these efforts or that our beliefs about the value potential are accurate, or that we will be able to rely upon these third parties; if commercialization plans for VASCEPA do not meet expectations in major markets such as the United States and Europe, our business and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

The commercial value of VASCEPA outside the United States may be smaller than we anticipate, including if we are unable to secure favorable product reimbursement levels, which can vary from country to country. If we are unable to realize product reimbursement rates at reasonable levels, or at all, patient access to VASCEPA may be limited.

There can be no assurance as to the market for VASCEPA outside the United States. For example, despite having received EC approval to commercialize VAZKEPA in Europe and through our partner, Edding, marketing approval for VASCEPA in Hong Kong as well as we expect to obtain through Edding, marketing approval for VASCEPA in Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, applicable regulatory agencies may impose restrictions on the product’s conditions for use, distribution or marketing and in some cases may impose ongoing requirements for post-market surveillance, post-approval studies or clinical trials.

Further, securing adequate reimbursement is critical for commercial success of any therapeutic and pricing and reimbursement levels of medications in markets outside the United States can be unpredictable and vary considerably on a country-by-country basis. In some foreign countries, including major markets in Europe, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with individual governmental authorities can take six to 12 months or longer after the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product, and is not always successful. For example, after the conclusion of negotiations with the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, a viable agreement on the reimbursement price of VAZKEPA in Germany could not be reached. As a result of the negotiation outcome, we discontinued our German operations as of September 1, 2022. In November 2022 the Arbitration Board process concluded without an agreement.

Further, in certain European countries, securing product reimbursement is a requisite to commercial launch. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a pharmacoeconomic study that compares the cost-effectiveness of VASCEPA to other available therapies. Such pharmacoeconomic studies can be costly and the results uncertain. The time required to secure reimbursement tends to vary from country to country and cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Our business could be harmed if reimbursement of our products is unavailable, delayed or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels. If the pricing and reimbursement levels of VASCEPA are lower than we anticipate, then affordability of, and market access to, VASCEPA may be adversely affected and thus market potential in these territories would suffer.

31

We or our partners may even choose to not proceed with marketing VASCEPA in a market, even after obtaining all necessary regulatory approval, due to negative commercial dynamics. Further, with regard to any indications for which we may gain approval in territories outside the United States, the number of actual patients with the condition included in such approved indication may be smaller than we anticipate. In addition, we could face competition from products similar or deemed equivalent to VASCEPA in various jurisdictions through regulatory pathways that are more lenient than in the United States or in jurisdictions in which we do not have exclusivity from regulations or intellectual property. If any of these market dynamics exist, the commercial potential in these territories for our product would suffer.

We have limited experience as a company in commercializing VASCEPA outside of the United States and may be unsuccessful in developing sales internationally.

We may be unsuccessful in expanding our global footprint. For example, we are launching VAZKEPA on our own in the most commercially significant markets in Europe. The commercial launch of a new pharmaceutical product is a complex and resource heavy undertaking for a company to manage and be impacted by decisions by and interactions with local regulators, and we have no prior experience as a company operating a commercial-stage pharmaceutical business in Europe. For example, and as noted above, a viable agreement on the reimbursement price of VAZKEPA in Germany could not be reached with German regulators and we have discontinued our Germany business operations. Given the amount of time and resources, including capital, needed to support regulatory and commercial efforts aimed at international expansion, if we are unsuccessful or delayed in generating revenues overseas, our results of operations could be materially and adversely impacted.

Factors that could inhibit our efforts to successfully commercialize VASCEPA include:

If we experience one or more of the setbacks described above, we may not be able to pursue international regulatory and commercial efforts in a cost effective manner, or at all, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Our ability to generate meaningful revenues outside of the United States may be limited, including due to the strict price controls and reimbursement limitations imposed by payors outside of the United States.

Our ability to generate meaningful revenues of VASCEPA outside of the United States is dependent on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. In many markets around the world, these payors, including

32

government health systems, private health insurers and other organizations, remain focused on reducing the cost of healthcare, and their efforts have intensified as a result of rising healthcare costs and economic challenges. Drugs remain heavily scrutinized for cost containment. As a result, payors are becoming more restrictive regarding the use of biopharmaceutical products and scrutinizing the prices of these products while requiring a higher level of clinical evidence to support the benefits such products bring to patients and the broader healthcare system. These pressures are intensified where our products are subject to competition, including from biosimilars.

In many countries outside the United States, government-sponsored healthcare systems are the primary payors for drugs. With increasing budgetary constraints and differing views on or challenges in valuing medicines, governments and payors in many countries are applying a variety of measures to exert downward price pressure. These measures can include mandatory price controls, price referencing, therapeutic-reference pricing, increases in mandates, incentives for generic substitution and biosimilar usage and government-mandated price cuts. In this regard, many countries have health technology assessment organizations that use formal economic metrics such as cost-effectiveness to determine prices, coverage and reimbursement of new therapies; and these organizations are expanding in established and emerging markets. Many countries also limit coverage to populations narrower than the regulatory agency approved product label or impose volume caps to limit utilization. We expect that countries will continue to take aggressive actions to seek to reduce expenditures on drugs. Similarly, fiscal constraints may also affect the extent to which countries are willing to approve new and innovative therapies and/or allow access to new technologies.

The dynamics and developments discussed above serve to create pressure on the pricing and potential usage of our products and the industry. Given the diverse interests in play among payors, biopharmaceutical manufacturers, policy makers, healthcare providers and independent organizations, if and whether the parties involved can achieve alignment on the matters discussed above remains unclear and the outcome of any such alignment is difficult to predict. If reimbursement of VASCEPA is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our ability to successfully commercialize VASCEPA outside of the United States may be harmed, which could have a material and negative impact on our overall business.

Government and commercial payor actions outside of the United States have affected and will continue to affect access to and sales of our products

Outside of the United States, we expect countries will continue to take actions to reduce their drug expenditures. International reference pricing, or IRP, has been widely used by many countries outside of the United States to control costs based on an external benchmark of a product’s price in other countries. IRP policies can change quickly and frequently and may not reflect differences in the burden of disease, indications, market structures, or affordability differences across countries or regions. In addition, countries may refuse to reimburse or may restrict the reimbursed population for a product when their national health technology assessments do not consider a medicine to demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit beyond existing therapies or to meet certain cost effectiveness thresholds. Some countries also allow additional rebates or discounts to be negotiated. The outcome of such negotiations can be uncertain and could become publicly disclosed in the future. Some countries decide on reimbursement between potentially competing products through national or regional tenders that often result in one product receiving most or all of the sales in that country or region. Thus, there can be no certainty that we will negotiate satisfactory reimbursement or pricing rates in markets outside of the United States in a timely manner, or at all, or even if we are successful in obtaining satisfactory coverage and reimbursement, we may be unsuccessful in sustaining such coverage and reimbursement, or could face challenges as to the timeliness or certainty of payment by payors to physicians and other providers, which would have a material and adverse impact on our commercialization efforts outside of the United States. We as an organization have limited experience in navigating the pricing and reimbursement regimes, outside of the United States, which foreign regimes are varied and complex, which might hinder our effectiveness in establishing satisfactory pricing, coverage and reimbursement levels in a timely manner or at all.

Factors outside of our control may make it more difficult for VASCEPA to achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community at levels sufficient to achieve commercial success.

In January 2013, we launched VASCEPA based on the U.S. FDA approval of our MARINE indication, for use as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adult patients with severe (TG >500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. Guidelines for the management of very high triglyceride levels suggest that the primary goal of reducing triglyceride levels in this patient population is reduction in the risk of acute pancreatitis. A secondary goal for this patient population is to reduce cardiovascular risk. The effect of VASCEPA on the risk for pancreatitis in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia has not been determined and our U.S. FDA-approved labeling and promotional efforts state this fact.

In December 2019, the U.S. FDA approved another indication and label expansion for VASCEPA as an adjunct to statin therapy to reduce the risk of MACE events in adult patients with elevated TG levels (≥150 mg/dL) and established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus and two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or our REDUCE-IT indication.

Despite U.S. FDA approval for this indication and expanded label for VASCEPA, we may not meet expectations for market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community for this approved use, especially in light of

33

generic competition. If VASCEPA does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate product revenues sufficient to become profitable, or, even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to generate consistent profitability. The degree of market acceptance of VASCEPA for its approved indications and uses or otherwise will depend on a number of factors, including:

Any one or more of the above factors could have a negative impact on our ability to successfully commercialize VASCEPA, which would in turn have a negative impact on our financial condition.

Additional data or related interpretations that are generated or arise over time related to REDUCE-IT might not meet expectations, and the perception of REDUCE-IT results and VASCEPA revenue potential may suffer and our stock price may decline.

While the U.S. FDA approved the expanded label for VASCEPA for the REDUCE-IT indication in 2019, additional data assessment by international regulatory authorities or otherwise could yield additional information to inform greater understanding of study outcome, which information could impact the perception of VASCEPA. Such data or interpretations may not be favorable for us. Generally, trial data assessment sufficient to convey a complete picture of trial outcome can take years to complete and publish. When new data are assessed and released or presented it could exceed, match or may not meet investor expectations.

In addition, the same set of data can sometimes be interpreted to reach different conclusions, as when Health Canada approved an indication based on our REDUCE-IT trial data that was different in certain respects than that approved by U.S. FDA and by the EC in Europe. It is possible the scope of subsequent regulatory approvals, if any, could likewise differ based on the same data. Conflicting interpretations of data, or new data, could impact public and medical community perception of the totality of the efficacy and safety data from REDUCE-IT.

34

Regulatory authorities and medical guideline committees outside of the United States and Europe may consider the following additional factors, which could lead to evaluations of the totality of the efficacy and safety data from REDUCE-IT that differ from those of the U.S. FDA or the EC:

If regulatory authorities and medical guideline committees outside of the United States and Europe draw conclusions that differ from those of the U.S. FDA or the EC, the U.S. FDA or the EC could reevaluate its conclusions as to the safety and efficacy of VASCEPA. Likewise, if additional data or analyses released from time to time do not meet expectations, the perception of REDUCE-IT results and the perceived and actual value of VASCEPA may suffer. In these instances our revenue and business could suffer and our stock price could significantly decline.

Ongoing clinical trials or new clinical data involving VASCEPA and similar moderate-to-high doses of eicosapentaenoic acid or icosapent ethyl could adversely impact public perception of VASCEPA’s clinical profile and the commercial and regulatory prospects of VASCEPA.

Ongoing trials of moderate-to-high doses of VASCEPA and icosapent ethyl, or a similar eicosapentaenoic acid product could render new or adverse information on the effects of VASCEPA and its commercial and regulatory prospects.

For example, the Randomized Trial for Evaluation in Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy–Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA; UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000012069) is a study examining Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease receiving LDL-C lowering treatment by statin therapy. Results from this study were presented during the 2022 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2022 and were consistent with the evidence from the REDUCE-IT study.

In November 2020, we announced statistically significant topline results from a Phase 3 clinical trial of VASCEPA, conducted by our partner in China, Eddingpharm (Asia) Macao Commercial Offshore Limited, or Edding, which investigated VASCEPA as a treatment for patients with very high triglycerides. Even though such results from these trials were positive, additional clinical development efforts may be necessary in these markets to demonstrate the effectiveness of VASCEPA, which may be costly to pursue, or may not produce the desired or expected results.

If the outcomes of any study involving VASCEPA and icosapent ethyl is unfavorable, the perception of existing clinical results of VASCEPA, such as MARINE or REDUCE-IT, or the perceived clinical profile and commercial value of VASCEPA and its regulatory status, or perceptions about the potential for VASCEPA, including as a treatment for broader indications, may suffer. If this occurs our revenue and business could suffer and our stock price could significantly decline.

Our recent cost reduction and organizational restructuring plans, and any similar efforts we may undertake in the future, may not be successful in mitigating risks and challenges associated with our Company's U.S. business and establishing a more significant international footprint.

If we are not successful in our efforts to continue to market and sell VASCEPA in the United States, including following the implementation of our cost reduction and organizational restructuring plan, our anticipated revenues or our expenses could be materially and negatively affected, and we may not maintain profitability in the United States or obtain profitability internationally, may need to cut back on research and development activities or we may need to implement other cost-containment measures, or we may need to raise additional funding that could result in substantial dilution or impose considerable restrictions on our business.

