Company: KROS
Filing Date: 2025-05-27
Form Type: DEFA14A
Source: 0001104659-25-052890
Chunk: 1

Company: Keros Therapeutics, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-27
Form: DEFA14A
Chunk 1
---
 2025 –Keros Therapeutics, Inc.
(“Keros”, the “Company” or “we”) (Nasdaq: KROS), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing and commercializing novel therapeutics to treat a wide range of patients with disorders that are linked to dysfunctional
signaling of the transforming growth factor-beta (“TGF-ß”) family of proteins,today announced that leading
independent proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) recommended that Keros stockholders vote “FOR”
all three of the Company’s highly qualified director nominees in connection with its Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual
Meeting”) scheduled for June 4, 2025.

Keros issued the following statement in connection with Glass Lewis’
report:

We are pleased that Glass Lewis recognizes the value that
our directors bring to the Board and understands that the Board and management team’s actions taken to date to maximize stockholder
value are reasonable and measured. Our Board is intentionally built, comprised of experienced individuals, many of whom directly represent
stockholders, and will continue to focus on evaluating alternatives in the best interests of the Company and all stockholders. We continue
to believe that the most constructive course of action for stockholders at this pivotal stage in our strategic alternatives review is
to remain focused on effectively running the company and a comprehensive process rather than being sidetracked by a self-serving and value-destructive
campaign.

Glass Lewis stated in its May 27, 2025 report:

| · | “On the other hand, we note that the magnitude of the Company’s share price collapse appears to stem primarily from inherent                    
 clinical development risk rather than board-level mismanagement. In particular, the setback in the TROPOS clinical trial – and the              
 subsequent 73% one-day share price decline – reflects the volatile and often binary nature of clinical-stage biotech investing,                 
 especially in cases where a company’s valuation is heavily reliant on a lead product candidate that has not yet been clinically                 
 de-risked. To date, and to the best of our knowledge, no credible evidence has emerged to suggest the board mismanaged the trial or disregarded 
 known safety signals.”                                                                                                                          |

| · | “ADAR1 has not presented compelling evidence that either directors Gray or Seth played a disproportionate role in the Company’s       
 missteps or failed to fulfill their core duties as independent directors. In the absence of such evidence – and considering the       
 board’s recent initiation of a strategic