35

Our promotional initiatives have had to adjust over the last several years, given the impact of COVID-19 and international instability, which efforts have been costly and require considerable resources. Shifts from traditional face-to-face interactions to mostly virtual outreach, specifically, access to healthcare professionals through digital or other channels, were not as productive as in-person interactions in promoting use of VASCEPA and we have been pursuing increased face-to-face interactions with targeted health care professionals as protocols have eased and travel has resumed to more stable levels. Such efforts are costly and there can be no assurance that they will result in an increase in VASCEPA prescriptions and sales in the near future, or at all.

The manufacture, supply and commercialization, including promotional activities, of VASCEPA is subject to regulatory scrutiny.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, has been interpreted by the U.S. FDA and the U.S. government to make it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to promote their U.S. FDA-approved products for uses that have not been approved by the U.S. FDA. Companies that market drugs for off-label uses or indications have been subject to related costly litigation, criminal penalties and civil liability under the FDCA and the FCA. However, case law over the last several years has called into question the extent to which the U.S. government, including the U.S. FDA, can, and is willing to seek to, prevent truthful and non-misleading speech related to off-label uses of U.S. FDA-approved products such as VASCEPA.

As a result of a lawsuit that we and a group of independent physicians filed against the U.S. FDA in 2015, we were granted preliminary relief through the court’s declaratory judgment that confirmed we may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of VASCEPA to healthcare professionals, i.e., to treat patients with persistently high triglycerides, and that such speech may not form the basis of a misbranding action under the FDCA. The U.S. FDA did not appeal the court’s ruling and ultimately settled this litigation under terms by which the U.S. FDA and the U.S. government agreed to be bound by the conclusions from the federal court order that we may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of VASCEPA and that certain statements and disclosures that we proposed to make to healthcare professionals were truthful and non-misleading. As part of the settlement, given, as expressed in the court’s opinion, that the dynamic nature of science and medicine is that knowledge is ever-advancing and that a statement that is fair and balanced one day may become incomplete or otherwise misleading in the future as new studies are done and new data is acquired, we agreed that we bear the responsibility to ensure that our communications regarding off-label use of VASCEPA remain truthful and non-misleading, consistent with the federal court ruling.

While we believe we are now permitted under applicable law to more broadly promote VASCEPA, the U.S. FDA-approved labeling for VASCEPA did not change as a result of this litigation and settlement, and neither government nor other third-party coverage or reimbursement to pay for the off-label use of VASCEPA promoted under the court declaration was required.

Promotional activities in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries generally are subject to considerable regulatory scrutiny and, may be subject to enhanced scrutiny to ensure that our promotion remains within the scope covered by the settlement. For example, under the settlement, we remain responsible for ensuring our speech is truthful and non-misleading, which is subject to a considerable amount of judgment. We, the U.S. FDA, the U.S. government, our competitors and other interested parties may not agree on the truthfulness and non-misleading nature of our promotional materials. Federal and state governments or agencies may also seek to find other means to prevent our promotion of unapproved truthful and non-misleading information about VASCEPA.

In June 2020, we received a civil investigative demand, or CID, from the U.S. Department of Justice, or the DOJ, informing us that the DOJ is investigating whether aspects of our promotional speaker programs and copayment waiver program during the period from January 1, 2015 to the present violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. Civil False Claims Act, or the FCA, in relation to the sale and marketing of VASCEPA by us and our previous co-marketing partner, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., or Kowa America. Similarly, in March 2021, the United States Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, issued a CID to us in connection with the FTC’s investigation of whether we have engaged in, or are engaging in, anticompetitive practices or unfair methods of competition relating to VASCEPA. The New York State attorney general similarly issued a subpoena to us regarding the same subject matter on which the FTC CID is focused. The inquiries require us to produce documents and answer written questions, or interrogatories, relevant to specified time periods. Although we are cooperating with the government, we cannot predict when these investigations will be resolved, the outcome of the investigations or their potential impact on our business. Such investigations can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business. If the government determines that we have violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, the FCA or antitrust regulations, we could be subject to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties.

If our promotional activities or other operations are found to be in violation of any law or governmental regulation through existing or new interpretations, we may be subject to prolonged litigation, penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Also, if governmental parties or our competitors view our claims as misleading or false, we could be subject to liability based on fair competition-based statutes, such as the Lanham Act. Any allegations that our promotional activities are not truthful or misleading, even allegations without merit, could cause reputational harm and adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

36

We may not be able to compete effectively against our competitors’ pharmaceutical product, including generic products. In addition, we face competition from omega-3 fatty acids that are marketed by other companies as non-prescription dietary supplements, subjecting us to non-prescription competition and consumer substitution.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to our product. We expect that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to VASCEPA will increase. Many of these and other existing or potential competitors may have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market products. These companies may develop and introduce products and processes competitive with, more efficient than or superior to ours. In addition, other technologies or products may be developed that have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing the intended purposes of our products, which might render our technology and products noncompetitive or obsolete.

Our competitors include large, well-established pharmaceutical and generic companies, specialty and generic pharmaceutical sales and marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies. With generic versions of VASCEPA launched in the U.S. by companies such as Hikma, Dr. Reddy's, Apotex and Teva, who have greater resources than us, and with the potential for further generic versions being launched, it may not be viable for us to continue to invest in market education to grow the market and our ability to maintain current promotional efforts and attract favorable commercial terms in several aspects of our business will likely be adversely affected as we face increased generic competition, or if we launch our own generic version of VASCEPA.

We also face considerable competition in the United States from branded products and generic versions of competing branded products and formulations, including Lovaza®, Tricor,® Trilipix® and Niaspan®, all of which have multiple generic competing versions. We compete with these drugs, in our U.S. FDA-approved indicated uses, even though such products do not have U.S. FDA approval to reduce CV risk on top of statin therapy.

For a more detailed discussion of our competitors, and potential competing drugs in development, in the United States and the rest of the world, see our discussion above in Item 1. Business - Competition.

Further, drugs in development that are expected to compete with VASCEPA if they are ultimately approved and commercialized, and the perceived safety and efficacy of such commercialized drugs or drug products, could have a negative impact on the perceived safety and efficacy of VASCEPA.

Based on prior communications from the U.S. FDA, including communications in connection with its review of the ANCHOR indication for VASCEPA, it is our understanding that the U.S. FDA is not prepared to approve any therapy for treatment of cardiovascular risk based on biomarker modification without cardiovascular outcomes study data, with the potential exception of therapies which lower LDL-cholesterol, depending on the circumstances. In particular, it is our understanding that the U.S. FDA is not prepared to approve any therapy based primarily on data demonstrating lowering of triglyceride levels. In our view, this position from the U.S. FDA did not change based on the REDUCE-IT study particularly in light of significant independence of the positive benefit demonstrated in the REDUCE-IT study from triglyceride levels and benefit from the REDUCE-IT study supporting that the positive effects of VASCEPA are unique to VASCEPA and extend beyond triglyceride reduction. If the U.S. FDA were to change this position, it could potentially have a negative impact on us by making it easier for other products to achieve a cardiovascular risk reduction indication without the need in advance to conduct a long and expensive cardiovascular outcomes study.

VASCEPA also faces competition from dietary supplement manufacturers marketing omega-3 products as nutritional supplements. Such products are classified as food, not as prescription drugs or over-the-counter drugs, by the U.S. FDA in the United States with similar regulatory regimes in Europe and elsewhere. Some of the promoters of such products have greater resources than us and are not restricted to the same standards as are prescription drugs with respect to promotional claims or manufacturing quality, consistency and subsequent product stability. Although we have taken successful legal action against supplement manufacturers attempting to use the REDUCE-IT results to promote their products, we cannot be sure physicians and pharmacists will view the U.S. FDA-approved, prescription-only status, and EPA-only purity and stability of VASCEPA or U.S. FDA’s stringent regulatory oversight, as significant advantages versus omega-3 dietary supplements regardless of clinical study results and other scientific data.

Consistent with the U.S., our competitors include large, well-established and experienced pharmaceutical companies, specialty and generic pharmaceutical companies, marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies and we have no experience as a company self-commercializing a product outside of the United States.

Recent CV outcomes trials and meta-analyses with low and high dose omega-3 fatty acid mixtures containing DHA have not shown substantial benefit in patients receiving contemporary medical therapy, including statins. Due to failed low dose omega-3 CV outcomes trials, the European regulatory authorities have concluded that omega-3 fatty acid medicines (specifically Lovaza®/Omacor®) at a dose of 1-gram per day are not effective in preventing further events for patients who have had a heart attack. The STRENGTH trial of an omega-3 mixture studied at 4-grams per day also failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit.

37

As generic company competitors seek to compete with copies of VASCEPA in the United States and elsewhere we could face additional challenges to our patents and additional patent litigation.

The FDCA, as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, permits the U.S. FDA to approve ANDAs for generic versions of brand name drugs like VASCEPA. We refer to the process of generic drug applications as the “ANDA process.” The ANDA process permits competitor companies to obtain marketing approval for a drug product with the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength, route of administration, and labeling as the approved brand name drug, but without having to conduct and submit clinical studies to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed generic product. In place of such clinical studies, an ANDA applicant needs to submit data demonstrating that its product is bioequivalent to the brand name product, usually based on pharmacokinetic studies.

As an alternate path to U.S. FDA approval for modifications of products previously approved by the U.S. FDA, an applicant may submit a new drug application, or NDA, under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA (enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments). This statutory provision permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference from the owner of the data. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit the applicant to rely upon the U.S. FDA findings of safety and effectiveness of a drug that has obtained U.S. FDA approval based on preclinical or clinical studies conducted by others. In addition to relying on U.S. FDA prior findings of safety and effectiveness for a referenced drug product, the U.S. FDA may require companies to perform additional preclinical or clinical studies to support approval of the modification to the referenced product.

If an application for a generic version of a branded product or a Section 505(b)(2) application relies on a prior U.S. FDA finding of safety and effectiveness of a previously-approved product including an alternative strength thereof, the applicant is required to certify to the U.S. FDA concerning any patents listed for the referenced product in the U.S. FDA publication called “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” otherwise known as the “Orange Book.” Specifically, the applicant must certify in the application that:

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments require an applicant for a drug product that relies, in whole or in part, on the U.S. FDA’s prior approval of VASCEPA, to notify us of its application, a “paragraph IV” notice, if the applicant is seeking to market its product prior to the expiration of the patents that both claim VASCEPA and are listed in the Orange Book. A bona fide paragraph IV notice may not be given under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments until after the generic company receives from the U.S. FDA an acknowledgement letter stating that its ANDA is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review.

The paragraph IV notice is required to contain a detailed factual and legal statement explaining the basis for the applicant’s opinion that the proposed product does not infringe our patents, that the relevant patents are invalid, or both. After receipt of a valid notice, the branded product manufacturer has the option of bringing a patent infringement suit in federal district court against any generic company seeking approval for its product within 45 days from the date of receipt of each notice. If such a suit is commenced within this 45-day period, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide for a 30-month stay on U.S. FDA’s ability to give final approval to the proposed generic product, which period begins on the date the paragraph IV notice is received. Generally, during a period of time in which generic applications may be submitted for a branded product based on a product’s regulatory exclusivity status, if no patents are listed in the Orange Book before the date on which a complete ANDA application for a product (excluding an amendment or supplement to the application) is submitted, an ANDA application could be approved by U.S. FDA without regard to a stay. For products entitled to five-year exclusivity status, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide that an ANDA application may be submitted after four years following U.S. FDA approval of the branded product if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to a patent listed in the Orange Book. In such a case, the 30-month stay runs from the end of the five-year exclusivity period. Statutory stays may be shortened or lengthened if either party fails to cooperate in the litigation and it may be terminated if the court decides the case in less than 30 months. If the litigation is resolved in favor of the ANDA applicant before the expiration of the 30-month period, the stay will be immediately lifted and the U.S. FDA’s review of the application may be completed. Such litigation is often time-consuming and costly and may result in generic competition if such patents are not upheld or if the generic competitor is found not to infringe such patents.

In addition to the ANDA patent litigation described above, we could face patent litigation related to the patents filed in the Orange Book related to the REDUCE-IT study. A three-year period of exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments is generally granted for a drug product that contains an active moiety that has been previously approved, such as when the application contains

38

reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. Accordingly, we received three-year exclusivity in connection with the approval of our sNDA for REDUCE-IT study results. Such three-year exclusivity protection precludes, unless otherwise agreed, the U.S. FDA from approving a marketing application for an ANDA, a product candidate that the U.S. FDA views as having the same conditions of approval as VASCEPA (for example, the same indication and/or other conditions of use), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted to the U.S. FDA with VASCEPA as the reference product until December 13, 2022, three years from the date of U.S. FDA approval of the REDUCE-IT sNDA. While this three-year exclusivity would generally prevent such an approval based on our REDUCE-IT indication during such time, it does not preclude tentative or final approval of an ANDA based on our MARINE indication. The U.S. FDA may accept and commence review of such REDUCE-IT-related applications during the three-year exclusivity period. Such three-year exclusivity grant does not prevent a company from challenging the validity of REDUCE-IT patents during such period. This three-year form of exclusivity may also not prevent the U.S. FDA from approving an NDA that relies only on its own data to support the change or innovation. Regulatory exclusivity is in addition to exclusivity afforded by issued patents related to VASCEPA.

We may also face challenges to the validity of our patents through a procedure known as inter partes review. Inter partes review is a trial proceeding conducted through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, of the USPTO. Such a proceeding could be introduced against us within the statutory one-year window triggered by service of a complaint for infringement related to an ANDA filing or at any time by an entity not served with a complaint. Such proceedings may review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on specified substantive grounds such as allegations that a claim is obvious on the basis of certain prior art.

We cannot predict the outcome of the pending lawsuits, any appeals, or any subsequently filed lawsuits or inter partes review.

Generally, if an ANDA filer meets the approval requirements for a generic version of VASCEPA to the satisfaction of the U.S. FDA under its ANDA, U.S. FDA may grant tentative approval to the ANDA during a Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay period and during the Hatch-Waxman 36-month regulatory exclusivity period. A tentative approval is issued to an ANDA applicant when its application is approvable prior to the expiration of any exclusivities applicable to the branded, reference listed drug product. A tentative approval does not allow the applicant to market the generic drug product and postpones the final ANDA approval until applicable exclusivity protections have expired.

Generic versions of VASCEPA made available in the market, even if based on a MARINE indication, are often used to fill a prescription for any intended use of the drug. If any approved ANDA filers are able to supply the product in significant commercial quantities, generic companies could introduce generic versions of VASCEPA in the market, as Hikma, Dr. Reddy's, Apotex and Teva have done. Although any such introduction of a generic version of VASCEPA would also be subject to any litigation settlement terms and patent infringement claims (including any new claims and those that may then be subject to an appeal), pursuing such litigation may be prohibitively costly or could put a substantial constraint on our resources.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing the U.S. FDA to, among other things, continue to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and identify and address any efforts to impede generic drug competition.

Any significant degree of generic market entry would limit our U.S. sales, which would have a significant adverse impact on our business and results of operations. In addition, even if a competitor’s effort to introduce a generic product is ultimately unsuccessful, the perception that such development is in progress and/or news related to such progress or news related to litigation outcomes could materially affect the reputation of VASCEPA or the perceived value of our company and our stock price. In addition, generic market entry, whether limited to its approved indication or not, can create market disruption which leads to an overall slowing of market growth regardless of whether the net price of the generic entry is higher or lower than the net price of the branded drug. Such disruption includes potential stock shortages of the generic market entry at retail pharmacies and wholesalers which can cause filling of prescriptions for patients to be delayed or abandoned. Sponsors of generic entries typically do not fund market education initiatives to help healthcare professionals and at-risk patients learn about a new drug, which, particularly for a recently launched drug, can potentially limit overall growth. And certain States impose restrictions on the promotion of branded drugs, particularly if the generic market entry is less expensive than the branded drug. While some companies with generic competition elect to launch an authorized generic form of the drug to counter the perception, real or imagined, that generics are less expensive, if launched, an authorized generic is typically aligned with reduction or elimination of promotion of the associated branded drug, thus limiting the extent of market growth and potentially contracting the overall size of the realized market penetration. While an authorized generic could be profitable the market opportunity for growth from an authorized generic is likely less than from promotion of a branded drug, and as such we have not launched an authorized generic version of VASCEPA to date, but may elect to do so in the future.

The active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, often requires considerable advanced planning and long-term financial commitments to ensure sufficient capacity is available when needed. One of our generic competitors has filed a lawsuit against us claiming we have engaged in anticompetitive practices related to our building of adequate supply for our needs, and government agencies are investigating our business as it relates to the supply of the

39

active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA. Consumer lawsuits with similar allegations have also been filed. This dynamic and resulting regulatory scrutiny could be costly for us and could negatively and materially interfere with our business plans.

The active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA is difficult and time consuming to manufacture, often requires considerable advanced planning and necessitates long-term financial commitments to ensure sufficient capacity is available when needed. We have invested over a decade of resources and expenses to develop with our third-party, active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, supply chain the technical knowhow, manufacturing processes and obtained related regulatory approvals that have helped enable our suppliers to supply our clinical and commercial needs globally. Despite such efforts, the stability of the supply chain is largely out of our control and is subject to market and supply volatility and the actions of third parties. Any disruption to the supply chain, including the manufacturing processes and availability of API, would be disruptive to our business and would have a negative impact on our results of operations.

In April 2021, Dr. Reddy’s filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (case no. 2:21-cv-10309) alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. Damages sought include recovery for alleged economic harm to Dr. Reddy’s, payors, and consumers, treble damages and other costs and fees. Injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities is also being sought by Dr. Reddy’s. Consumer group lawsuits followed claiming similar violations and alleging, for example, that such alleged violations resulted in higher prices to consumers. In addition, in February 2023, Hikma filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (case no. 3:23-cv-01016) with consistent allegations as the Dr. Reddy's complaint. Such litigation can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business.

In addition, as noted above, we have also received a CID from the U.S. FTC and a subpoena from the New York Attorney General with respect to practices relating to our supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient in VASCEPA. The government inquiries require us to produce documents and answer related questions relevant to specified time periods. We are cooperating with the agencies. Such investigations can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business. We cannot predict when these investigations will be resolved, the outcome of the investigations or their potential impact on our business. If a government determines that we have violated antitrust law, we could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties.

VASCEPA is a prescription-only omega-3 fatty acid product. Omega-3 fatty acids are also marketed by other companies as non-prescription dietary supplements. As a result, in the U.S., VASCEPA is subject to non-prescription competition and consumer substitution.

Our only product, VASCEPA, is a prescription-only form of EPA, an omega-3 fatty acid in ethyl ester form. Mixtures of omega-3 fatty acids in triglyceride form are naturally occurring substances contained in various foods, including fatty fish. Omega-3 fatty acids are marketed by others in a number of chemical forms as non-prescription dietary supplements. We cannot be sure physicians and other providers will view the U.S. FDA approval, pharmaceutical grade purity and proven efficacy and safety of VASCEPA as having a superior therapeutic profile to unproven and loosely regulated omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements. In addition, the U.S. FDA has not yet enforced to the full extent of its regulatory authority what we view as illegal claims made by certain omega-3 fatty acid product manufacturers to the extent we believe appropriate under applicable law and regulations, for example, claims that certain of such chemically altered products are dietary supplements and that certain of such products reduce triglyceride levels or could reduce cardiovascular risk.

Also, for over a decade, subject to certain limitations, the U.S. FDA has expressly permitted dietary supplement manufacturers that sell supplements containing the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and/or DHA to make the following qualified health claim directly to consumers: Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Such companies are not, however, permitted, based on U.S. FDA enforcement activity, to make claims that suggest or imply treatment of cardiovascular disease.

These factors enable dietary supplements to compete with VASCEPA. We may not be successful in such efforts, or such efforts may prove too costly to be effective.

In addition, the net price of VASCEPA to patients even after insurance reimbursement and offered discounts could be significantly higher than the prices of commercially available omega-3 fatty acids marketed by other companies as dietary supplements (through the lack of coverage by insurers or otherwise), physicians and pharmacists may recommend these retail alternatives instead of writing or filling prescriptions for VASCEPA or patients may elect on their own to take commercially available omega-3 fatty acids. Also, insurance plans may increasingly impose policies that directly or indirectly favor supplement use over VASCEPA. VASCEPA pricing might not be sufficient for healthcare providers or patients to elect VASCEPA over alternative treatments that may be perceived as less expense or more convenient to access. If healthcare providers or patients favor dietary supplements over prescribing VASCEPA, we may be constrained in how we price our product or VASCEPA’s market acceptance may be less than expected, which would have a negative impact on our revenues and results of operations.

40

Our products and marketing efforts are subject to extensive post-approval government regulation.

Once a product candidate receives U.S. FDA marketing approval, numerous post-approval requirements apply. Among other things, the holder of an approved NDA is subject to periodic and other monitoring and reporting obligations enforced by the U.S. FDA and other regulatory bodies, including obligations to monitor and report adverse events and instances of the failure of a product to meet the specifications in the approved application. Application holders must also submit advertising and other promotional material to regulatory authorities and report on ongoing clinical trials.

With respect to sales and marketing activities, advertising and promotional materials must comply with U.S. FDA rules in addition to other applicable federal and local laws in the United States and in other countries. The result of our litigation and settlement with the U.S. FDA, as discussed above, may cause the government to scrutinize our promotional efforts or otherwise monitor our business more closely. Industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities also must comply with U.S. FDA and other requirements. In the United States, the distribution of product samples to physicians must comply with the requirements of the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act. Manufacturing facilities remain subject to U.S. FDA inspection and must continue to adhere to the U.S. FDA’s pharmaceutical current good manufacturing practice requirements, or cGMPs. Application holders must obtain U.S. FDA approval for product and manufacturing changes, depending on the nature of the change. In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the U.S. FDA and state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements.

We participate in the U.S. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the Federal Supply Schedule, or FSS, of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or the VA, and other government drug programs, and, accordingly, are subject to complex laws and regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations. We must also comply with requirements to collect and report adverse events and product complaints associated with our products. Our activities are also subject to U.S. federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws, non-compliance with which could subject us to significant liability. Similar requirements exist in many of these areas in other countries.

Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet post-approval requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. We may also be held responsible for the non-compliance of our partners, such as our former co-promotion partner Kowa America. As discussed above, in June 2020, we received a CID from the DOJ informing us that the DOJ is investigating whether aspects of our promotional speaker programs and copayment waiver programs during the period from January 1, 2015 to the present violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. FCA in relation to the sale and marketing of VASCEPA by us and our previous co-marketing partner, Kowa America. The New York State attorney general similarly issued a subpoena to us regarding the same subject matter on which the FTC CID is focused. The inquiries require us to produce documents and answer written questions, or interrogatories, relevant to specified time periods. We cannot predict when these investigations will be resolved, the outcome of the investigations or their potential impact on our business. If the government determines that we have violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, the FCA or antitrust regulations, we could be subject to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties, and our reputation may be harmed. In addition, even if we comply with U.S. FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or effectiveness of a product could lead the U.S. FDA to modify or withdraw a product approval. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a drug’s approved labeling and marketing, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Adverse regulatory action, whether pre- or post-approval, can potentially lead to product liability claims and increase our product liability exposure. We must also compete against other products in qualifying for coverage and reimbursement under applicable third-party payment and insurance programs.

In addition, all of the above factors may also apply to any regulatory approval for VASCEPA obtained in territories outside the United States. In Europe, for example, restrictions regarding off-label promotion are in some ways more stringent than in the United States, including restrictions covering certain communications with shareholders. Given our inexperience with marketing and commercializing products outside the United States, in certain territories we may need to rely on third parties, such as our partners in Canada, China and the Middle East, to assist us in dealing with any such issues and we will have limited or no control over such partners.

Legislative or regulatory reform of the healthcare system in the United States and foreign jurisdictions may affect our ability to profitably sell VASCEPA.

Our ability to commercialize VASCEPA or any future products successfully, alone or with collaborators, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for the products will be available from government and health administration authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors. The continuing efforts of the U.S. and foreign governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce healthcare costs may adversely affect our ability to set prices for our products which we believe are fair, and our ability to generate revenues and achieve and maintain

41

profitability. Refer to Item 1. Business - United States Healthcare Reform and Legislation and Item 1. Business - Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement for further details.

In addition, it is time-consuming and expensive for us to go through the process of seeking coverage and reimbursement from Medicare and private payors. Our products may not be considered cost effective, and government and third-party private health insurance coverage and reimbursement may not be available to patients for any of our future products or sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by ACA and by other healthcare reforms that may be enacted or adopted in the future. In addition, increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States will continue to put pressure on the pricing of pharmaceutical products. For example, proposals are being considered to expand the use of dietary supplements in addition to or in place of drugs in government and private payor plans. In addition, cost control initiatives could decrease the price that we or any potential collaborators could receive for any of our future products and could adversely affect our profitability.

These and similar regulatory dynamics, including the entry of generic versions of VASCEPA into the market, and the potential for additional generic versions in the near term, can affect our ability to commercialize VASCEPA on commercially reasonable terms and limit the commercial value of VASCEPA.

If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, the 340B drug pricing program, and the VA’s FSS pricing program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, we are required to pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for our covered outpatient drugs that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries and paid for by a state Medicaid program as a condition of having federal funds being made available to the states for our drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Those rebates are based on pricing data reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. These data include the average manufacturer price and, in the case of innovator products, the best price for each drug which, in general, represents the lowest price available from the manufacturer to any commercial entity in the U.S. in any pricing structure, calculated to include all sales and associated rebates, discounts and other price concessions. Our failure to comply with these price reporting and rebate payment obligations could negatively impact our financial results.

The ACA made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective in 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the ACA. The issuance of the final regulation has increased and will continue to increase our costs and the complexity of compliance, has been and will continue to be time-consuming to implement, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, particularly if CMS challenges the approach we take in our implementation of the final regulation.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula based on the average manufacturer price and Medicaid rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, and in general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. Any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount under the ACA, other legislation, or in regulation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations.

The Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, which administers the 340B program, issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities, which became effective on January 1, 2019. We also are required to report our 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis. Implementation of the civil monetary penalties regulation and the issuance of any other final regulations and guidance could affect our obligations under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in the inpatient setting.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. In the case of our Medicaid pricing data, if we become aware that our reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we are obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase our costs for

42

complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products under the 340B program or could require us to issue refunds to 340B covered entities.

Significant civil monetary penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false pricing information to CMS, or if we fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis. Such conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. Significant civil monetary penalties also can be applied if we are found to have knowingly and intentionally charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS or HRSA to be incomplete or incorrect.

In order to be eligible to have our products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, as noted above, we participate in the VA’s FSS pricing program. As part of this program, we are obligated to make our products available for procurement on an FSS contract under which we must comply with standard government terms and conditions and charge a price that is no higher than the statutory Federal Ceiling Price, or FCP, to four federal agencies (the VA, U.S. Department of Defense, or DOD, Public Health Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard). The FCP is based on the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price, or Non-FAMP, which we calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with a Non-FAMP filing can subject a manufacturer to significant penalties for each item of false information. These obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements.

We also participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to Tricare beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP. We are required to list our covered products on a Tricare Agreement in order for these products to be eligible for DOD formulary inclusion. If we overcharge the government in connection with our FSS contract or Tricare Agreement, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the FCA and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Changes in reimbursement procedures by government and other third-party payors may limit our ability to market and sell our approved drugs. These changes could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In the U.S., Europe and other regions globally, sales of pharmaceutical drugs are dependent, in part, on the availability of reimbursement to the consumer from third-party payors, such as government and private insurance plans. Third-party payors decide which products and services they will cover and the conditions for such coverage. Third party payors also establish reimbursement rates for those products and services. Increasingly, third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Some third-party payor benefit packages restrict reimbursement, charge copayments to patients, or do not provide coverage for specific drugs or drug classes.

In addition, certain U.S. based healthcare providers are moving toward a managed care system in which such providers contract to provide comprehensive healthcare services, including prescription drugs, for a fixed cost per person. We are unable to predict the reimbursement policies employed by third-party healthcare payors may not be favorable to us.

We expect to experience pricing and reimbursement pressures in connection with the sale of our products due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative and executive proposals, as well as the availability of generic versions of VASCEPA. In addition, we may confront limitations in, or exclusions from, insurance coverage for our products, particularly as generic competition intensifies. If we fail to successfully secure and maintain reimbursement coverage for our approved drugs or are significantly delayed in doing so, we may have difficulty achieving market acceptance of our approved drugs and investigational drug candidates for which we obtain approval, and our business may be harmed. Congress has enacted healthcare reform and may enact further reform, which could adversely affect the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Ongoing healthcare legislative and regulatory reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

43

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. Refer to Item 1. Business - Current and Future Legislation and Item 1. Business - United States Healthcare Reform and Legislation. There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The enactment and implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Failure to comply with health and data protection laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (which could include civil or criminal penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.

We and any potential collaborators may be subject to federal, state, and foreign data protection laws and regulations (i.e., laws and regulations that address privacy and data security). In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including federal health information privacy laws, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), that govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our collaborators. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties (including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data) that are subject to privacy and security requirements under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. Although we are not directly subject to HIPAA – other than with respect to providing certain employee benefits – we could potentially be subject to criminal penalties if we, our affiliates, or our agents knowingly obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our operating results and business.

European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use, processing and cross-border transfer of personal information.

The REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial was conducted in part through clinical sites in the EEA. As a result, we are subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection and use of personal health data in the EU is governed by the provisions of the GDPR. The GDPR imposes several requirements relating to the legal basis for processing personal data which may include the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EEA to third countries, including the United States. A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, in 2020 invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, which was one of the primary mechanisms used by U.S. companies to import personal information from Europe in compliance with the GDPR's cross-border data transfer restrictions, and raised questions about whether the EC's Standard Contractual Clauses, or SCCs, one of the primary alternatives to the Privacy Shield, can lawfully be used for personal information transfers from Europe to the United States or most other countries. Furthermore, on June 4, 2021, the EC issued new forms of standard contractual clauses for data transfers from controllers or processors in the EEA, or otherwise subject to the GDPR, to controllers or processors established outside the EEA, and not subject to the GDPR. The new forms of standard contractual clauses have replaced the standard contractual clauses that were adopted previously under the Data Protection Directive. They require a case-by-case assessment of the law in the recipient country to ensure it provides “essentially equivalent” protections to safeguard the transferred personal data as the EEA, and require businesses to adopt supplementary measures if such standard is not met The new SCCs do not apply to the UK, but the UK Information Commissioner’s Office has published its own transfer mechanism, the International Data Transfer Agreement, or UK IDTA, which entered into force on March 21, 2022, and enables data transfers originating from the UK. It requires a similar assessment of the data protection provided in the importer’s country. We will be required to transition to the new forms of transfer mechanisms and doing so will require significant effort and cost. The new transfer

44

mechanisms may also impact our business as companies based in Europe may be reluctant to utilize the new clauses to legitimize transfers of personal information to third countries given the burdensome requirements of transfer impact assessments and the substantial obligations that the new standard contractual clauses impose upon exporters. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR or the UK GDPR, and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States or the UK may result in substantial fines. The GDPR may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with these and/or new data protection rules. This may be costly, onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, prospects and results of operations.

The U.S. FDA, other regulatory agencies and industry organizations strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products and promotional efforts such as speaker programs. If we or our partners are found to have improperly promoted uses, efficacy or safety of VASCEPA or otherwise are found to have violated the law or applicable regulations, we may become subject to significant fines and other liability. The government may seek to find means to prevent our promotion of truthful and non-misleading information beyond the current court ruling and litigation settlement or seek to find violations of other laws or regulations in connection with the promotional efforts we undertake on our own or through third parties.

The U.S. FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. In particular, in general, the U.S. government’s position has been that a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the U.S. FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. The Federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The U.S. FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. Even though we received U.S. FDA marketing approval for VASCEPA for the MARINE indication and for the REDUCE-IT indication, and our settlement with the U.S. FDA affords us a degree of protection for other promotional efforts, physicians may still prescribe VASCEPA to their patients for use in the treatment of conditions that are not included as part of the indication statement in our U.S. FDA-approved VASCEPA label or our settlement. If we are found to have promoted VASCEPA outside the terms of the litigation settlement or in violation of what federal or state government may determine to be acceptable, we may become subject to significant government fines and other related liability, such as under the FDCA, the FCA, or other theories of liability. Government may also seek to hold us responsible for the non-compliance of our former co-promotion partner, Kowa America, or our commercialization partners outside the United States or other third-parties that we retain to help us implement our business plan.

In addition, incentives exist under applicable laws that encourage competitors, employees and physicians to report violations of rules governing promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. These incentives could lead to so-called “whistleblower lawsuits” as part of which such persons seek to collect a portion of moneys allegedly overbilled to government agencies due to, for example, promotion of pharmaceutical products beyond labeled claims. These incentives could also lead to suits that we have mischaracterized a competitor’s product in the marketplace and we may, as a result, be sued for alleged damages to our competitors. Such lawsuits, whether with or without merit, are typically time-consuming and costly to defend. Such suits may also result in related shareholder lawsuits, which are also costly to defend.

For example, the June 2020, CIDs from the DOJ informing us that the DOJ is investigating whether aspects of our promotional speaker programs and copayment waiver program violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and from the FCA relating to the sale and marketing of VASCEPA by us and our previous co-marketing partner, Kowa America, as well as the March 2021, CID from the FTC in connection with the FTC’s investigation of whether we have engaged in, or are engaging in, anticompetitive practices or unfair methods of competition relating to VASCEPA require us to produce documents and answer written questions, or interrogatories, relevant to specified time periods. As does the subpoena from the New York State attorney general regarding the same subject matter on which the FTC CID is focused. Such investigations can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business. If the government determines that we have violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, the FCA or antitrust regulations we could be subject to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties.

We may not be successful in developing and receiving regulatory approval for VASCEPA in other jurisdictions or marketing future products if we cannot meet the extensive regulatory requirements of regulatory agencies, such as for quality, safety, efficacy and data privacy.

The success of our research and development efforts is dependent in part upon our ability, and the ability of our partners or potential partners, to meet regulatory requirements in the jurisdictions where we or our partners or potential partners ultimately intend to sell such products once approved. The development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and elsewhere. In the United States, the U.S. FDA generally requires preclinical testing and clinical trials of each drug to establish its safety and efficacy and extensive pharmaceutical development to ensure its quality before its introduction into the market. Regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions impose similar requirements. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is lengthy and expensive and the issuance of such approvals is uncertain.

45

The commencement and rate of completion of clinical trials and the timing of obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities may be delayed by many factors, including, among others:

Even if we obtain positive results from our efforts to seek regulatory approvals, from early stage preclinical studies or clinical trials, we may not achieve the same success in future efforts. Clinical trials that we or potential partners conduct may not provide sufficient safety and efficacy data to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for product candidates. The failure of clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy for our desired indications could harm the development of that product candidate as well as other product candidates, and our business and results of operations would suffer.

For example, in connection with U.S. FDA’s review of REDUCE-IT data and sNDA in 2019, the agency determined that an interaction between mineral oil and statins leading to decreased absorption of statins cannot be excluded when the two are co-administered as could have been the case in some patients in REDUCE-IT and that, in the agency’s view, indirect evidence suggested the presence of a potential inhibitory effect on statin absorption by mineral oil. However, U.S. FDA’s exploratory analysis indicated that the effect of LDL cholesterol values on the time to the primary endpoint was numerically small and unlikely to change the overall conclusion of treatment benefit. U.S. FDA then relied on this assessment and all data available to it to approve a new indication statement and labeling based on REDUCE-IT results. This matter illustrates that concerns such as this may arise in the future that could affect our product development, regulatory reviews or the public perception of our products and our future prospects, including REDUCE-IT results.

Any approvals that are obtained may be limited in scope, may require additional post-approval studies or may require the addition of labeling statements, including boxed warnings, focusing on product safety that could affect the commercial potential for our product candidates. Any of these or similar circumstances could adversely affect our ability to gain approval for new indications and affect revenues from the sale of our products. Even in circumstances where products are approved by a regulatory body for commercialization, the regulatory or legal requirements may change over time, or new safety or efficacy information may be identified concerning a product, which may lead to the withdrawal of a product from the market or similar use restrictions. The discovery of previously unknown problems with a clinical trial or product, or in connection with the manufacturer of products, may result in regulatory issues that prevent proposed future approvals of a product and/or restrictions on that product or manufacturer, including withdrawal of an indication or the product from the market, which would have a negative impact on our potential revenue stream.

As we continue to scale our infrastructure for commercializing VASCEPA based on market dynamics for VASCEPA in the United States and commercial initiatives and plans for VAZKEPA in Europe and other parts of the world, we may encounter difficulties in managing the size and adaptability of our operations successfully.

The process of establishing, maintaining, expanding and streamlining a commercial infrastructure is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, particularly when such efforts need to adapt to changing market and business dynamics. We implemented cost and organizational restructuring plans, which included a reduction to our U.S. commercial team to approximately 75 sales representatives by the end of 2022. Our sales team promotes VASCEPA to a targeted group of physicians and other healthcare professionals in select geographies in the United States who recognize the potential benefit to patients, and this team is not large enough to call upon a sufficient number of physicians.

46

In addition to sales force reductions in the United States, we continue to work on our own and with our international partners to support regulatory efforts outside the United States based on REDUCE-IT results. If we are successful in obtaining sufficient approvals and adequate pricing and reimbursement levels in major markets in Europe and elsewhere, we will need to ensure that our operations are adequate to support a commercial launch and continued promotion. Although we are preparing for growth in Europe and elsewhere by expanding our infrastructure, we are operating with streamlined teams and will need to expand internally and we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various collaborative partners, suppliers and other third parties. Future growth and streamlining efforts will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate the right number of employees. For example, in Europe we have built out our team subsequent to EC approval of the marketing authorization acceptance in 2021, with plans to continue to expand our European staff as deemed appropriate on a country by country basis. The time required to secure reimbursement tends to vary from country to country and cannot be reliably predicted at this time. While we believe that we have strong arguments regarding the cost effectiveness of VAZKEPA, the success of such reimbursement negotiations could have a significant impact on our ability to hire and retain personnel and realize the commercial opportunity of VAZKEPA in Europe. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize VASCEPA and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage our future growth effectively, and such efforts may be disrupted by ongoing or reinstated COVID-19 protocols. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts effectively, and hire, train, integrate and retain an appropriate level of management, administrative and sales and marketing personnel and have limited experience managing a commercial organization. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

Our life-cycle management, in large part, currently depends on our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval and commercialize a fixed-dose combination of VASCEPA and yet to be disclosed statins.

Our life-cycle management is substantially dependent on our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval and commercialize a fixed-dose combination of VASCEPA and yet to be disclosed statins. Due to the risks and uncertainties involved in progressing through development and bioequivalence or even potential additional trials (as may be required by specific regulatory agencies), and the time and cost involved in obtaining regulatory approvals, we cannot reasonably estimate the timing, completion dates and costs, or range of costs, of our drug development program, or of the successful development of any particular fixed-dose combination. The potential success of any fixed-dose combination will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

The continued scale, scope and duration of business interruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and related recovery efforts remain uncertain.

Despite recent improvements, the ongoing presence of COVID-19 has created significant volatility, uncertainty and disruption in healthcare, social, supply and economic infrastructures. The extent to which the coronavirus pandemic will continue to impact our business, operations and financial results will depend on numerous evolving factors that we may not be able to accurately predict or plan around, including:

47

Even as the impacts of the pandemic appear to subside, additional variants may emerge and as vaccine usage and protocols evolve, face-to-face interactions may continue to be challenging for us to predict. The circumstances surrounding COVID-19 vary geographically and vary over time, with continued risk of potential resurgences in COVID-19 cases, and the possibility of reinstitution of protocols, in various geographies as the efficacy of the vaccine on various strains remains uncertain. While we have supplemented our face-to-face interactions with virtual outreach, these efforts may not be as impactful as traditional, in-person interactions. Specifically, access to healthcare professionals through the internet or other channels, may not be as productive as in-person interactions.

The disruptions associated with the coronavirus pandemic could delay the potential timing of subsequent steps for the launch of commercialization of VAZKEPA in Europe. Additionally, COVID-19 has already and could continue to limit our ability to have access with healthcare professionals to help educate them regarding VAZKEPA so that they are more likely to prescribe it to their at-risk patients. And, similar to our experience in the United States, the effects of COVID-19 and related preventative measures may reduce the frequency at which at-risk patients seek non-urgent preventative medical care.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

Our supply of product for the commercial market and clinical trials is dependent upon relationships with third-party manufacturers and suppliers, including manufacturers and suppliers who may require us to comply with burdensome minimum purchase commitments, which may be greater than our supply needs.

We have no in-house manufacturing capacity and rely entirely on contract manufacturers for our clinical and commercial product supply. We cannot provide assurance that we will successfully manufacture any product we may develop, either independently or under manufacturing arrangements, if any, with our third-party manufacturers. Moreover, if our manufacturers should cease doing business with us or experience delays, shortages of supply or excessive demands on their capacity, or if they insist on burdensome terms, such as excessive minimum supply commitments, we may not be able to obtain adequate quantities of product in a timely manner, at cost efficient levels or at all. If we are not able to continue to operate our business relationships in a manner that is sufficiently profitable for us and our suppliers, certain members of our supply chain could compete with us through supply to competitors, such as generic drug companies, through breach of our agreements or otherwise.

Any manufacturing problem, natural or manmade disaster affecting manufacturing facilities, government action, or the loss of a contract manufacturer could potentially be disruptive to our operations and result in lost sales. Any reliance on suppliers may involve several risks, including a potential inability to obtain critical materials and reduced control over production costs, delivery schedules, reliability and quality. Any unanticipated disruption to future contract manufacture caused by problems at suppliers could delay shipment of products, increase our cost of goods sold and/or result in lost sales. If our suppliers were unable to supply us with adequate volumes of active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, (drug substance) or encapsulated bulk product (drug product), it would have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to commercialize VASCEPA.

We have contractual freedom to source the API for VASCEPA and to procure other services supporting our supply chain. We have entered into supply agreements with multiple suppliers who also rely on other third-party suppliers to manufacture the API and other elements necessary for the sale of VASCEPA. We continue to take steps to negotiate our contract supply agreements to align supply arrangements with current and future global market demand.

Expanding manufacturing capacity and qualifying such capacity is complex and subject to numerous regulations and other operational challenges. We require supply capacity to support our direct and indirect commercialization of VASCEPA. We are also committed to providing supply to our commercial partners and distributors in Canada, China, the Middle East and North Africa, and we anticipate potential additional supply requirements as we pursue commercial opportunities in other countries. The resources of our suppliers vary and are limited; costs associated with projected expansion and qualification can be significant, and lead-times for supply purchases and capacity expansion are long requiring certain supply related decisions and commitment to be made in advance of

48

commercial launch, including in China and various European countries. Our aggregate capacity to produce API is dependent upon the continued qualification of our API suppliers and, depending on the ability of existing suppliers to meet our supply demands, and the ability to qualify any new suppliers. If no additional API supplier is approved by the U.S. FDA as part of an sNDA, our API supply will be limited to the API we purchase from previously approved suppliers. For example, the EMA has not yet approved use of each of our suppliers used for VASCEPA in the United States for supply of VAZKEPA in the EU.

Further, there can be no guarantee that current suppliers and future suppliers with which we have contracted to encapsulate API will be continually qualified to manufacture the product to our specifications or that current and any future suppliers will have the manufacturing capacity to meet anticipated demand for VASCEPA.

If our third-party manufacturing capacity is not appropriately qualified and/or compliant with applicable regulatory requirements, we may not be able to supply sufficient quantities of VASCEPA to meet anticipated demand.

We cannot guarantee that we can contract with any future manufacturer on acceptable terms or that any such alternative supplier will not require capital investment from us in order for them to meet our requirements. Alternatively, our purchase of supply, or any minimum purchase requirements, may exceed actual demand for VASCEPA.

For example, certain of our agreements with our suppliers include minimum purchase obligations and limited exclusivity provisions. These purchases are generally made on the basis of rolling 12-month forecasts which in part are binding on us and the balance of which are subject to adjustment by us subject to certain limitations. Certain of our agreements also include contractual minimum purchase commitments regardless of the rolling 12-month forecasts. We may not purchase sufficient quantities of VASCEPA to meet actual demand or we may be required to purchase more supply than needed to meet actual demand.

If our minimum purchase commitments exceed our supply needs for VASCEPA, we may have to renegotiate with partners in our supply chain who may not be incentivized to renegotiate terms that are favorable to us, or at all. If we are unable to secure adequate levels of supply to meet demand, our financial condition could be negatively and materially impacted.

Our dependence on third parties in the distribution channel from our manufacturers to patients subject us to risks that limit our profitability and could limit our ability to supply VASCEPA to large market segments.

We sell VASCEPA principally to a limited number of major wholesalers, as well as selected regional wholesalers and mail order pharmacy providers, or collectively, our distributors or our customers, that in turn resell VASCEPA to retail pharmacies for subsequent resale to patients and healthcare providers. These parties exercise a substantial amount of bargaining power over us given their control over large segments of the market for VASCEPA. This bargaining power has led us to bear increasingly higher discounts in the sale of VASCEPA. In addition, payors have broad latitude to change individual products’ formulary position or to implement other barriers that inhibit patients from receiving therapies prescribed by their healthcare professionals. These payor barriers include requirements that patients try another drug before VASCEPA, known as step edits, and the requirement that prior authorization be obtained by a healthcare provider after a prescription is written before a patient will be reimbursed by their health plan for the cost of a VASCEPA prescription. Further, pharmacy benefit managers implement plans that act as disincentives for VASCEPA use, such as increasingly higher deductibles. One practical impact of higher deductibles is that they may cause patients to delay filling prescriptions for asymptomatic, chronic care medications such as hypertriglyceridemia earlier in the year, until patients meet their deductible and the cost of VASCEPA is then borne more by their insurance carrier. Collectively, these dynamics negatively affect our profitability for the sale of VASCEPA and could increase over time further impacting our operating results. Consolidation among these industry participants could increase the pressure on us from these market dynamics.

The manufacture, packaging and distribution of pharmaceutical products such as VASCEPA are subject to U.S. FDA regulations and those of similar foreign regulatory bodies. If we or our third-party manufacturers fail to satisfy these requirements, our product development and commercialization efforts may be materially harmed.

The manufacture, packaging and distribution of pharmaceutical products, such as VASCEPA, are regulated by the U.S. FDA and similar foreign regulatory bodies and must be conducted in accordance with the U.S. FDA’s cGMPs and comparable requirements of foreign regulatory bodies. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under these cGMPs as well as the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH, regulations and guidelines, that are both capable of manufacturing VASCEPA and willing to do so. Failure by us or our third-party manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations, requirements, or guidelines could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approval of our products, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or voluntary recalls of product, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions and penalties, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our business. If we are not able to manufacture VASCEPA to required specifications through our current and potential API suppliers, we may be delayed in successfully supplying the product to meet anticipated demand and our anticipated future revenues and financial results may be materially adversely affected.

49

Changes in the manufacturing process or procedure, including a change in the location where the product is manufactured or a change of a third-party manufacturer, may require prior U.S. FDA review and pre-approval of the manufacturing process and procedures in accordance with the U.S. FDA’s cGMPs. Any new facility may be subject to a pre-approval inspection by the U.S. FDA and would again require us to demonstrate product comparability to the U.S. FDA. If any third-party manufacturer with whom we contract fails to perform its obligations, we may be forced to manufacture the materials ourselves, for which we may not have the capabilities or resources, or enter into an agreement with a different third-party manufacturer, which we may not be able to do on reasonable terms, if at all. In either scenario, our clinical trials or commercial distribution could be delayed significantly as we establish alternative supply sources. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products or product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original third-party manufacturer and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change third-party manufacturer for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new third-party manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product according to the specifications previously submitted to or approved by the U.S. FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new third-party manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a third-party manufacturer may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such third-party manufacturer owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such third-party manufacturer or require us to obtain a license from such third-party manufacturer in order to have another third-party manufacturer manufacture our products or product candidates. In addition, in the case of the third-party manufacturers that supply any future product candidates, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials.

There are comparable foreign requirements under ICH guidelines. In addition, certain past COVID-19 restrictions have affected Regulatory Agencies' ability to conduct facility inspections and may affect the timing of further approvals. This review may be costly and time consuming and could delay or prevent the launch of a product.

Furthermore, the U.S. FDA and foreign regulatory agencies require that we be able to consistently produce the API and the finished product in commercial quantities and of specified quality on a repeated basis, including demonstrated product stability, and document our ability to do so. This requirement is referred to as process validation. Process validation includes stability testing, measurement of impurities and testing of other product specifications by validated test methods. If the U.S. FDA does not consider the result of the process validation or required testing to be satisfactory, the commercial supply of VASCEPA may be delayed, or we may not be able to supply sufficient quantities of VASCEPA to meet anticipated demand. On March 27, 2020, former President Trump signed into law the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been public concern over the availability and accessibility of critical medical products, and the CARES Act enhances U.S. FDA’s existing authority with respect to drug shortage measures. Under the CARES Act, we must have in place a risk management plan that identifies and evaluates the risks to the supply of approved drugs for certain serious diseases or conditions for each establishment where the drug or API is manufactured. The risk management plan will be subject to U.S. FDA review during an inspection. If we experience shortages in the supply of our marketed products, our results could be materially impacted.

The U.S. FDA and similar foreign regulatory bodies may also implement new requirements, or change their interpretation and enforcement of existing requirements, for manufacture, packaging or testing of products at any time. If we or our approved suppliers are unable to comply, we may be subject to regulatory, civil actions or penalties, or we may be prevented from manufacturing or selling VASCEPA, all of which could significantly and adversely affect our business. Furthermore, reductions in government operations due to pandemic mitigation efforts, or other factors, may delay timely regulatory review by U.S. FDA or similar foreign regulatory bodies. For example, since March 2020 when foreign and domestic inspections of facilities were largely placed on hold, the U.S. FDA has been working to resume pre-pandemic levels of inspection activities, including routine surveillance, bioresearch monitoring and pre-approval inspections. Should the U.S. FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, and the U.S. FDA does not determine a remote interactive evaluation to be adequate, the agency has stated that it generally intends to issue, depending on the circumstances, a complete response letter or defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, a number of companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities.

We have limited experience commercializing VASCEPA outside the United States, and we may not be successful in building an infrastructure, including a sales force, that can navigate the regulatory and other dynamics outside of the United States. We are currently, and may continue to be, substantially dependent on third parties for our international efforts, and we may not be

50

successful in negotiating or establishing relationships with business partners to support and maintain control over our international activities.

We have expanded our VASCEPA commercialization activities outside of the United States through several contractual arrangements in territories including China, the Middle East, North Africa and Canada. We continue to assess other opportunities to develop VASCEPA commercialization outside of the United States through similar arrangements.

For example, Edding is responsible for development and commercialization activities in the China Territory and associated expenses under our development, commercialization and supply agreement with them. Additionally, Edding is required to conduct clinical trials in the China Territory to secure regulatory approval in certain territories. Although Edding has successfully undertaken clinical trials and approval initiatives under our arrangement with them, including the announcement of statistically significant positive topline results from Edding’s Phase 3 clinical trial of VASCEPA and has obtained approval for VASCEPA under the REDUCE-IT indication in Hong Kong, with anticipated approval in Mainland China expected by mid-year of 2023, Edding may be required to undertake clinical development efforts in these markets, or Edding may face challenges or be unsuccessful in pursuing commercial launch. Further, any development and regulatory efforts in the China Territory may be negatively impacted if the coronavirus pandemic worsens, continues or spreads, and if resources by regulators and industry professionals continue to be diverted to address the prolonged coronavirus pandemic. Any development and regulatory efforts in the China Territory may be negatively impacted by heightened political tension between China and the United States, including in connection with COVID-19 and other issues expressed between the countries regarding trade practices, tariffs and honoring intellectual property rights. If Edding is not able to effectively develop and commercialize VASCEPA in the China Territory, we may not be able to generate revenue from the DCS Agreement resulting from the sale of VASCEPA in the China Territory.

We are party to arrangements with Biologix FZCo, or Biologix, to register and commercialize VASCEPA in several Middle Eastern and North African countries and with HLS Therapeutics Inc., or HLS, to register, commercialize and distribute VASCEPA in Canada. Although Biologix is currently actively commercializing VASCEPA in the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon, and HLS is currently commercializing VASCEPA in Canada, we are completely reliant on these third parties to secure approval and successfully commercialize the product in those markets, which markets can be complex and challenging. Further, development and commercialization across the Middle East and North Africa is subject to similar risks as in the China Territory, and has been negatively impacted by COVID-19 and the destabilized local economies in the region.

If Edding, Biologix or HLS, or other third parties who we rely on for development and commercialization of VASCEPA, do not successfully carry out their contractual obligations or meet expected deadlines, our recourse and remedies against these parties is limited

Our efforts to launch and support commercialization of VAZKEPA on our own in Europe is a complex undertaking for a company that, other than our launch of VAZKEPA in Germany in September 2021 (where operations were subsequently discontinued) and the launch of VAZKEPA in certain countries in the fourth quarter of 2022, including the UK in October 2022, has not launched or otherwise commercialized a product in Europe and could be subject to significant risks of execution to our successful development and revenue generation of VAZKEPA in Europe.

We have limited experience working with partners outside the United States to develop and market our products in non-U.S. jurisdictions. In order for our partners to market and sell VASCEPA in any country outside of the United States for any indication, it will be necessary to obtain regulatory approval from the appropriate regulatory authorities. The requirements and timing for regulatory approval, which may include conducting clinical trials, vary widely from country to country and may in some cases be different than or more rigorous than requirements in the United States. Any failure by us or our partners to obtain approval for VASCEPA in non-U.S. jurisdictions in a timely manner may limit the commercial success of VASCEPA and our ability to grow our revenues.

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors are subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the

51

improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. Refer to “Item 1. Business - Government Regulation - Fraud and Abuse Laws and Data Regulation" for further details.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products. In addition, manufacturers and other parties involved in the drug supply chain for prescription drug products must also comply with product tracking and tracing requirements and for notifying U.S. FDA of counterfeit, diverted, stolen and intentionally adulterated products or products that are otherwise unfit for distribution in the United States.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies continue to give regular and close scrutiny to interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, and such scrutiny often leads to investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business. For example, the June 2020 CIDs from the DOJ informing us that the DOJ is investigating whether aspects of our promotional speaker programs and copayment waiver program violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, and from the FCA relating to the sale and marketing of VASCEPA by us and our previous co-marketing partner, Kowa America as well as the March 2021 CID from the FTC in connection with the FTC’s investigation of whether we have engaged in, or are engaging in, anticompetitive practices or unfair methods of competition relating to VASCEPA require us to produce documents and answer written questions, or interrogatories, relevant to specified time periods. As does the subpoena from the New York State attorney general regarding the same subject matter on which the FTC CID is focused. As noted, we are cooperating with the government, but we cannot predict when these investigations will be resolved, the outcome of the investigations or their potential impact on our business. Such investigations can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business. If the government determines that we have violated the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, the FCA or antitrust regulations, we could be subject to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects entities to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal and state funded healthcare programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), contractual damages and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a pharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, that person or entity may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations.

Third party patient assistance programs that receive financial support from companies have become the subject of enhanced government and regulatory scrutiny. Government enforcement agencies have shown increased interest in pharmaceutical companies' product and patient assistance programs, including reimbursement support services, and a number of investigations into these programs have resulted in significant civil and criminal settlements. The U.S. government has established guidelines that suggest that it is lawful for pharmaceutical manufacturers to make donations to charitable organizations who provide co-pay assistance to Medicare patients, provided that such organizations, among other things, are bona fide charities, are entirely independent of and not controlled by the manufacturer, provide aid to applicants on a first-come basis according to consistent financial criteria and do not link aid to use of a donor's product. However, donations to patient assistance programs have received some negative publicity and have been the subject of multiple government enforcement actions, related to allegations regarding their use to promote branded pharmaceutical products over other less costly alternatives. Specifically, in recent years there have been multiple settlements resulting out of government claims challenging the legality of their patient assistance programs under a variety of federal and state laws. It is possible that we may make grants to independent charitable foundations that help financially needy patients with their premium, co-pay, and co-insurance obligations. If we choose to do so, and if we or our vendors or donation recipients are deemed to fail to comply with relevant laws, regulations or evolving government guidance in the operation of these programs, we could be subject to damages, fines, penalties, or other criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions or enforcement actions. We cannot ensure that our compliance controls, policies, and procedures will be sufficient to protect against acts of our employees, business partners, or vendors that may violate the laws or regulations of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Regardless of whether we have complied with the law, a government investigation could impact our business practices, harm our reputation, divert the attention of management, increase our expenses, and reduce the availability of foundation support for our patients who need assistance. Further, it is possible that changes in

52

insurer policies regarding co-pay coupons and/or the introduction and enactment of new legislation or regulatory measures impacting patients using affected products could have a material adverse effect on our sales, business and financial condition. For example, on December 31, 2020, CMS published a new rule, effective January 1, 2023, requiring manufacturers to ensure the full value of co-pay assistance is passed on to the patient or these dollars will count toward the Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price calculation of the drug. On May 17, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's, or PhRMA, motion for summary judgment invalidating the accumulator adjustment rule. Although a number of these and other proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the current U.S. presidential administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, both the current U.S. presidential administration and Congress have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative measures to control drug costs. We cannot predict how the implementation of and any further changes to this rule will affect our business.

In addition, with the approval and commercialization of any of our products outside the United States, we will also likely be subject to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet established deadlines for the completion of such clinical trials.

Our reliance on third parties for clinical development activities reduces our control over these activities. However, if we sponsor clinical trials, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trials. Moreover, the U.S. FDA requires us to comply with requirements, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be delayed in obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates and may be delayed in our efforts to successfully commercialize our product candidates for targeted diseases.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We are dependent on patents, proprietary rights and confidentiality obligations of our employees, agents, business partners and third parties to protect the commercial value and potential of VASCEPA.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our drug candidates, technology and know-how, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. Refer to “Item 1.Business - Patents, Proprietary Technology, Trade Secrets for further details.

Enforcing our patent rights is challenging and costly and, even if we are able to successfully enforce our patent rights, our issued patents may not prevent competitors from competing with VASCEPA.

We plan to vigorously defend our rights under issued patents, however such defense activities can be costly to pursue and may not have the desired results. For example, on November 30, 2020 we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma for making, selling, offering to sell and importing generic icosapent ethyl capsules in and into the United States in a manner that we allege has induced the infringement of patents covering the use of VASCEPA to reduce specified cardiovascular risk. On January 25, 2021, we expanded the scope of this patent infringement lawsuit to include a health care insurance provider, Health Net, LLC. On January 4, 2022, the district court hearing the case granted Hikma's motion to dismiss. On October 13, 2022, the district court granted final judgement and we have appealed this decision but cannot predict the outcome or the impact on our business. We entered into a settlement agreement with Health Net, LLC on December 26, 2022. We likewise plan to engage in similar patent litigation should other competitors arise with products that infringe our intellectual property rights.

Patent litigation is a time-consuming and costly process. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in enforcing this patent or that it will not be successfully challenged and invalidated. Even if we are successful in enforcing this patent, the process could take years to reach conclusion. Other drug companies may challenge the validity, enforceability, or both of our patents and seek to design its products around our issued patent claims and gain marketing approval for generic versions of VASCEPA or branded competitive products based on new clinical studies. The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and many of our competitors have greater experience and resources than we have. Any such competition could undermine sales, marketing and collaboration efforts for VASCEPA, and thus reduce, perhaps materially, the revenue potential for VASCEPA.

Even if we are successful in enforcing our issued patents, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming, and we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

53

We have pending patent applications relating to VASCEPA and its use. There can be no assurance that any of these applications will issue patents, and even if patent protection is obtained, it may be insufficient to minimize competition or support our commercialization efforts.

We have filed and are prosecuting numerous families of patent applications in the United States and internationally with claims designed to protect the proprietary position of VASCEPA. For certain of these patent families, we have filed multiple patent applications. Collectively the patent applications include numerous independent claims and dependent claims. Several of our patent applications contain claims that are based upon what we believe are unexpected and favorable findings from our clinical trials. However, our pending patent applications may not be granted or, if they grant, that they will prevent competitors from competing with VASCEPA.

Securing patent protection for a product is a complex process involving many legal and factual questions. The patent applications we have filed in the United States and internationally are at varying stages of examination, the timing of which is outside our control. The process to getting a patent granted can be lengthy and claims initially submitted are often modified in order to satisfy the requirements of the patent office. This process includes written and public communication with the patent office. The process can also include direct discussions with the patent examiner. There can be no assurance that the patent office will accept our arguments with respect to any patent application or with respect to any claim therein. We cannot predict the timing or results of any patent application. In addition, we may elect to submit, or the patent office may require, additional evidence to support certain of the claims we are pursuing. Furthermore, third parties may attempt to submit publications for consideration by the patent office during examination of our patent applications. Providing such additional evidence and publications could prolong the patent office’s review of our applications and result in us incurring additional costs. We cannot be certain what commercial value any granted patent in our patent estate will provide to us.

Despite the use of confidentiality agreements and/or proprietary rights agreements, which themselves may be of limited effectiveness, it may be difficult for us to protect our trade secrets.

In addition to our patent portfolio and strategy, we will also rely upon trade secrets and know-how to help protect our competitive position. We rely on trade secrets to protect technology in cases when we believe patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. While we require certain of our academic collaborators, contractors and consultants to enter into confidentiality agreements, we may not be able to adequately protect our trade secrets or other proprietary information.

Risks Related to Our Business

If the estimates we make, or the assumptions on which we rely, in preparing our projected guidance prove inaccurate, our actual results may vary from those reflected in our projections and accruals.

In January 2023, we disclosed our 2023 financial outlook. Such outlook and estimates are based on estimates, assumptions and the judgment of management. Because of the inherent nature of estimates, including during the uncertainty of our European launch and the impact from U.S. generic competition, we have suspended providing net revenue guidance, as there could be significant differences between our estimates and the actual amount of product demand. If we fail to realize or if we change or update any element of our publicly disclosed financial guidance as we have done in the past or other expectations about our business and initiative change, our stock price could decline in value.

The loss of key personnel could have an adverse effect on our business, particularly in light of our announcement of management succession plan.

We are highly dependent upon the efforts of our senior management. The loss of the services of one or more members of senior management could have a material adverse effect on us. Given our rapidly expanding enterprise coupled with a streamlined management structure and sales force, the departure of any key person could have a significant impact and would be potentially disruptive to our business until such time as a suitable replacement is hired. Furthermore, because of the specialized nature of our business, as our business plan progresses, we will be highly dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and key management personnel. As we continue to expand our commercialization efforts, particularly on a global scale, we may experience continued or increased turnover among members of our senior management team. We may have difficulty identifying, attracting and integrating new executives to replace any such losses. As we expand commercialization efforts in Europe, we need to rapidly hire employees and ensure that they are well trained and working cohesively with core values which are consistent with our existing operations and which, we believe, help improve our position for success. In the United States, employees are increasingly being recruited by other companies. While our business remains focused on continued promotion of VASCEPA in the United States, and expansion in Europe, the current and potential threat of generic competition and our recent reductions in force can create employee uncertainty which could lead to increased employee turnover. There is intense competition for qualified personnel in the areas of our activities. In this environment, we may not be able to attract or retain the personnel necessary for the development of our business, particularly if we do not achieve profitability. The failure to recruit key scientific, technical and management personnel would be detrimental to our ability to implement our business plan.

54

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third‑party clinical research organizations or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our commercial, research and development and other programs.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third‑party clinical research organizations and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication and electrical failures. Any such incident could cause interruptions in our operations or a material disruption of our programs. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or products candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and our research and development program could be delayed.

We could be subject to risks caused by misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification or intentional or accidental release or loss of information maintained in the information systems and networks of our company and our vendors, including personal information of our employees and patients, and company and vendor confidential data. In addition, outside parties may attempt to penetrate our systems or those of our vendors or fraudulently induce our personnel or the personnel of our vendors to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our data and/or systems. We may experience threats to our data and systems, including malicious codes and viruses, phishing and other cyber-attacks. The number and complexity of these threats continue to increase over time. For example, in June 2019, a report published by security researchers claimed that a database belonging to one of our vendors containing information about individuals who use or have expressed interest in VASCEPA was accessible to unauthorized users. Although we were informed that such breach did not include social security numbers or credit card information, a more material breach could occur in the future. If a material breach of our information technology systems or those of our vendors occurs, the market perception of the effectiveness of our security measures could be harmed and our reputation and credibility could be damaged. We could be required to expend significant amounts of money and other resources to repair or replace information systems or networks and to repair reputational costs. In addition, we could be subject to regulatory actions and/or claims made by individuals and groups in private litigation involving privacy issues related to data collection and use practices and other data privacy laws and regulations, including claims for misuse or inappropriate disclosure of data, as well as unfair or deceptive practices. We may incur significant costs or divert significant internal resources as a result of any regulatory actions or private litigation. Any of the foregoing consequences may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Although we develop and maintain systems and controls designed to prevent these events from occurring, and we have a process to identify and mitigate threats, the development and maintenance of these systems, controls and processes is costly and requires ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change and efforts to overcome security measures become increasingly sophisticated. Moreover, despite our efforts, the possibility of these events occurring cannot be eliminated entirely. As we outsource more of our information systems to vendors, engage in more electronic transactions with payors and patients, and rely more on cloud-based information systems, the related security risks will increase and we will need to expend additional resources to protect our technology and information systems. In addition, there can be no assurance that our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party contractors, or our consultants’ efforts to implement adequate security and control measures, will be sufficient to protect us against breakdowns, service disruption, data deterioration or loss in the event of a system malfunction, or prevent data from being stolen or corrupted in the event of a cyberattack, security breach, industrial espionage attacks or insider threat attacks which could result in financial, legal, business or reputational harm.

We are subject to potential product liability.

We are subject to the potential risk of product liability claims relating to the manufacturing and marketing of VASCEPA. Any person who is injured as a result of using VASCEPA may have a product liability claim against us without having to prove that we were at fault.

In addition, we could be subject to product liability claims by persons who took part in clinical trials involving our current or former development stage products. A successful claim brought against us could have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot guarantee that a product liability claim will not be asserted against us in the future.

A change in our tax residence and/or tax laws could have a negative effect on our future profitability.

We expect that our tax jurisdiction will remain in Ireland. Under current UK legislation, a company incorporated in England and Wales, or which is centrally managed and controlled in the UK, is regarded as resident in the UK for taxation purposes. Under current Irish legislation, a company is regarded as resident for tax purposes in Ireland if it is centrally managed and controlled in Ireland, or, in certain circumstances, if it is incorporated in Ireland. Up to December 31, 2019, where a company was treated as tax resident under the domestic laws of both the UK and Ireland, then the provisions of article 4(3) of the Double Tax Agreement, or DTA, between the UK and Ireland provided that such enterprise would be treated as resident only in the jurisdiction in which its place of effective management is situated. We had at all times sought to conduct our affairs in such a way so as to be solely resident in Ireland for tax purposes by virtue of having our place of effective management situated in Ireland.

55

These rules regarding determination of tax residence changed effective January 1, 2020, when a modified Ireland-UK DTA came into effect pursuant to the OECD’s Multilateral Instrument, or MLI. Under the modified Ireland-UK DTA, from January 1, 2020, we would be solely tax resident in Ireland and not tax resident in the UK if we continued to be centrally managed and controlled in Ireland and if it were mutually agreed between the Irish and UK tax authorities under the MLI “tie-breaker rule” that we are solely tax resident in Ireland. Having made the relevant submission under the amended provisions, we received confirmation effective January 1, 2020 of the mutual agreement of Irish and UK tax authorities that we are solely tax resident in Ireland for the purposes of the modified DTA.

However, we cannot assure you that we are or will continue to be solely resident in Ireland for tax purposes. It is possible that in the future, whether as a result of a change in law or the practice of any relevant tax authority or as a result of any change in the conduct of our affairs, we could become, or be regarded as having become resident in a jurisdiction other than Ireland. Should we cease to be an Irish tax resident, we may be subject to a charge to Irish capital gains tax on our assets and the basis on which our income is taxed may also change. Similarly, if the tax residency of our Irish or UK subsidiaries were to change from their current jurisdiction, they may be subject to a charge to local capital gains tax on their assets and the basis on which their income is taxed may also change.

Our and our subsidiaries’ income tax returns are periodically examined by various tax authorities, including the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, and states. For example, the IRS began an examination of our 2018 U.S. income tax return in the first quarter of 2020. Although the outcome of tax audits is always uncertain and could result in significant cash tax payments, we do not believe the outcome of any ongoing or future audits will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

We could be adversely affected by our exposure to customer concentration risk.

A significant portion of our sales are to wholesalers in the pharmaceutical industry. Three customers individually accounted for 10% or more of our U.S. gross product sales. Customers A, B, and C accounted for 35%, 31%, and 27%, respectively, of gross product sales for the year ended December 31, 2022 and represented 35%, 21%, and 39%, respectively, of the gross accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2022. Customers A, B, and C accounted for 37%, 28%, and 27%, respectively, of gross product sales for the year ended December 31, 2021 and represented 39%, 22%, and 35%, respectively, of the gross accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2021. We expect that we may have customer concentration risk as we enter additional countries. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to sustain our accounts receivable or gross sales levels from our key customers. If, for any reason, we were to lose, or experience a decrease in the amount of business with our largest customers, whether directly or through our distributor relationships, our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have a history of operating losses and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for an indefinite period of time.

We have not yet reached sustained profitability. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 and 2020, we reported net losses of approximately $105.8 million and $18.0 million, respectively. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, we reported net income of approximately $7.7 million. We had an accumulated deficit as of December 31, 2022 of $1.5 billion. Substantially all of our operating losses resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs, from general and administrative costs associated with our operations, and costs related to the commercialization of VASCEPA. Additionally, as a result of our significant expenses relating to commercialization and research and development, we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for an indefinite period. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the magnitude of these future losses. Our historic losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our cash resources, shareholders’ deficit and working capital.

We may never generate sufficient revenue to achieve a steady state of profitability.

Our ability to become profitable on a sustained basis depends upon our ability to generate revenue. We have been generating product revenue from sales of VASCEPA since January 2013, but we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve a steady state of profitability. Our ability to generate profits on sales of VASCEPA is subject to the market acceptance and commercial success of VASCEPA and our ability to manufacture commercial quantities of VASCEPA through third parties at acceptable cost levels, and may also depend upon our ability to effectively market and sell VASCEPA through our strategic collaborations.

Even though VASCEPA has been approved by the U.S. FDA for marketing in the United States for two important indications, received marketing authorization in Europe, and is approved in smaller jurisdictions, it may not gain enough market acceptance to support consistent profitability. We anticipate continuing to incur significant costs associated with expanding the commercialization of VASCEPA. We may not achieve profitability on a sustained basis in the near term due to high costs associated with, for example, our expanded commercialization efforts in the United States and our expected commercialization efforts in Europe. If we are unable to

56

consistently generate robust product revenues, we will not become profitable on a sustained basis in the near term, if ever, and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

Our operating results are unpredictable and may fluctuate. If our operating results are below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the trading price of our stock could decline.

Our operating results are difficult to predict and will likely fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year, and VASCEPA prescription figures will likely fluctuate from month to month. VASCEPA sales are difficult to predict from period to period and as a result, you should not rely on VASCEPA sales results in any period as being indicative of future performance, and sales of VASCEPA may be below the expectation of securities analysts or investors in the future. We believe that our quarterly and annual results of operations may be affected by a variety of factors, including those risks and uncertainties described in this Part II, Item 1A and the following:

We may require substantial additional resources to fund our operations. If we cannot find additional capital resources, we will have difficulty in operating as a going concern and growing our business.

We currently operate with limited resources. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents balance of $217.7 million and short-term investment balance of $91.7 million as of December 31, 2022, will be sufficient to fund our projected operations for at least 12 months from the issuance date of consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we expect or fail to achieve positive cash flow. Depending on the level of cash generated from operations, and depending in part on the rate of prescription growth for VASCEPA, additional capital may be required to support planned VASCEPA promotion and potential VASCEPA promotion beyond which we are currently executing and for commercialization of VAZKEPA in Europe. If additional capital is required and we are unable to obtain additional capital on satisfactory terms, or at all, we may be forced to delay, limit or eliminate certain promotional activities. We anticipate that quarterly net cash outflows in future periods will be variable as a result of the timing of certain items, including our purchases of API and VASCEPA promotional and educational activities, including launch activities in Europe, on our operations and those of our customers and any current or potential generic competition.

In order to fully realize the market potential of VASCEPA, we may need to enter into a new strategic collaboration or raise additional capital.

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

57

If we require additional funds and adequate funds are not available to us in amounts or on terms acceptable to us or on a timely basis, or at all, our commercialization efforts for VASCEPA, and our business generally, may suffer materially.

Changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Tax law and policies in the United States and Ireland are unsettled and may be subject to significant change, including based on adjustments in political perspectives and administration shifts. In the United States and internationally, how to tax entities with international operations, like us, has been subject to significant re-evaluation. We believe we developed VASCEPA in and from Ireland based on understanding of applicable requirements. In recent years, particularly since 2013 when commercial sale of VASCEPA commenced in the United States, the majority of our consolidated operations have been in the United States. Ownership of VASCEPA continues to reside with our wholly-owned Ireland-based subsidiary, Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., and oversight and operations of that entity are structured to be maintained in Ireland. In order to effectively utilize our accumulated net operating loss carryforwards for tax purposes in Ireland, our operations, particularly for this subsidiary, need to be active in Ireland under applicable requirements. In addition, utilization of these accumulated net operating loss carryforwards assumes that tax treaties between Ireland and other countries, particularly the United States, do not change in a manner that limit our future ability to offset earnings with these operating loss carryforwards for tax purposes.

Similarly, a change in our Irish tax residence could materially affect our ability to obtain and maintain profitability, if otherwise achievable. Changes in tax law and tax rates, particularly in the United States and Ireland, could also impact our assessment of deferred taxes. Any change in our assessment of the realizability or the timing for realizing deferred taxes could have a negative impact our future profitability.

Changes in tax laws (including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic) or tax rulings, or changes in interpretations of existing laws, could cause us to be subject to additional income-based taxes and non-income taxes (such as payroll, sales, use, value-added, digital tax, net worth, property, and goods and services taxes), which in turn could materially affect our financial position and results of operations. In particular, there have been a number of significant changes to the U.S. federal income tax rules in recent years and additional tax reform proposed by the Biden administration may be enacted. The effect of any such tax reform is uncertain. As we continue to expand internationally, we will be subject to varied and complex tax regimes, and the tax laws of one jurisdiction may impact our expansion to or operations in other jurisdictions. Additionally, new, changed, modified, or newly interpreted or applied tax laws could increase our partners’ and our compliance, operating and other costs, as well as the costs of our products. As we expand the scale of our business activities, any changes in the taxation of such activities may increase our effective tax rate and harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The IRA was enacted into law on August 16, 2022. Included in the IRA was a provision to implement a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax on corporations whose average annual adjusted financial statement income during the most recently completed three-year period exceeds $1.0 billion. This provision is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. We are in the process of evaluating the provisions of the IRA.
 

Risks Related to Ownership of our ADSs and Common Shares

The price of our ADSs and common shares may be volatile.

The stock market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that may be unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. In addition, the market prices of the securities of many pharmaceutical and medical technology companies have been especially volatile in the past, and this trend is expected to continue in the future.

As of February 24, 2023, we had 406,115,721 common shares outstanding including 385,785,809 shares held as ADSs and 20,329,912 held as ordinary shares (which are not held in the form of ADSs). There is a risk that there may not be sufficient liquidity

58

in the market to accommodate significant increases in selling activity or the sale of a large block of our securities. Our ADSs have historically had limited trading volume, which may also result in volatility. If any of our large investors seek to sell substantial amounts of our ADSs, particularly if these sales are in a rapid or disorderly manner, or other investors perceive that these sales could occur, the market price of our ADSs could decrease significantly.

The market price of our ADSs and common shares may also be affected by factors such as:

Further, the effects of Brexit are uncertain and may have a negative effect on global economic conditions, financial markets and our business, which could reduce the price of our ADSs and common shares. In particular, Brexit could lead to a period of considerable uncertainty in relation to the UK financial and banking markets, as well as on the regulatory process in Europe, which could cause the broader global financial markets to experience significant volatility. Asset valuations, currency exchange rates and credit ratings may also be subject to increased market volatility due to the ongoing uncertainty. Lack of clarity about future UK laws and regulations as the United Kingdom determines which EU rules and regulations to replace or replicate could decrease foreign direct investment in the UK, increase costs, disrupt our business, depress economic activity and restrict our access to capital, any of which could negatively impact the price of our ADSs and common shares.

Actual or potential sales of our common shares by our employees, including members of our senior management team, pursuant to pre-arranged stock trading plans could cause our stock price to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons, and actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.

In accordance with the guidelines specified under Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act and our policies regarding stock transactions, a number of our directors and employees, including members of our senior management team, have adopted and may continue to adopt pre-arranged stock trading plans to sell a portion of our common stock that they beneficially own. Generally, sales under such plans by members of our senior management team and directors require public filings. Actual or potential sales of our ADSs by such persons could cause the price of our ADSs to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons. For example, a substantial amount of our ADSs becoming available (or being perceived to become available) for sale in the public market could cause the market price of our ADSs to fall or prevent it from increasing. Also, actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.

If we were to be characterized as a passive foreign investment company there could be adverse consequences to U.S. investors.

A non-U.S. corporation will be classified as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes for any taxable year, if either (i) 75% or more of its gross income for such year consists of certain types of “passive” income or (ii) 50% or more of the value of its assets (determined on the basis of a quarterly average) during such year produce or are held for the production of passive income. Passive income generally includes dividends, interest, royalties, rents, annuities, net gains from the sale or exchange of property producing such income and net foreign currency gains. In addition, a non-U.S. corporation will be treated as owning its proportionate share of the assets and earning its proportionate share of the income of any other corporation in which it owns, directly or indirectly, no more than 25% (by value) of the stock.

Based on certain estimates of our gross income and gross assets, the latter determined by reference to the expected value of our ADSs and shares, we believe that we will not be classified as a PFIC for the taxable year ended December 31, 2022, and we do not expect to be treated as a PFIC in any future taxable year for the foreseeable future. However, because PFIC status is based on our income, assets and activities for the entire taxable year, which we expect may vary substantially over time, it is not possible to determine whether we will be characterized as a PFIC for any taxable year until after the close of the taxable year. Moreover, we must determine our PFIC status annually based on tests that are factual in nature, and our status in future years will depend on our income, assets and activities in each of those years. There can be no assurance that we will not be considered a PFIC for any taxable year.

59

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on the ordinary shares in the foreseeable future.

We have never paid dividends on ordinary shares and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on the ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. Under English law, any payment of dividends would be subject to relevant legislation and our Articles of Association, which requires that all dividends must be approved by our board of directors and, in some cases, our shareholders, and may only be paid from our distributable profits available for the purpose, determined on an unconsolidated basis.

The rights of our shareholders may differ from the rights typically offered to shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

We are incorporated under English law. The rights of holders of ordinary shares and, therefore, certain of the rights of holders of ADSs, are governed by English law, including the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, and by our Articles of Association. These rights differ in certain respects from the rights of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations. The principal differences include the following:

Shareholder protections found in provisions under the UK City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, or the Takeover Code, do not apply to us.

The Takeover Code provides a framework within which takeovers of certain companies organized in the United Kingdom are regulated and conducted. However, because our place of central management and control is currently outside of the United Kingdom, we are not subject to the Takeover Code. As a result, our shareholders are not entitled to the benefit of certain takeover offer

60

protections provided under the Takeover Code. The following is a brief summary of some of the most important rules of the Takeover Code which, as noted, does not apply to us:

U.S. shareholders may not be able to enforce civil liabilities against us.

We are incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, and our subsidiaries are incorporated in various jurisdictions, including foreign jurisdictions. A number of the officers and directors of each of our subsidiaries are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to affect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce against them judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States. We have been advised by our English solicitors that there is doubt as to the enforceability in England in original actions, or in actions for

61

enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, of civil liabilities to the extent predicated upon the federal securities laws of the United States.

U.S. holders of the ADSs or ordinary shares may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation at ordinary income tax rates on undistributed earnings and profits.

There is a risk that we will be classified as a controlled foreign corporation, or CFC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we are classified as a CFC, any ADS holder or shareholder that is a U.S. person that owns directly, indirectly or by attribution, 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding shares may be subject to U.S. income taxation at ordinary income tax rates on all or a portion of our undistributed earnings and profits attributable to “subpart F income.” Such 10% holder may also be taxable at ordinary income tax rates on any gain realized on a sale of ordinary shares or ADS, to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits attributable to such shares. The CFC rules are complex and U.S. holders of the ordinary shares or ADSs are urged to consult their own tax advisors regarding the possible application of the CFC rules to them in their particular circumstances.

General Risk Factors

Potential technological changes in our field of business create considerable uncertainty.

The pharmaceutical industry in which we operate is characterized by extensive research efforts and rapid technological progress. New developments in research are expected to continue at a rapid pace in both industry and academia. We cannot assure you that research and discoveries by others will not render some or all of our programs or product candidates uncompetitive or obsolete. Our business strategy is based in part upon new and unproven technologies to the development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health. We cannot assure you that unforeseen problems will not develop with these technologies or applications or that any commercially feasible products will ultimately be developed by us.

Legal, political and economic uncertainty surrounding the exit of the UK from the EU may be a source of instability in international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, adversely affect our operations in the UK and pose additional risks to our business, revenue, financial condition, and results of operations.

The continued uncertainty concerning the UK’s legal, political and economic relationship with the EU after Brexit may be a source of instability in the international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, and/or otherwise adversely affect trading agreements or similar cross-border co-operation arrangements whether economic, tax, fiscal, legal, regulatory or otherwise.

These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, may have a significant adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and could significantly reduce global market liquidity and limit the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. In particular, it could also lead to a period of considerable uncertainty in relation to the UK financial and banking markets, as well as on the regulatory process in Europe. Asset valuations, currency exchange rates and credit ratings may also be subject to increased market volatility.

If the UK and the EU are unable to implement acceptable agreements or if other EU member states pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access between the UK and other EU member states or among the European Economic Area, or EEA, overall could be diminished or eliminated. The long-term effects of Brexit will depend on any agreements (or lack thereof) between the UK and the EU.

Such a withdrawal from the EU is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the UK’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the EU, or single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our current and future operations (including business activities conducted by third parties and contract manufacturers on our behalf) and clinical activities in the UK. In addition to the foregoing, our UK operations support our current and future operations and clinical activities in other countries in the EU and EEA and these operations and clinical activities could be disrupted by the ongoing effects of Brexit.

We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have an adverse effect on our operations. The impact of the terms of the recent trade deal between the UK and EU are uncertain. Since the regulatory framework in the UK covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime with respect to the commercialization of our products in the UK. Any delay in commercializing our products in the UK and/or the EU could restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. The uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU continues to cause economic uncertainty which could adversely impact customer confidence resulting in customers reducing their spending budgets on our solutions, which could adversely affect our business, revenue, financial condition, results of operations and could adversely affect the market price of our ADSs.

Negative economic conditions would likely have a negative effect on our ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms.

62

While we may seek additional funding through public or private financings, we may not be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms, or at all. There can be no assurance that we will be able to access equity or credit markets in order to finance our current operations or expand development programs for VASCEPA, or that there will not be deterioration in financial markets and confidence in economies, particularly in light of the continued volatility attributed to COVID-19 and other global instability. We may also have to scale back or further restructure our operations. If we are unable to obtain additional funding when needed, we may be required to curtail or terminate some or all of our research or development programs or our commercialization strategies.

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

We may seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings and collaboration, strategic and licensing arrangements. 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 may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder.

Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include burdensome 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 collaboration, strategic alliance and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, VASCEPA or product candidates beyond the rights we have already relinquished, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Potential business combinations or other strategic transactions may disrupt our business or divert management’s attention.

On a regular basis, we explore potential business combination transactions, including an acquisition of us by a third party, exclusive licenses of VASCEPA or other strategic transactions or collaborations with third parties. The consummation and performance of any such future transactions or collaborations will involve risks, such as: