Ensysce Biosciences (ENSC) 10-K2022 FY Annual report

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2022

OR

For the transition period from        to

Commission File Number 001-38306

ENSYSCE BIOSCIENCES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

Series A Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001, per share

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange 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 registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See 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 checkmark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to section 13(a) of the Exchange Act ☐

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

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2022, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was $18.8 million. The aggregate market value was computed by reference to the closing price of the common stock on such date.

Registrant had 15,425,584 shares of common stock outstanding as of March 27, 2023.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The registrant has incorporated by reference into Part III of this report certain portions of its proxy statement for its 2022 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which is expected to be filed within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2022.

ENSYSCE BIOSCIENCES, INC.

INDEX

Risk Factor Summary

Below is a summary of material factors that make an investment in our securities speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks and uncertainties that we face. Additional discussion of the risks and uncertainties in this summary, as well as other risks and uncertainties that we face, can be found under the section titled “Risk Factors” beginning on page 34 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This summary is qualified in its entirety by that more complete discussion of such risks and uncertainties. If we are unable to adequately address these and other risks we face, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects may be harmed. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described under the section titled “Risk Factors” as part of your evaluation of an investment in our securities:

GLOSSARY

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes statements that express our opinions, expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions, or projections regarding future events or future results and therefore are, or may be deemed to be, “forward-looking statements.” These forward-looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology, including the terms “believes,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “seeks,” “projects,” “intends,” “plans,” “may,” “will,” or “should” or, in each case, their negative or other variations or comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include all matters that are not historical facts. They appear in a number of places throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K and include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs or current expectations concerning, among other things, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, prospects, growth, strategies and the markets in which we operate. Such forward-looking statements are based on available current market material and management’s expectations, beliefs and forecasts concerning future events impacting our company. Factors that may impact such forward-looking statements include:

The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are based on our current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on our company. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we have anticipated. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) or other assumptions that may cause actual results or performance to be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors described under the heading “Risk Factors”. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should any of the assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary in material respects from those projected in these forward-looking statements. We will not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “our,” “us,” the “Company” or “Ensysce” generally refer to Ensysce and its consolidated subsidiaries.

PART I

Item 1. Business

Corporate Information

We were originally incorporated in the State of Delaware in April 2003 as PharmacoFore, Inc. and, in January 2012, we changed our name from PharmacoFore, Inc. to Signature Therapeutics Inc. (“Signature”). On December 28, 2015, Signature, Signature Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Signature (“SAQ”), and Ensysce Biosciences, Inc. (“EB”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“EB-ST Agreement”). Pursuant to the EB-ST Agreement, SAQ merged with and into EB with EB surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Signature. As part of the transaction, Signature changed its name to “Ensysce Biosciences, Inc.” (“Former Ensysce”) and changed EB’s name to EBI Operating Inc. On January 31, 2021, LACQ, Former Ensysce, and Merger Sub entered into the Merger Agreement. On June 30, 2021, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Former Ensysce, with Former Ensysce surviving the transaction as a wholly-owned subsidiary of LACQ. As part of the transaction, LACQ changed its name to “Ensysce Biosciences, Inc.” and Former Ensysce changed its name to EBI OpCo, Inc.

The mailing address of our principal executive office is 7946 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 201, La Jolla, California 92037. Our corporate telephone number is (858) 263-4196. Our website address is www.ensysce.com. Information contained on our website, or connected thereto, does not constitute part of, and is not incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Channels for Disclosure of Information

Investors, the media, and others should note that we announce material information to the public through filings with the SEC, the investor relations page on our website, blog posts on our website, press releases, public conference calls, webcasts, and our twitter feed (@EnsysceBio).

The information disclosed by the foregoing channels could be deemed to be material information. As such, we encourage investors, the media, and others to follow the channels listed above and to review the information disclosed through such channels.

Any updates to the list of disclosure channels through which we will announce information will be posted on the investor relations page on our website.

Business Overview

We are a clinical stage pharmaceutical company seeking to develop innovative solutions for severe pain relief while reducing the potential for opioid misuse, abuse, and overdose.

We are currently developing product candidates designed to improve the safety of prescription drugs. Our primary focus has been on opioid pain products and opioid use disorder products. Prescription opioid abuse presents major burdens to society, resulting in significant costs, illnesses, and deaths, many of which we believe could be prevented through the use of our proprietary technologies. We believe the intertwined issues of (1) the widespread abuse of prescription opioids and (2) the resultant reluctance of many prescribers to write prescriptions for opioid analgesics have resulted in the persistent under-treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe pain. Our platforms utilize a novel molecular delivery technology designed to deter prescription opioid abuse at the molecular level.

Our current development pipeline includes two new drug platforms - an abuse-resistant opioid prodrug technology – the Trypsin Activated Abuse Protection, or the TAAP platform, and an over-dose protection opioid prodrug technology - the Multi-Pill Abuse Resistant, or the MPAR™ platform. The TAAP platform is designed to seek to improve the care of patients with chronic pain while reducing the human and economic costs associated with prescription opioid drug abuse.The MPAR™ platform when combined with our TAAP prodrugs is designed not only to seek to prevent abuse of prescription drugs but also to reduce overdose occurrences. Each prodrug is intended to be able to be combined with our MPAR™ technology for overdose protection. Additionally, nafamostat di-mesylate (“nafamostat”), which is an ingredient in our overdose protection combination products, is also being developed for the intended purpose of treating infection and pulmonary lung diseases.

The technology under the TAAP platform when applied to opioid drugs is designed to release clinically effective opioid drugs only when exposed to specific physiological conditions (i.e., when the drug is ingested and exposed to the digestive enzyme trypsin). Our lead product candidate, PF614, is a TAAP oxycodone prodrug that is a biologically inactive compound which can be metabolized in the body to produce a drug with demonstrable features aimed at resisting both oral and non-oral modes of prescription drug abuse. This approach differs from current formulation-based strategies such as OxyContin OP which uses Intac® Technology (crush-resistant polymers) and Extampza®ER which uses DETERx™ (insoluble fatty acid salts in polymers), in a number of ways. First, the TAAP technology seeks to remove the ability of a user to abuse PF614 intravenously or intranasally based on preclinical studies that show PF614 does not readily convert into oxycodone in the blood stream and trypsin is not present in the nasal passage, and, accordingly, PF614 would not convert to oxycodone in the nose. Furthermore, the chemically modified and abuse-resistance TAAP opioid drug is unaffected by simple physical manipulations designed to extract abusable amounts of opioid, such as through kitchen chemistry. Our portfolio of TAAP product candidates is based on a differentiated understanding of chemical reactivity and metabolism, as well as the key pillars of our unique approach which focuses on: (1) enzyme mediated metabolic activation localized in the gastrointestinal track; (2) rearrangement chemistry to achieve pharmacokinetic release of active drug products; and (3) preclinical and clinical data that set forth the metabolic and chemical activation profile for each of our clinical candidates.

Utilizing this approach, we filed an Investigational New Drug application, or IND (116794), and commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial for PF614, which was completed in February 2018. The clinical data from the Phase 1 trial demonstrated that oxycodone released from PF614 as chemically-designed, and that it was absorbed following oral administration of the TAAP PF614, resulting in blood levels that matched the same release profile as the extended release oxycodone product, OxyContin OP. A second multi-ascending dose study with a bioequivalent arm was completed in July 2022 and a nasal human abuse potential (HAP) study was completed in October 2022. A second oral HAP study has been initiated in September 2022 and data is expected in early 2023.

The MPAR™ technology is designed to limit the bioavailability of active opioid following co-ingestion of multiple doses, whether inadvertent or intentional, through a combination of a TAAP prodrug with nafamostat. Nafamostat is a small molecule that clinical studies have shown to have a steep dose response curve and to be a highly potent trypsin inhibitor. When combined with our TAAP prodrugs, our MPAR technology is designed not to affect metabolism and the release of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. However, if the MPAR combination product is taken in larger quantities than intended, the excess nafamostat is designed to inhibit trypsin, thereby preventing metabolic activation and averting a drug overdose. We believe the potential benefits to society of an opioid that resists both oral and parenteral abuse are considerable. A Phase 1 study to explore the combination of PF614 and nafamostat, PF614-MPAR-101 was initiated in December of 2021, and early data from the study reported in May 2022 demonstrated the combination product showed overdose protection, with a reduction in the release of oxycodone over that of PF614 delivered alone.

Our pipeline has been developed over the course of 15 years of research and investment and includes three clinical-stage product candidates. While our principal focus and lead product candidates are geared towards combating abuse and overdose of opioid drugs, we have, over the years of research and development, discovered and recognized qualities and unique features of certain product candidates that may be useful in addressing other treatments. For example, we discovered the ability of nafamostat in inhibiting the action of enzymes associated with the COVID-19 infection, and, as such, have devoted efforts to develop an oral and inhalation drug product of nafamostat, for use against coronaviral infections and other pulmonary diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

PF614

PF614 is our lead TAAP prodrug candidate under development for the treatment of acute or chronic pain. PF614 is a delayed release TAAP prodrug designed to release oxycodone under certain specific physiological circumstances when taken orally. PF164 was evaluated for safety and pharmacokinetic release of oxycodone in a Phase 1 single ascending dose clinical trial in 64 healthy subjects. The trial showed that PF614 was well tolerated with no serious adverse events. The study also showed pharmacokinetics had a maximum blood concentration of oxycodone at 4 to 6 hours after swallowing PF614, demonstrating its delayed release profile. A second Phase 1b multi-ascending dose study (MAD) was initiated in 2021 to evaluate PF614 delivered to healthy subjects twice daily for 4.5 days. This study evaluated both safety and PK, with a second part to evaluate the bioequivalence (BE) of PF614 versus OxyContin. Final data from this trial was reported in July 2022. The MAD study demonstrated both the safety of PF614 showing it was well tolerated at doses up to 200 mg, which was comparable to 80 mg of OxyContin both delivered twice daily. The BE study arm followed the successful completion of the multi-ascending twice-daily dosing study of PF614 and compared the release of oxycodone from PF614 versus OxyContin® administered to subjects in both fasted and fed states. It was concluded that 100 mg PF614 was bioequivalent to 40 mg OxyContin under both fasted and fed conditions. This data is critical to understand future prescribing criteria for PF614 as an agent bioequivalent to OxyContin and therefore may be developed through the 505(b)(2) regulatory path as defined by the FDA. The intranasal (IN) and oral human abuse potential of PF614 was assessed in two different studies. In study 1 PF614-103, we evaluated the abuse potential of PF614 100 mg relative to crushed oxycodone immediate-release (IR) tablets 40 mg (equivalent opioid doses) and placebo following intranasal administration. In study 2, PF614-104 which is ongoing, we are evaluating the oral abuse potential of intact PF614 at 3 different dose levels 50, 100 and 200 mg to IR oxycodone 40 mg and placebo. The purpose of this study is to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and human abuse potential of oral PF614 and data is expected is 2023. We believe PF614 has the potential to provide a safer alternative to the abuse deterrent formulated opioid products that are currently commercially available.

PF614-MPAR™

PF614-MPAR™, a combination product of PF614 and nafamostat has been designed to limit abuse potential by providing resistance to use through injection or inhalation and to provide overdose protection against excessive oral ingestion. Our IND application (150966) for PF614-MPAR™ received FDA allowance on April 27, 2021 following the release of a Full Clinical Hold from January 8, 2021. We addressed deficiencies from the initial IND submission, amended the protocol and submitted a response to the clinical hold letter on March 29, 2021. We initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial, PF614-MPAR-101, to evaluate safety and PK in healthy subjects in December 2021. Initial data from this trial was reported in May of 2022. The PF614-MPAR-101 overdose protection study examined PF614 administered orally alone or in combination with the trypsin inhibitor nafamostat (MPAR) to healthy volunteers. The initial data demonstrated the overdose protection of our MPAR combination product, with reduced release of oxycodone from PF614 in a simulated overdose situation. It also demonstrated the PF614 in the systemic circulation (simulated injection) did not convert to oxycodone. We completed the clinical portion and reported data from Part A of this study in December 2022. The study will continue in 2023 to test the overdose protection of the selected formulation by administering an escalating number of dose units to a group of healthy subjects. Data is expected in the second half of 2023.

MPAR is being tested clinically in partnership with Quotient Sciences, using its integrated Translational Pharmaceutics® platform to search for a PF614-MPAR formulation that allows conversion into oxycodone within the prescribed dose range but reduces conversion to oxycodone at higher than prescribed dose levels in an overdose scenario.

Nafamostat

Nafamostat is an enzyme inhibitor (protease inhibitor) used in our combination overdose protection technology, MPAR™. Due to its ability to inhibit the action of enzymes associated with the COVID-19 infection, we are also developing an oral drug product of nafamostat, for use against coronaviral infections and other pulmonary diseases such as cystic fibrosis. An IND was submitted (149877) for the evaluation of oral nafamostat in coronaviral infections. A Phase 1 trial to evaluate safety and PK was completed in 2021.

Market Opportunity

Drug Abuse and Drug Overdose

Opioid pain medications are essential for improving the care and outcomes of a majority of Americans who live with chronic pain. An NIH study, updated September 2018, reported that 25.3 million adults suffered from pain every day for the preceding three months and almost 40 million adults experience severe levels of pain, which is linked to worse health status. High impact chronic pain affects over 10 million Americans and is characterized by extended periods of suffering which impair life quality to a severe degree. Prescription opioids drugs, such as morphine, hydromorphone, hydrocodone, and oxycodone, have a long history of use for the management of severe and chronic pain. Prescriptions for opioid medications in 2021 totaled 153 million, with $4.2 billion in market size in the United States.

The CDC recently provided recommendations for clinicians who provide pain care, defining acute pain (duration less than 1 month), subacute pain (duration of 1–3 months), or chronic pain (duration of 3 months or more), not including sickle cell disease related pain management, cancer pain treatment, palliative care, and end-of life care. These guidelines are based on the indications, acute and chronic pain, that we intend to explore for our TAAP and MPAR™ opioid products including PF614.

Opioids are offered in a variety of dosages including immediate-release tablets (or capsules), extended-release tablets (or capsules), patches, and other dose forms. Oxycodone is one of the most effective pain killers available today. This drug helps the patient to overcome pain and focus on his or her work. Opioids have a risk of dependence and, when used improperly, a common side effect of high doses of opioids like oxycodone can be euphoria, or a “high.” As a result of these side effects, opioids have become amongst the most misused or abused prescription drugs in the United States. Opioid abuse was declared a public-health emergency in 2017 when more than 91 people died each day from opioid-related overdoses. Currently, that number has risen to approximately 188 deaths per day.

The large increase in overall overdose deaths is now driven by use of synthetic opioids, in particular fentanyl, as prescription opioids have become harder to obtain. From 2017 to 2018 the prescription opioid-involved death rates decreased by 13.5% showing that attention to the problem had beneficial effect. However, 2.1 million people reported having opioid use disorder (“Opioid Use Disorder”) in 2019. Based on information from the CDC, the most common drugs involved in prescription opioid overdose deaths include Methadone, Oxycodone (such as OxyContin®), and Hydrocodone (such as Vicodin®). The CDC indicates that improving opioid prescribing, treatment of opioid use disorder, and prevention of opioid use disorder would help to improve the opioid crisis. Misuse or abuse of opioids is often done in one of the following manners:

Amphetamines like Adderall are manufactured in pill form and are intended for oral ingestion. As of Q4 2022, seventy-five percent of Adderall prescriptions are prescribed to the 10.5 million adults, age 22 or older, that are diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. ADHD is the most common neurodevelopment disorder in children. Five million adults misuse stimulant medication annually, by using alternative consumption methods to achieve a more intense high faster; snorting or injecting are most-common methods of abuse. Both of these methods involve crushing pills.

We believe that having prescription drug products available that have a reduced potential for abuse by crushing and injecting, snorting, and chewing could provide an even greater reduction of prescription opioid related deaths in the abuse of opioids or amphetamines.

Nafamostat

Nafamostat’s market opportunity is multifaceted. The oral form could be used alone or in combination with other antiviral drugs that target separate processes needed for virus product, such as RNA replication or viral protein processing. An inhaled form of nafamostat could be prescribed for patients that have a more severe stage of the disease.

Our lead clinical program is an oral drug product of nafamostat for use against COVID-19 and other coronaviral infections. The dosing and positioning of oral nafamostat will be similar to antiviral drug oseltamivir phosphate, Tamiflu®. Tamiflu® is a seasonal influenza treatment that is taken in oral form within two days of influenza symptoms starting and applying a two-dosage daily schedule. During other coronavirus outbreaks, sales of Tamiflu® were $950 million in the US and $2.426 billion cumulative sales worldwide (2016-2020). Sales of Paxlovid from Pfizer for COVID-19 totaled approximately $19 billion in 2022, an indication of the continuing unmet need for treatments around the world.

The World Health Organization estimates influenza epidemics result in approximately three to five million cases of severe illness and 290,000 to 650,000 deaths each year. Nafamostat will be well positioned to generate revenue from several changing market conditions:

Our Technology Platform Solution

TAAP Prescription Drugs

The technology under the TAAP platform utilizes a novel technology designed to deter prescription drug abuse at the molecular level. The molecular delivery system is designed to release clinically effective drugs only when exposed to specific physiological conditions (i.e., when the drug is ingested and exposed to the digestive enzyme trypsin). Our TAAP prodrugs delivery system demonstrates a number of features aimed at resisting both oral and non-oral modes of abuse. This platform’s approach differs from current formulation-based strategies (abuse deterrent formulations, or ADFs) in a number of ways. First, the abuse-resistance provided by TAAP is designed to be unaffected by simple physical manipulations (e.g., crushing and extraction and/or chewing of the dose form provided to patients). We believe the potential benefits to society of applying TAAP to opioids and amphetamines providing medication that resists both oral and parenteral abuse are considerable.

MPAR™ Prescription Drugs

MPAR^TM combination therapy, involves co-formulating TAAP prodrugs with a trypsin inhibitor, nafamostat, which, when administered at prescribed dose levels, are intended to have no effect on the conversion of the prodrug to the active ingredient thus allowing normal drug plasma exposure levels. However, if the drug were taken in greater than prescribed quantities, the trypsin inhibitor would also be present at higher levels, inhibiting the first step in the activation process, preventing the conversion of the prodrug to the active ingredient thus limiting the potential to an overdose from the medication.

Our Development Programs

We are currently developing product candidates designed to improve the safety and performance of prescription drugs. Our primary focus has been on opioid pain products and opioid use disorder products. Our development pipeline of TAAP prodrugs is summarized in the table below. Each prodrug is intended to be able to be combined with our MPAR™ technology for overdose protection. Additionally, nafamostat, which is an ingredient in our overdose protection combination products, is also being developed for infection and pulmonary lung diseases. Besides our clinical candidates, we have a product portfolio of other TAAP and MPAR^TM opioids that could potentially be developed to build on this pipeline.

Besides our clinical candidates, we have a product portfolio of other TAAP and MPAR^TM opioids and amphetamines that could potentially be developed to build on this pipeline.

Clinical agents

PF614

PF614 is a chemically modified, extended-release oxycodone-derivative which releases clinically effective oxycodone only when exposed trypsin in the gut (i.e., when the drug is ingested). This approach differs from formulation-based strategies which are currently commercially available, in a number of ways. First, the abuse-resistance provided by PF614 is designed to be unaffected by simple physical manipulations (e.g., extraction, chewing, and/or crushing). It also limits the bioavailability of active medication following co-ingestion of multiple doses.

Following ingestion, the release of oxycodone from PF614 proceeds via a two-step process comprised of (1) trypsin activation in the small intestine and (2) a subsequent intramolecular cyclization release reaction. This reaction releases oxycodone with concomitant formation of a cyclic urea metabolite. The time-course of oxycodone release from PF614 is a function of the kinetics of (i) the trypsin hydrolysis and (ii) the cyclization-release reaction. In the Phase 1 study of PF614, the time to maximal blood concentration of oxycodone (T_max) was five to six hours for the release of oxycodone and this time cannot be modified by crushing, chewing, or physically manipulating the drug product. Oxycodone safety, metabolism, and pharmacokinetics have been well studied.

PF614-101 Phase 1 Clinical Trial

PF614 (IND 116796) has been evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical study for safety and pharmacokinetics of oxycodone release in 64 healthy subjects in seven different closing cohorts from November 2016 to January 2018. This study was conducted for us by PRA Health Sciences – Early Development Services Lenexa, Kansas, principal investigator, Daniel Dickerson, M.D., Ph.D. to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of PF614, as well as the pharmacokinetics of oxycodone at doses sufficient to characterize the extent to which plasma oxycodone is produced and maintained following oral ingestion of PF614 and was compared to the oxycodone released from extended release oxycodone from OxyContin OP. Subjects were randomized to receive a single dose of PF614 (dose of 15, 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg with 6 subjects per dosing group) or OxyContin OP (dose of 10, 20, 50, and 80 mg with 2 subjects per dosing group). New subjects were recruited for each cohort. Cohort 1 compared subjects receiving PF614 and OxyContin OP with and without naltrexone blockade. Naltrexone is an opioid blocker to prevent opioids from attaching to the opioid receptors, preventing the effect of the opioid medication such as pain relief, feeling of euphoria or respiratory depression. The single ascending dose study also compared the release of oxycodone from PF614 under both fasted and fed conditions at the highest does of PF614 evaluated, 200 mg. The pharmacokinetics of the prodrug fragments was also evaluated. In addition, this study instructed as to the “conversion efficiency” of the PF614 prodrug to oxycodone, with respect to OxyContin.

Pharmacokinetic Analyses

The shape of the plasma concentration versus time curve of oxycodone was similar following administration of OxyContin OP (oxycodone extended release) and PF614. The efficiency of conversion for PF614 to oxycodone was determined to be approximately 86%. A PF614 dose of 50 mg yields oxycodone exposure comparable to a 20.01 mg dose of OxyContin, indicating a potency ratio of 0.40. This data has allowed us to match doses of PF614 to those of commercially available OxyContin OP.

Safety

A total of 64 subjects were included in this study, of which 23 (35.9%) experienced 47 treatment-emergent adverse events, or TEAEs. The majority of TEAEs were either gastrointestinal disorders or nervous system disorders with no deaths, serious adverse events, or severe TEAEs. Additionally, there were no discontinuations due to study drug-related adverse events. Over half of TEAEs were study drug related, but they were mostly mild in severity. The three TEAEs that were moderate in severity were nephrolithiasis, or kidney stones, nausea, and vomiting, with the nausea and vomiting being study drug related. Comparing safety data across cohorts, the data indicated that dose, naltrexone, and fed/fasted state had no clinically relevant effect on the safety profile of PF614. PF614 was generally well tolerated at doses up to 200 mg in healthy subjects.

PF614-102 Phase 1b Clinical Trial

A Phase 1b study was conducted by ICON (formerly PRA Health Sciences) with Dr. M Johnston as Principal investigator. This was a 2-part study comprised of a MAD study (Part A) and a comparative bioavailability/bioequivalence and food effect study (Part B) in healthy subjects. Part A treated a total of 24 subjects and utilized a randomized, open-label, MAD design with up to 3 separate dose groups of 8 subjects per group. Within each dose group, subjects were randomized to receive either PF614 (n=6) or OxyContin (n=2). Subjects received repeated BID doses, planned to be administered every 12 hours (q12h) over a 5-day period, for a total of 9 doses. PF614 doses were 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, which were expected to be approximately equivalent to the 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg OxyContin doses, for Dose Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Serial PK sampling was performed for the first day/first dose (Day 1) and for the last day/last dose (Day 5). Only trough PK samples were taken within 30 minutes prior to the morning dose on Days 2, 3, and 4. Safety assessments, including regular assessments of adverse events (AEs), vital signs (pulse rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation [SpO₂]), clinical laboratory tests, 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs), and cardiac telemetry were monitored throughout the study. Subjects were monitored for hypotension, hypopnea, apnea, and oxygen desaturation.

Part B treated a total of 60 subjects and utilized an open-label, single-dose, randomized, 4-way crossover design. Subjects were randomized to receive each of the following single oral doses of study drugs in a Williams design crossover manner (1 at each treatment period):

● Treatment A: 100 mg PF614, administered under fasted conditions (hereafter referred to as 100 mg PF614, fasted)

● Treatment B: 100 mg PF614, administered under fed conditions (high-fat breakfast) (hereafter referred to as 100 mg PF614, fed)

● Treatment C: 40 mg OxyContin, administered under fasted conditions (hereafter referred to as 40 mg OxyContin, fasted)

● Treatment D: 40 mg OxyContin, administered under fed conditions (high-fat breakfast) (hereafter referred to as 40 mg OxyContin, fed)

Each treatment was separated by a washout interval of 5 days. Serial PK sampling was performed after each study drug administration up to 120 hours postdose. Safety including regular assessments of AEs, vital signs (pulse rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and SpO₂ ), clinical laboratory tests, and 12-lead ECGs were monitored. Subjects were monitored for hypotension, hypopnea, apnea, and oxygen desaturation.

Pharmacokinetics

Part A: The shape of the plasma concentration versus time curve of oxycodone was similar following administration of PF614 and OxyContin (oxycodone extended release). Oxycodone plasma exposure (T_max, C_max,ss and AUC_tau) were assessed and PF614 showed similar trends as OxyContin following administration of multiple oral BID doses. Due to the small sample number for OxyContin some PK parameters could not be calculated. Trough concentrations of oxycodone were generally similar from Day 2 through Day 4, suggesting that subjects achieved steady state after repeated oral BID dosing of PF614 and OxyContin at all dose levels.

Part B: A total of 57 subject were included in the PK analyses. The data for C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-inf of oxycodone post 100 mg PF614 versus 40 mg OxyContin dosing under fasted and fed conditions were completely contained within the standard bioequivalence limits of 80% to 125%. Therefore, it was concluded that 100 mg PF614 was bioequivalent to 40 mg OxyContin under both fasted and fed conditions.

Safety

PF614 was generally safe and well-tolerated following oral administration of 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg PF614 BID for 5 days. There was no apparent difference in the safety profile of single oral doses of 100 mg PF614 when administered in the fasted or fed state or between PF614 and OxyContin when administered in the fasted and fed state. PF614 was generally safe and well-tolerated following single and multiple oral doses under naltrexone blockade.

PF614-103 Intranasal Human Abuse Potential Clinical Trial

PF614-103 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, 3-way crossover study to evaluate the abuse potential and pharmacokinetics of intranasally administered PF614, relative to crushed oxycodone IR tablets and placebo, in non-dependent recreational opioid users conducted by Lotus Clinical Trials LLC through Ohio Clinical Trials, Inc with Principal investigator, Dr. G. Apseloff.

The study consisted of 4 phases: Screening, Qualification, Treatment, and Follow-up. Subjects were randomized to receive PF614 100mg or crushed oxycodone 40 mg intranasally. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the abuse potential of PF614 relative to crushed oxycodone immediate-release (IR) tablets and placebo following intranasal administration in non-dependent recreational opioid users (n=26), with the primary pharmacodynamic endpoint being the maximum effect (E_max) for Drug Liking (“at this moment”) measured up to 24 hours after dosing using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The secondary objectives of the study were to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of PF614 relative to crushed oxycodone IR tablets following intranasal administration, to evaluate the safety of PF614 following intranasal administration.

In the study, PF614 powder produced a statistically significant lower peak “drug liking” (Emax) when compared with intranasal crushed IR oxycodone (p = 0.0133) using the full modified completer population in a 3-period crossover of PF614 vs. crushed oxycodone and placebo. Furthermore, in a first period analysis of initial impressions of each drug, a statistically significant difference was noted between PF614 (n=8) and crushed IR oxycodone (n=10) (p = 0.0175), even with this smaller cohort of subjects.

Statistically significant differences in peak effects (Emax) between PF614 and crushed IR oxycodone intranasal were also demonstrated for the secondary endpoint of “take drug again,” also using a first period analysis (p < 0.0001).

The intranasal HAP study was designed to test if known recreational drug users “liked” the product and is critical for labeling claims for new drugs in this class. The primary measure in this study, “drug liking,” is recommended by the FDA in their Guidance on “Assessment of Abuse Potential of Drugs.” This measure is known to correlate with a drug’s potential for abuse. The results demonstrated that inhaled powdered PF614 had significantly lower drug liking than inhaled crushed IR oxycodone.

Next Steps

In 2022 we initiated two human abuse potential studies of PF614 to understand the tendency for drug abusers to like the effects achieved from taking PF614 either orally or intranasally as compared to that of a comparator product such as crushed oxycodone. The data from these studies will be used to support our application for ‘Abuse Deterrent’ labeling for PF614. The data from the intranasal study was reported on October 31, 2022 and the data from the oral study is expected to be available in early 2023. We intend to explore pain indications to evaluate PF614 for efficacy and safety which we are seeking to initiate in 2023. We are also planning to evaluate nafamostat in COVID-19 subjects when delivered as an oral drug product. The ability to undertake these studies will depend on additional financing. We have funded our operations to date primarily with proceeds from the sale of equity and borrowings under convertible promissory notes and federal grants. See “—Convertible Promissory Notes” and “—Federal Grants” for additional information.

In November 2022, we received written guidance from the FDA that an acute pain indication may be appropriate for PF614. The FDA guidance, while not binding, states that our proposed clinical development approach of conducting at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in two different pain models comparing PF614 to a placebo and to another immediate release (IR) opioid, such as IR oxycodone, appears reasonable to support a new drug application for PF614 for an acute pain indication. The FDA guidance also provides additional guidance with respect to the non-clinical studies and clinical trials planned by us. The clinical development pathway of PF614 for an acute pain indication may reduce the development timeline and be more cost-effective than initially pursuing a chronic pain indication for PF614.

PF614-MPAR™

We initiated a Phase 1 study that is evaluating PF614-MPAR™ in study entitled “A Single Dose, 2 Part Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Oxycodone, PF614, PFR06082, and nafamostat, when PF614 Solution is Co-Administered with nafamostat, as an Immediate Release Solution and/or Extended Release (ER) Capsule Formulations in Healthy Subjects:” We are clinically testing MPAR in partnership with Quotient Sciences, using its integrated Translational Pharmaceutics® platform to search for a PF614-MPAR formulation that allows conversion into oxycodone within the prescribed dose range but reduces conversion to oxycodone at higher than prescribed dose levels in an overdose scenario.

PF614-MPAR™-101 Phase 1 Clinical Trial

The primary objectives of the Phase 1 study are to assess the pharmacokinetics of oxycodone, when PF614 solution is administered alone and with nafamostat as an immediate release solution and/or extended release capsule prototypes. The study is designed to aid in the selection of the optimal nafamostat formulation and dose to combine with PF614 in order to provide oxycodone when a prescribed dose is taken yet attenuate the maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and the area under the concentration time curve (AUC) of oxycodone when more than the prescribed PF614-MPAR™ dose is taken. Extended release prototype capsule formulations will be selected from a two-dimensional design space describing formulation variables for release rate and dose. Initial data was reported in May 2022 that demonstrated nafamostat administer in combination with PF614 in a simulated overdose situation reduced the release of oxycodone from PF614 as designed. We completed the clinical portion of Part A of this study in December 2022 and expect to report final data from this portion of the study by the end of December 2022. The study will continue in 2023 to test the overdose protection of the selected formulation by administering an escalating number of dose units to a group of healthy subjects. Data is expected in the second half of 2023.

NAFAMOSTAT

NAF-101 Phase 1 Clinical Trial

We believe nafamostat has the potential to be effective in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 as it is an inhibitor of transmembrane protease Serine 2 (TMPRSS2) the protease responsible for cleaving the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. While patients with COVID-19 typically present with fever and a respiratory illness, some patients also report gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Studies have identified the most recent strain of COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2 RNA, in stool specimens of infected patients, and its viral receptor angiotensin converting enzyme 2 was found to be highly expressed in gastrointestinal epithelial cells. These suggest that SARS-CoV-2 can actively infect and replicate in the gastrointestinal tract, and oral nafamostat which acts locally in the gut will reduce the ability of the virus to replicate. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety of oral nafamostat in healthy volunteers. This was a three-part single ascending dose study (Part 1) examining safety and pharmacokinetics of single doses of 50, 100, and 200 mg nafamostat administered sequentially on three separate days to a single cohort of eight subjects. The multiple ascending dose study (Part 2) administered 100 mg nafamostat twice daily to four healthy subjects and evaluated safety and pharmacokinetic for five days. A second cohort of four subjects received 200 mg nafamostat twice daily for five days and evaluated safety and pharmacokinetic. A final group of six healthy subjects received 200 mg nafamostat the multiple fixed dose study (Part 3) to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral nafamostat solution administered three times daily.

Pharmacokinetic Analyses

Nafamostat was shown to have limited bioavailability at any dose level evaluated up to 200 mg.

Safety

There were no drug-related adverse events reported for nafamostat delivered at 200 mg three times daily, therefore additional dose levels are currently being examined for safety. We concluded that 200 mg can be delivered three times daily which may provide local effects in the gastrointestinal tract.

Next Steps

We are planning to evaluate nafamostat in a Phase 2 clinical trial in COVID-19 subjects when delivered as an oral drug product. Nafamostat 200 mg capsules have been manufactured and are on stability evaluation.

Competition

The life sciences industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We expect to face competition from a number of sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, drug delivery companies, and academic and research institutions. Most of these existing and potential competitors have significantly greater financial and other resources than we do.

The key competitive factors that are expected to affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates include safety and tolerability, the ability of our product candidates to limit human abuse potential, bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy of our product candidates, market indications and convenience of dosing and distribution. PF614 will also face competition from commercially available generic and branded extended-release and long-acting opioid drugs other than oxycodone, including, but not limited to, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, and methadone, as well as opioids that are currently in clinical development.

We believe that obtaining an abuse-deterrent label through the FDA for our prodrugs would provide us with a significant competitive advantage. There are only four commercially available (in the United States) opioid drugs for chronic pain relief that have an abuse-deterrent label. These drugs are MorphaBond™ ER, marketed by Daiichi Sankyo, OxyContin® ER and Hysingla® ER, both of which are marketed by Purdue Pharma, LP, and Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s XTampza®ER. However, obtaining an abuse-deterrent label involves a lengthy and complicated process with no certainty of success. We believe abuse-deterrent opioids represent a therapeutic option to maximize pain relief in patients for whom opioid analgesia is indicated, while reducing the risks of abuse and diversion.

A number of other companies including, but not limited to, Pfizer Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Endo Health Solutions, Nektar Therapeutics, Teva Pharmaceutical, Inc., Egalet Ltd., KemPharm Inc., Elysium Therapeutics Inc., and Acura Pharmaceutical, have either extended-release or abuse-deterrent products in various stages of development. Other companies offer products indicated for chronic, severe, long-term pain with various delivery technologies, but these products do not have abuse-deterrent claims on their labels.

We do not believe there are other companies developing products that have an overdose mechanism similar to our MPAR™ technology.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for product candidates and any of our future product candidates, novel discoveries, product development technologies, and know-how; to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others; and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing or in-licensing United States and foreign patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

In August 2020, EBIR entered into a Technology Transfer Agreement with Mucokinetica to acquire its intellectual property and all assets associated with the inhaled nafamostat program. Specifically, EBIR acquired Patent EP2124926B1 and all data and assets associated with the development and expansion of the inhaled nafamostat program. These assets included COVID-19 and cystic fibrosis drug targets in development.

In consideration for this intellectual property, Mucokinetica received a 1% equity ownership in EBIR, and its founders, Roderick Hall and Peter Cole, entered into Consulting Agreements with EBIR. The Consulting Agreements were subsequently terminated by Messrs. Hall and Cole.

Patents and Patent Applications

We own numerous patents and applications in the United States and significant commercial markets, such as Europe, China, and Japan, relating to our product candidates currently in development, as well as other product candidates that may be developed in the future. These patents and applications are projected to expire between 2028 and 2042, subject to any patent term adjustment or extension that might be available in a particular jurisdiction. A table of the key patent families and their natural or projected expiry dates is presented below.

*“Europe” refers to patent applications filed in, and patents issued by, the European Patent Office (“EPO”), which can provide the basis for rights in multiple countries that are members of the European Patent Convention.

While we seek broad coverage under our existing patent applications, there is always a risk that an alteration to the products or processes may provide sufficient basis for a competitor to avoid infringing our patent claims. In addition, patents, if granted, expire and we cannot provide any assurance that any patents will be issued from our pending or any future applications or that any potentially issued patents will adequately protect our product candidates.

Individual patents extend for varying periods depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued for regularly filed applications in the United States are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a period due to delay by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in issuing the patent as well as a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. However, as to the FDA component, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed fourteen years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country, and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies for our products or processes, or to obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights that we may require to develop or commercialize our future products may have an adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. For more information, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

TAAP and MPAR™ Patents and Applications for Opioids

Following our merger with Signature, we became the owner of patent families that include several granted U.S. patents, as well as granted patents and pending patent applications in numerous foreign jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, and Russia, relating to chemically modified opioids, such as oxycodone, methadone, and hydromorphone, covalently linked using specific linkers to a gastrointestinal enzyme-cleavable moiety and pharmaceutical compositions containing these modified opioids, pharmaceutical compositions containing these modified opioids and a gastrointestinal enzyme inhibitor, and methods of using the same to treat pain. Three of these patent families are directed to ketone containing opioids and cover PF614 and PF614-MPAR™ and certain methadone TAAP product candidates that are still in the discovery phase. These three families contain issued patents in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, and Russia and expire between 2030 and 2032, subject to any applicable patent term extension that might be available in a jurisdiction. We also own pending United States, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and Taiwan applications directed to oral formulations of PF614-MPAR™, which if pursued and issued would expire in 2042, subject to any potential patent term adjustment or extension that may be available in a jurisdiction. We also own one patent family that includes granted patents in the United States, as well as granted patents and pending patent applications in numerous foreign jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, and Russia, relating to chemically modified ketone-containing agents, such as oxycodone, methadone, and hydromorphone, covalently linked using specific linkers to a gastrointestinal enzyme-cleavable moiety, pharmaceutical compositions containing these modified ketone-containing agents, pharmaceutical compositions containing these modified ketone-containing agents and a gastrointestinal enzyme inhibitor, and methods of using the same to treat pain, would cover certain methadone TAAP product candidates that are still in discovery phase and expire in 2032. While we own these patent families, we have not updated records in the various patent offices to reflect our ownership of these patent families. Failure to update such ownership may result in an innocent purchaser potentially acquiring rights in such patents that are adverse to our interests. Furthermore, as noted above, we have not obtained assignments for certain patent applications relating to abuse-resistant amphetamines.

We believe that one patent covering PF614 will be eligible for up to five years of patent term extension in the United States and intend to pursue such extension. In addition to patent exclusivity until at least 2032, under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, upon any approval in the United States, we believe that PF614 will be eligible for five-year New Chemical Entity, or NCE, regulatory exclusivity, during which time no 505(b)(2) New Drug Application, or NDA, or Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, can be approved that contains the same active moiety as the chemical entity in the PF614 NDA. In addition, if an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant were to file its application referencing the NDA for PF614 before expiration of our formulation patent and the applicant asserted that the patent is invalid or would not be infringed, it may be subject to additional waiting periods prior to the FDA’s approval (including a statutory thirty-month stay, starting at the end of the five-year NCE regulatory exclusivity period, if we sue for infringement, or a shorter period if the patent expires of there are certain settlements or judicial decisions in the patent litigation) and may ultimately be required to wait until the natural expiration of our compositions patents if the patents are found to be valid and infringed by the challenging applicant. For more information please see “—Patents and Patent Applications.”

Nafamostat Patents Applications

We own pending applications in the U.S., Canada and Europe directed to the use of orally administered nafamostat for the treatment of infections caused by coronaviruses, including COVID-19, and pending United States, PCT, and Taiwan patent applications directed to oral formulations of nafamostat. We intend to pursue these applications in the United States and other significant commercial markets and any patents that may be issued would expire in 2041 and 2042, respectively, subject to any applicable patent term adjustment or extension in a particular jurisdiction. Additionally, we acquired one European patent from Mucokinetica Ltd. that is directed to the use of certain compounds, including nafamostat, for the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of respiratory diseases with mucostasis or poor mucus clearance. This patent was validated in Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom and expires in 2028, subject to any applicable patent term extension that might be available in Europe Union or United Kingdom. Currently, we do not have any issued patent or pending application directed to methods of treating infections caused by coronaviruses, including COVID-19, with inhaled nafamostat, but intend to file pending applications upon development of a suitable inhalation formulation of nafamostat. We believe that one patent covering nafamostat will be eligible for up to five years of patent term extension in the United States and Europe and intend to pursue such extension. In addition to patent exclusivity, under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, upon any approval in the United States, we believe that nafamostat will be eligible for five-year NCE regulatory exclusivity, during which time no 505(b)(2) NDA or ANDA can be approved that contains the same active moiety as the chemical entity in the nafamostat NDA. In addition, if an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant were to file its application referencing the NDA for nafamostat before expiration of our use patent and the applicant asserted that the patent is invalid or would not be infringed, it may be subject to additional waiting periods prior to the FDA’s approval (including a statutory thirty-month stay, starting at the end of the five-year NCE regulatory exclusivity period, if we sue for infringement, or a shorter period if the patent expires of there are certain settlements or judicial decisions in the patent litigation) and may ultimately be required to wait until the natural expiration of our compositions patents if the patents are found to be valid and infringed by the challenging applicant. For more information please see “—Patent and Patent Applications.”

TAAP and MPAR™ Patents and Applications for Amphetamines

Following the merger with Signature, we became the owner of one patent family that includes pending applications in the United States and numerous European foreign jurisdictions relating to chemically modified amphetamines covalently linked to a gastrointestinal enzyme-cleavable moiety, pharmaceutical compositions containing the modified amphetamines, pharmaceutical compositions containing the modified amphetamines and a gastrointestinal enzyme inhibitor and methods of using the same to treat a subject. While we own this patent family, we have not updated the records in the various patent offices to reflect our ownership of this patent family. Failure to update such ownership may result in an innocent purchaser potentially acquiring rights in such patents that are adverse to our interests. In addition, we own pending United States and European patent applications directed to pharmaceutical compositions containing chemically modified amphetamines covalently linked to a gastrointestinal enzyme-cleavable moiety and a trypsin inhibitor and methods of using the same to treat a subjects. We have not obtained assignments from all of the inventors of these applications to date, which could negatively impact our ability to pursue or enforce this application. If issued, these patent applications would expire between 2031 and 2040, subject to any applicable patent term adjustment or extension that might be available in a jurisdiction.

Trademarks and Trade Secrets

We intend to pursue trademark registrations in the United States and other significant commercial markets for our product candidates as they progress through clinical development.

Furthermore, we rely upon trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with an employee or a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of clinical or commercial quantities of our product candidates. Our drug substance and drug products are manufactured for us by contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to our specifications. Any manufacturing problem or the loss of a CMO could be disruptive to our operations and result in lost sales.

Our lead product candidate, PF614, is small molecule opioid prodrug. As such, it is a controlled substance, regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and state-controlled substance authorities. Our CMOs will be required to be registered with DEA and will be responsible for obtaining adequate quota to manufacture and otherwise handle controlled substances.

We currently engage third parties to provide clinical supplies of PF614 and nafamostat. We also currently engage a CMO to provide drug product manufacture of PF614, PF614-MPAR™, and nafamostat. We currently have sufficient supplies of PF614 and nafamostat on hand for our current clinical trial needs. 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.

Purisys

Purisys LLC manufactures PF614 and other clinical trial materials under cGMP conditions and provides stability studies with respect to our PF614 clinical trials. We do not currently have a binding written agreement with Purisys. In the event that Purisys is unable to perform the services promised under future agreements, we may be subject to unforeseen costs and delays with respect to our clinical trials and may be unable to replace the Purisys arrangements on terms as favorable to us. See “Risk Factors—We expect to be completely dependent on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and our commercialization of our product candidates could be halted, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, fail to provide to us with sufficient quantities of our product candidates or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices” for more information.

Recro

Recro manufactures PF614 and other clinical trial drug products under cGMP conditions and provides stability studies with respect to our PF614 clinical trials. Recro (now Societal CDMO) has completed the manufacture of PF614 50 and 100 mg capsules that have been used in clinical studies PF614-102, PF614-103 and PF614-104.We expect to enter into additional related agreements with Societal CDMO as we manufacture future batches of PF614. In the event that Societal is unable to perform the services anticipated under future agreements, we may be subject to unforeseen costs and delays with respect to our clinical trials. See “Risk Factors—We expect to be completely dependent on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and our commercialization of our product candidates could be halted, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, fail to provide to us with sufficient quantities of our product candidates or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices” for more information.

Government Grants

We have received funding under federal grant award programs through governmental agencies, such as the NIH and NIDA. For fiscal year 2021, we received an aggregate of approximately $3.5 million in federal grant funds, approximately $2.6 million from the NIH related to the Phase 1 clinical trial for PF614 MPAR™ and approximately $0.9 million from NIDA under our five-year award to undertake the preclinical development of our opioid use disorder-MPAR^TM technology. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, we received federal grants totaling $2.5 million, $2.0 million from NIH related to the Phase 1 clinical trial for PF614 MPAR™ and $0.5 million from NIDA for preclinical development of our opioid use disorder-MPAR^TM technology. Current remaining funding under the two approved grants totals $4.6 million, covering the period through August 31, 2023. We may apply for additional grant funding from these or similar governmental agencies in the future.

GEM Facility

Pursuant to the GEM Agreement, we are entitled to draw down up to $60 million of gross proceeds (“Aggregate Limit”) from GEM Global in exchange for shares of our common stock, subject to meeting the terms and conditions of the GEM Agreement. This equity line facility is available for a period of 36 months from the closing date of the Merger. A draw down is subject to limitations on the amount that is drawn under the facility and must comply with certain conditions precedent including the listing of our shares on a principal market (which includes Nasdaq), having the necessary number of shares that are issuable pursuant to the draw down registered under an effective registration statement, and other notice and timing requirements. Upon our valid exercise of a draw down, pursuant to delivery of a notice and in accordance with other conditions, GEM Global is required to pay, in cash, a per-share amount equal to 90% of the average closing bid price of the shares of our common stock recorded by Nasdaq during the 30 consecutive trading days commencing on the first trading day that is designated on the draw down notice. In no event may our draw down requests exceed 400% (“Draw Down Limit”) of the average daily trading volume for the 30 trading days immediately preceding the date we deliver the draw down notice.

Further, upon the closing of the Merger, GEM Global became entitled to a commitment fee in the form of cash or freely tradeable shares of our common stock in an amount equal to 2% of the Aggregate Limit or $1.2 million to be paid in two tranches. The commitment fee for the first tranche, which is equal to 67% of the commitment fee, or $800,000, was paid in shares in July 2022 and the commitment fee for the second tranche, which is equal to the remaining 33% of the commitment fee, or $400,000, was paid in shares in January 2023.

Additionally, we issued a warrant with a 36-month term at the closing of the Merger granting GYBL the right to purchase 55,306 shares of our common stock (an amount equal to 4% of the total number of our common stock outstanding as of the closing date of the Merger (subject to adjustments described below), calculated on a fully diluted basis), at a strike price per share equal to, after several downward adjustments, $0.7512 as of January 12, 2023. Any failure by us to timely transfer the shares under the warrant pursuant to GYBL’s exercise will entitle GYBL to compensation in addition to other remedies. The number of shares underlying the warrant as well as the strike price is subject to adjustments for recapitalizations, reorganizations, change of control, stock split, stock dividend and reverse stock splits. The strike price is subject to adjustment for issuances of additional common shares at a price per share less than the strike price.

The GEM Agreement contains certain negative covenants restricting us from securing an equity line similar to the financing provided under the GEM Agreement and requiring prompt notice of events constituting an alternate transaction. An “alternate transaction” includes an issuance of common stock at a price less than the then current market price, an “at-the-market” offering of securities, and an issuance of options, warrants, or similar rights of subscription or the issuance of convertible equity or debt securities. See “Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements” for additional information.

Finally, pursuant to the terms of the GEM Agreement, we are required to indemnify GEM Global for any losses it incurs as a result of a breach by us or of our representations and warranties and covenants under the GEM Agreement or for any misstatement or omission of a material fact in a registration statement registering those shares pursuant to the GEM Agreement. Also, GEM Global is entitled to be reimbursed for legal or other costs or expenses reasonably incurred in investigating, preparing, or defending against any such loss. To date, we have not raised any capital pursuant to the GEM facility and we may not raise any capital pursuant to it prior to its expiration.

Government Regulation

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, and those pharmaceutical products that are controlled substance are also subject to extensive regulation by the DEA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDC Act”), the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), and other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, prescribing, dispensing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutical products used for the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to regulation under the FDC Act. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs, revocation of licensing authority, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

The FDA Drug Approval Process

FDA approval is required before any new drug can be marketed. A new drug is one not generally recognized, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience, as safe and effective for its intended use. The process of drug development is complex and lengthy. The activities undertaken before a new pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States generally include, but are not limited to, preclinical studies; submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become active before human clinical trials may commence; adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product; submission to the FDA of an NDA; filing of the NDA by FDA; satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the clinical trial sites and manufacturing facility or facilities at which both the active ingredients and finished drug product are produced to assess compliance with, among other things, patient informed consent requirements, the clinical trial protocols, current Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, and GMPs; and FDA review and approval of the NDA prior to any commercial sale and distribution of the product in the United States.

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, and in some cases, animal studies and other studies to preliminarily assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The results of preclinical studies together with manufacturing information, analytical data, and detailed information including protocols for proposed human clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as a part of an IND. An IND must become effective, and approval must be obtained from an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. The IND becomes effective 30 days following its receipt by the FDA unless the FDA objects to, or otherwise raises concerns or questions and imposes a clinical hold. We, the FDA, or the IRB may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time after it has commenced due to safety or efficacy concerns or for commercial reasons. In the event the FDA imposes a clinical hold, the IND sponsor must address any outstanding FDA concerns or questions to the satisfaction of the FDA before clinical trials can proceed or resume.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may sometimes overlap or be combined:

In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into patients, the product is tested to assess safety, dosage tolerance, metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with drug exposure, and to obtain early evidence of a treatment effect if possible. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, determine optimal dose and regimen, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain additional information about clinical effects and confirm efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the drug. In rare instances, a single Phase 3 trial may be sufficient when either (1) the trial is a large, multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity, or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (2) the single trial is supported by other confirmatory evidence.

In addition, the manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access to such investigational drug.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing and distribution of the product may begin in the United States. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently exceeding $3.1 million for Fiscal Year 2022. Under an approved NDA, the applicant is also subject to an annual program fee, currently exceeding $330,000. These fees typically increase annually. Under limited circumstances, an applicant may be exempt from or seek a waiver of the application fee requirement.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the FDA’s determination that it is adequately organized and sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is filed, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals to complete the review of NDAs. For a standard review, the goal for review of a new molecular entity (“NME”) is ten months from the date the FDA files the NDA, while the goal for review of a non-NME is ten months from the date of receipt of the NDA. For an NDA that has received a priority review designation from the FDA, the goal for review of an NME is six months from the date the FDA files the NDA, while the goal for review of a non-NME is six months from the date of receipt of the NDA. An NDA can receive a priority review designation when the FDA determines the drug has the potential to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available therapies. The review process for both standard and priority reviews may be extended by the FDA for three or more additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the NDA submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, as well as drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to be reviewed by an advisory committee—typically a panel that includes clinicians, statisticians, and other experts—for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the NDA should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMP is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the claimed indication.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and completes any clinical and manufacturing site inspections, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the NDA submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application for approval. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing and distribution of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks to patients. A REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure a products safe use (“ETASU”). An ETASU REMS can include, but is not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing the product, dispensing the product only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient-specific registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. Moreover, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy.

Before approval, the FDA evaluates the results from in vitro manipulation and extraction, pharmacokinetics, and clinical human abuse potential studies to determine whether the accumulated evidence is sufficient to warrant claims of abuse deterrence. Post-marketing studies may also be required to determine whether the marketing of a product with abuse-deterrent properties results in meaningful reductions in abuse, misuse, and related adverse clinical outcomes, including addiction, overdose, and death in the post-approval setting.

Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved NDA, including changes in indications, product labeling, manufacturing processes, or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA, or supplement to an approved NDA, before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing original NDAs.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

An alternative to the NDA pathway described above is an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDC Act, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings in approving a similar product or published literature in support of its application. Section 505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for modified formulations, new routes of administration, or new uses of previously approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission 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. If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s prior findings of safety or effectiveness is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Fast Track Designation and Priority Review

FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. Any product submitted to FDA for marketing, including under a fast track designation, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review.

Priority review may be granted for products that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application designated for priority review to facilitate the review.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of a clinical trial are then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of clinical trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of clinical development programs as well as clinical trial design.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also provide a process for listing patents pertaining to approved products in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the “Orange Book”) and for a competitor seeking approval of an application that references a product with listed patents to make certifications pertaining to such patents. In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments provide for a statutory protection, known as non-patent exclusivity, against the FDA’s acceptance or approval of certain competitor applications.

Patent Term Extension

Patent Term Extension (“PTE”) in the United States can compensate for lost patent grant time during product development and the regulatory review process for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This PTE period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application, provided the sponsor acted with diligence. PTEs that can be obtained are for up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent or fourteen years from the date of product approval, whichever is earlier. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a nonprovisional patent application related to the patent. A U.S. patent also may be accorded patent term adjustment, or PTA, under certain circumstances to compensate for delays in obtaining the patent from the USPTO. In some instances, such a PTA may result in a U.S. patent term extending beyond 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application related to the U.S. patent. In addition, in the United States, the term of a U.S. patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for a patent term extension, or PTE, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a PTE of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the PTE is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. PTE cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of fourteen years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for PTEs on patents covering products eligible for PTE. We plan to seek PTEs for any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

We also believe that (1) PF614 and nafamostat will be eligible for a five-year NCE regulatory exclusivity, and (2) PF614-MPAR™ will be eligible for a three-year clinical investigation, or CI, regulatory exclusivity, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, during which time no ANDA can be approved.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, patents covering the product such as patents claiming the approved composition of matter, approved methods of use, approved formulations, and approved dosing and administration shall be listed in the Orange Book, which identifies drug products approved by FDA under the FDC Act. Applicable regulatory exclusivities, such as the five-year NCE exclusivity and the three-year CI exclusivity, are also listed in the Orange Book. If an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant were to file its application before expiration of all patents listed in the Orange Book, it must certify whether it will either honor or challenge all the patents listed in the Orange Book. If an Orange Book listed patent is challenged and we sue the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant for infringement, a statutory 30-month stay of approval, started at the end of the NCE exclusivity period, will be put in place that will prohibit the FDA from finally approving the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until the 30-months have expired or after a court has held in favor of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. The 30-month stay begins at the end of the five-year NCE exclusivity period. If the Orange Book listed patent(s) is ultimately held valid and infringed, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant will not be finally approved until the Orange Book listed patent(s) expires. If a pediatric study is requested by the FDA in a Pediatric Written Request, or PWR, and we complete the pediatric study according to the terms of the PWR, all unexpired Orange Book listed exclusivities (patent or regulatory) will be extended by six months.

Similar provisions are available in Europe, Japan, and certain other jurisdictions to extend the exclusivity of a patent that covers an approved drug. In Europe, we believe PF614 and nafamostat will be eligible for 10 years of regulatory exclusivity from European Marketing Application, or EMA, approval. In Japan, we believe PF614 will be eligible for eight years of regulatory exclusivity from a Japanese new drug application, or J-NDA, approval.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims covering the applicant’s product or method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents identified in the application for the drug are then published in the FDA’s Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a Section VIII statement certifying that its proposed ANDA labeling does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been filed with and accepted by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

An applicant submitting an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDC Act, which 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, is required to certify to the FDA regarding any patents listed in the Orange Book for the approved product it references to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Market Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDC Act also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDC Act provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity (“NCE”). A drug is entitled to NCE exclusivity if it contains a drug substance with no active moiety of which has been previously approved by the FDA. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification. For a drug that has been previously approved by the FDA, the FDC Act also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the new conditions of use and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs for the original conditions of use, such as the originally approved indication. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the non-clinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, who may or may not grant approval or may include in a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state, and foreign regulations. In the United States, the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the 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 (“PDMA”), a part of the FDC Act. In addition, Title II of the Federal Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013, known as the Drug Supply Chain Security Act or the DSCSA, has imposed new “track and trace” requirements on the distribution of prescription drug products by manufacturers, distributors, and other entities in the drug supply chain. These requirements are being phased in over a ten-year period. Unless the products were packaged prior to November 27, 2018, the DSCSA requires product identifiers (i.e., serialization) on prescription drug products in order to establish an electronic interoperable prescription product system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States. The DSCSA replaced the prior drug “pedigree” requirements under the PDMA and preempts existing state drug pedigree laws and regulations. The DSCSA also establishes requirements for the licensing of wholesale distributors and third-party logistic providers. These licensing requirements preempt states from imposing licensing requirements that are inconsistent with, less stringent than, directly related to, or otherwise encompassed by standards established by FDA pursuant to the DSCSA. Until FDA promulgates regulations to address the DSCSA’s new national licensing standard, current state licensing requirements typically remain in effect.

In the United States, once a product is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific facilities and in accordance with cGMP. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. 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 FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such product or may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

The CSA and DEA Regulation

Our products are regulated as “controlled substances” as defined under the CSA and regulations promulgated by DEA. The law and regulations establish registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, and other requirements administered by DEA.

Controlled substances are classified into five schedules: Schedule I, II, III, IV, or V, depending on the abuse potential. Schedule I substances by definition have no established medicinal use and may not be marketed or sold in the United States. A pharmaceutical product may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV, or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest risk of abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances.

PF614 will be classified as a Schedule II controlled substance under the CSA and regulations because it contains oxycodone which is already regulated as a Schedule II controlled substance. Consequently, the manufacturing, shipping, storing, selling, prescribing, and dispensing of our products is subject to a high degree of regulation. Schedule II drugs are subject to the strictest requirements for registration, security, recordkeeping, and reporting. Facilities must maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all controlled substances received, manufactured, stored, and distributed. These facilities must comply with strict security requirements to prevent diversion of drugs in their possession. Also, distribution and dispensing of these drugs are highly regulated. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, presented to a pharmacist and generally limited to a 30-day supply, and may not be refilled, that is, a new prescription is required.

Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, distributes, imports, or exports any controlled substance. Also, practitioners and pharmacies are required to register every three years. The registration is specific to the location, activity, and controlled substance schedule. For example, separate registrations are needed for import and manufacturing, and each registration will specify which schedules of controlled substances the facility is authorized to handle. Our contract manufacturers must be registered with DEA.

In addition, the CSA establishes an annual quota system that limits the manufacturing of API and dosage forms in the United States of Schedule I and II controlled substances. First, the DEA establishes an annual aggregate quota for how much active opioid ingredients, such as oxycodone and tapentadol, may be produced in total in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate scientific and medicinal needs. The limited aggregate number of opioids that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, who must submit applications annually to the DEA for individual production quotas. Also, dosage form manufacturers must also request a procurement quota to acquire opioid API to manufacture dosage forms for distribution. We and our contract manufacturers must receive an annual quota from the DEA in order to produce or procure any Schedule I or Schedule II substance, including oxycodone base for use in manufacturing PF614. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas and individual production and procurement quotas from time to time during the year. DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments. Our contract manufacturers must apply for and obtain the necessary quotas on an annual basis.

In November 2017, the DEA reduced the amount of almost every Schedule II opiate and opioid medication that may be manufactured in the United States in calendar year 2018 by 20%. In October 2018, the SUPPORT Act was enacted, which included amendments to the CSA to require that appropriate quota reductions be made after estimating potential for diversion. DEA announced that the estimate is based on rates of overdose deaths and abuse, the overall public health impact related to specific controlled substances and may include other factors as appropriate. For 2019, the DEA proposed decreased manufacturing quotas for the six most frequently misused opioids, including oxycodone, by an average of 10% as compared to the 2018 quotas. In October 2019, consistent with the SUPPORT Act, DEA proposed additional regulations to amend the manner in which the agency grants quotas to manufacturers. The proposed regulations will establish use-specific quotas, including commercial sales, product development, transfer, replacement, and packaging. To decrease the risk of diversion and increase accountability, inventory allowances will be reduced, and procurement quota certifications will be required. The DEA proposed further decreasing manufacturing quotas in 2020 for five of the six opioids (fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone), by an average of 28%. For 2021, the DEA decreased the aggregate quota for oxycodone by about 13% and for hydrocodone by about 10% from the final established 2020 quotas. Because PF614 is regulated as a Schedule II controlled substance, it is subject to the DEA’s aggregate, individual production, and procurement quota scheme.

Ordering and distribution of any Schedule I or II controlled substance are also subject to special ordering requirements under either the electronic Controlled Substance Ordering System (“CSOS”) or use of DEA Form 222s. Information regarding specific transactions are reported to DEA, and cumulative reports of such transactions are required monthly/quarterly.

The DEA also requires drug manufacturers to design and implement a system that identifies and reports suspicious orders of controlled substances. Such orders include those of unusual size, those that deviate substantially from a normal pattern, and those of unusual frequency. Manufacturers must refuse to complete any sale and report to DEA any orders for which it is unable to resolve any potential “red flags.” A compliant suspicious order monitoring system includes well-defined due diligence, “know your customer” process as well as systems to identify and monitor ordering and sales of controlled substances.

To enforce these requirements, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, especially security and recordkeeping and as manifested in loss or diversion or inability to account for all controlled substances, can result in administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. The DEA may also reduce or deny quota to manufacturing facilities based on non-compliance with these requirements. In certain circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances.

Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives for Opioids

In response to widespread prescription opioid abuse, the United States government and a number of state legislatures have enacted legislation and regulations intended to fight the opioid epidemic. The number and scope of legislative and regulatory actions, particularly in the last three years, emphasize the severity of the opioid epidemic and its impact on our society. The FDA has stated that addressing prescription drug abuse is a priority and has reaffirmed that the development of abuse-deterrent opioids is a key part of that strategy.

Recent actions to address the opioid abuse epidemic include:

Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2022, we had seven full-time employees and five consultants. Of these, five have a Ph.D. and two have an M.B.A. From time to time, we also retain independent contractors to support our organization. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good.

Identification of Our Executive Officers

The Company’s Executive Officers and their age and position are below.

*Ages presented as of December 31, 2022

Dr. Lynn Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. has served as our Chief Executive Officer since January 2009. Dr. Kirkpatrick has spent over 30 years in drug discovery and development, has initiated the clinical development of four novel drug candidates and now strives to bring highly novel and safe pain therapies to commercialization. She received a Doctor of Philosophy (“Ph.D.”) degree in Medicinal and Biomedicinal Chemistry at the University of Saskatchewan, completed a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the Yale University School of Medicine, and became a tenured full professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Regina. She co-founded ProlX Pharmaceuticals, Corp. (“ProlX”) an oncology discovery company, becoming Chief Executive Officer and successfully bringing three small molecules from discovery into clinical development, two of these her own discoveries from academia. ProlX was acquired by Biomira Inc., and Dr. Kirkpatrick became the Chief Scientific Officer of the merged company to focus on the development of oncology products and vaccines. In 2009, she co-founded PHusis Therapeutics, developing targeted small molecule precision medicines for oncology. At the same time, she became our Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Kirkpatrick has published extensively in the area of targeted drug discovery, abuse deterrent pain products and holds numerous patents for novel drugs and modalities. We believe Dr. Kirkpatrick is qualified to serve on our Board because of her extensive executive experience in our industry and her service as our Chief Executive Officer.

Geoffrey Birkett has served as our Chief Commercial Officer since October 2018. He has over 30 years of experience in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology area. He started his career as a biochemist at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then moved into the pharmaceutical industry, where he focused on pain/addiction and neuroscience throughout his career. He has developed and launched several groundbreaking therapies, including Nicorette (POM) and (OTC), Lexapro and several other psychiatry agents with Lundbeck. Mr. Birkett assisted on the launch of Prozac and Humatrope (human growth hormone) with Eli Lilly. He assisted in moving Seroquel from Phase 2 to global market leader with multi-billion dollar sales and he also participated in the launch of Zomig for migraines, which became a European market leader. He worked for most of his pharmaceutical career at AstraZeneca plc in both the United Kingdom and the United States, where he held many roles including overseeing the global oncology division. When the AstraZeneca merger took place, Mr. Birkett ran the merger process outside the United States across all markets, and ran a corporate change program to streamline research and development involving 67,000 staff. Since leaving AstraZeneca, Mr. Birkett has held multiple roles in biotech companies as senior officer or as a consultant. He is co-founder of a novel drug delivery company and has consulted for IPSOS, a large global research and consulting firm. He also served as president for North America/Canada of INDIVIOR, a large company producing addiction treatment drugs. Mr. Birkett joined us in 2018 and is focused on building a world class commercial team. Mr. Birkett attended Henley Business College in London and INSEAD Business School in France where he studied general management and a global leadership.

David Humphrey, CPA has served as our Chief Financial Officer since February 2021. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Humphrey was most recently Chief Financial Officer of Senomyx, Inc. (“Senomyx”), a publicly held biotechnology company focused on taste science. In his previous employment, he guided public company financial reporting, including Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, S-3, S-8, proxy statements and SOX internal controls compliance, and acted as primary liaison with the audit committee and external auditors. Mr. Humphrey advised Senomyx’s board of directors, as part of core executive management team, in a $75 million acquisition by Firmenich SA, a private Swiss multinational flavor and fragrance company. Previously, he held finance and accounting leadership positions and consulted at numerous life sciences companies, including ActivX Biosciences, Aurora Biosciences and Gensia. Mr. Humphrey started his career as an accountant at Price Waterhouse. He holds a Bachelor of Science with Honors in Accountancy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is a Certified Public Accountant in California.

Dr. Jeffrey Millard, Ph.D. has served as our Chief Operating Officer since January 2019. Dr. Millard has both academic and industrial experience in chemistry and pharmaceutical sciences covering all aspects of chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC. He has been involved in both start-up biotech as well as small and mid-sized public biopharmaceutical companies. Dr. Millard has been directly responsible for research and development activities and writing of more than seven IND submissions and Investigational Medicinal Product Dossiers, or IMPDs. He has directed the CMC efforts from discovery and in-licensing through commercial launch activities. His experience covers the application programming interface, or API, lifecycle (from synthetic route scouting, process chemistry, analytical chemistry development and validation, cGMP production and release of API, to QbD and process validation), and drug product development through manufacture. Dr. Millard received a Bachelor of Arts from Rice University and a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from the University of Arizona.

Dr. Linda Pestano joined Ensysce in October 2021, as Chief Development Officer. Dr. Pestano has worked throughout her career to guide the development of novel therapeutics to improve patient outcomes and quality of life. She has 20 years of experience developing vaccines, drugs and novel biologics for a diverse range of indications. She has been instrumental in guiding new therapies, including small molecules, nucleic acids, and biologicals through development into clinical trials. Dr. Pestano’s expertise spans lead development, pre-clinical and translational studies, and interacting with multiple regulatory agencies. Dr. Pestano received her PhD from Tufts University and undertook a Post-Doctoral Fellowship with Dana Farber Cancer Institute at the Harvard Medical School in Boston.

Dr. William K. Schmidt, Ph.D., has served as our Chief Medical Officer since January 2016. He is also the Head of NorthStar Consulting, the Parliamentarian and a former president of the Eastern Pain Association, the largest regional affiliate of the American Pain Society. He has over 25 years of pharmaceutical industry experience with a special emphasis on the discovery and development of novel analgesic and narcotic antagonist drugs. He was previously Vice President of Clinical Development for CrystalGenomics (Seoul, South Korea) and its United States subsidiary, CG Pharmaceuticals (Emeryville, CA); Senior Vice President of Development at Limerick BioPharma; Vice President, Clinical Research, for Renovis, Inc.; and Vice President, Scientific Affairs and acting Vice President, Clinical Research and Development, at Adolor Corporation. At Adolor Corporation, Dr. Schmidt was a key member of the team leading to the clinical development, NDA filing, and FDA approval of Entereg® (alvimopan), a peripherally acting opioid antagonist. Currently Dr. Schmidt serves as an expert on pain medicine pharmaceutical development with pharmaceutical and biotech companies throughout North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Australia. Dr. Schmidt received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California Berkeley and his Ph.D. University of California-San Francisco.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

The report of our independent registered accounting firm on our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 contains an explanatory paragraph relating to our ability to continue as a going concern.

The auditor’s opinion on our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2022 includes an explanatory paragraph stating that the Company does not have revenue generating activities and is dependent on additional financing to fund operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. While we believe that we will be able to raise the capital we need to continue our operations, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in these efforts or will be able to resolve our liquidity issues or eliminate our operating losses. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, we would need to significantly reduce our operating plans and curtail some or all of our product development activities. Accordingly, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected, and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have incurred significant financial losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant financial losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to generate revenues, obtain regulatory approvals, engage in clinical development beyond Phase 1 trials, manufacture any product on a commercial scale or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf or enter into licensing arrangements to commercialize a product, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization.

We have no products approved for commercial sale and we have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, nor do we expect to generate any significant revenue from product sales for the next few years. We will continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our product development, preclinical and clinical activities and ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception. Net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our net loss was $24.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2022 and $29.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $110.9 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates.

If we continue to suffer losses as we have since inception, investors may not receive any return on their investment and may lose their entire investment.

In addition, as a public company, we incur significant additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company as we:

Pharmaceutical product development entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval, secure market access and reimbursement and become commercially viable. Therefore, any investment in us would be highly speculative. Our prospects are subject to the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in clinical development, especially clinical-stage pharmaceutical companies such as ours. Any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they would otherwise be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products. We will likely encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives.

Additionally, our expenses could increase beyond our expectations if we are required by the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or other regulatory authorities to perform clinical trials in addition to those that we currently expect to conduct, or if there are any delays in establishing appropriate manufacturing arrangements for or in completing our clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates.

Our ability to generate revenue from any of our potential products is subject to our ability to obtain regulatory approval and fulfill numerous other requirements and we may never be successful in generating revenues or becoming profitable.

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue or execute other business development arrangements. We do not expect to generate significant revenue, if any, unless and until we are able to obtain regulatory approval for, and successfully commercialize the product candidates we are developing or may develop. Successful commercialization, to the extent it occurs, will require achievement of many key milestones, including demonstrating safety and efficacy in clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling, or entering into other agreements to commercialize, those products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, satisfying any post-marketing requirements and obtaining reimbursement for our products from private insurance or government payors. Because of the uncertainties and risks associated with these activities, we cannot accurately and precisely predict the timing and amount, if any, of revenues, the extent of any further losses or when we might achieve profitability. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are sufficient enough for us to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our failure to become and remain profitable may depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations.

We require substantial additional funding. If we are unable raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate our product discovery and development programs or commercialization efforts.

We are a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that will need to raise additional capital to continue to operate as a going concern. Our quarterly operating results are likely to show continued losses in the future. Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the clinical and preclinical development of our product candidates, including our planned Phase 2 program for nafamostat and planned clinical trials for PF614 and PF614-MPAR™. We will need to raise additional capital to complete our currently planned clinical trials and any future clinical trials. Other unanticipated costs may arise during our development efforts. If we can obtain marketing approval for product candidates that we develop, we would require significant additional amounts of funding to launch and commercialize such product candidates. We cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of any product candidate we develop and we will require substantial additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Our future need for additional funding depends on many factors, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these or other factors with respect to the development of any of our product candidates could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate, and many of these factors are outside of our control. Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory and marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Please see the risk factors under “Risks Related to the Ownership of Common Stock and Financial Reporting.”

We believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second quarter of 2023, while advancing our main product candidates such as, PF614 and PF614 MPAR™ and nafamostat through their respective next phases of clinical development. Our estimate may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources, if any, sooner than we currently expect. Further, changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. To the extent this occurs, it could impose significant dilution on our stockholders.

We may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Attempting to secure additional financing may divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop our product candidates. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed or on acceptable terms would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy, and we may have to delay, reduce the scope of, suspend or eliminate one or more of our platforms, programs, planned clinical trials or future commercialization efforts.

We may incur additional dilution upon repayment of the Investor Notes with common stock.

Under the terms of the Securities Purchase Agreement, we are permitted to repay principal and interest on the Investor Notes by issuing additional shares of common stock. In addition, the conversion price of the Investor Notes, and the exercise price of the Prior Warrants, are subject to downward revision in the event we make certain issuances of our common stock at prices below the conversion price. The conversion price of the 2022 Notes and exercise price of the Prior Warrants have been reset, but not below a price of $2.006 for the Prior Warrants issued in 2022, $15.60 for the Prior Warrants issued in 2021 and $2.006 for the 2022 Notes (temporarily reduced for the 2022 Notes to $0.7512 for the period from January 12, 2023 until May 12, 2023). In such case, stockholders will have dilution in amounts exceeding the straight conversion of the Investor Notes or, with respect to the Prior Warrants, the Company will receive a reduced level of proceeds from the exercise of the Prior Warrants. Please see the discussion of conversion and exercise prices under “Description of Capital Stock—Convertible Promissory Notes” and “—Warrants.”

The price of our common stock on Nasdaq and Public Warrants on the OTC Pink Open Market may be volatile.

The price of our common stock on Nasdaq and our Public Warrants on the OTC Pink Open Market may fluctuate due to a variety of factors, including:

These and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, may cause the market price and demand for our shares of common stock to fluctuate substantially. Low trading volume could increase the volatility of our share price in response to news in the market, could prevent investors from readily selling their shares and may otherwise negatively affect the market price and liquidity of our shares. In addition, in the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have sometimes instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management from our business, which could significantly harm our profitability and reputation.

If we are unable to regain compliance with the listing standards of Nasdaq, our common stock may become delisted, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise funding, which could negatively impact our business, capital and financial condition.

We are not in compliance with Nasdaq listing standards for our common stock and have been granted an exception through June 12, 2023 to meet a number of obligations before June 12, 2023 that have been imposed by Nasdaq and to meet all listing requirements no later than June 12, 2023. If we do not meet all of those obligations by the deadlines imposed, our common stock could be delisted by Nasdaq. If delisting occurs, it could be more difficult to buy or sell our securities and to obtain accurate quotations, and the price of our common stock could suffer a material decline. In addition, a delisting would impair our ability to raise capital through the public markets, could deter broker-dealers from making a market in or otherwise seeking or generating interest in our securities and might deter certain institutions and persons from investing in our securities. Any of these could negatively impact our financial condition or our ability to operate our business and maintain adequate capital.

There may be no proceeds under the GEM Agreement or proceeds may be less than anticipated. The issuances of common stock pursuant to the GEM Agreement would result in dilution of existing stockholders and could have a negative impact on the market price of our common stock. Additionally, the negative covenants under the GEM Agreement are onerous and any breach by us thereunder may entitle GEM Global and GYBL to indemnification payments, reimbursements of legal and other expenses and other compensation thereby diverting our time and resources.

While we have raised capital from other sources, we have not used the GEM Facility to date. Under a Share Purchase Agreement between us, GEM Global Yield LLC SCS (“GEM Global”) and GEM Yield Bahamas Limited (“GYBL”), dated as of December 29, 2020, including a Registration Rights Agreement between the same parties and dated as of the same date (the “GEM Agreement”), we are entitled to draw down up to $60 million of gross proceeds from GEM Global in exchange for shares of our common stock at a price equal to 90% of the average closing bid price of the shares of our common stock on Nasdaq for a 30 day period, subject to meeting the terms and conditions of the GEM Agreement. This equity line facility is available for a period of 36 months from the closing date of the Merger. However, we have not been able to make use of the GEM Facility and we may not be able to do so before it expires. Please see the section entitled “Business” for additional information. The limitations on the amount and frequency of the draws that we can make pursuant to the GEM Agreement, which include the requirement that (i) there be an effective registration statement and (ii) size restrictions relating to our trading volume, may affect the ability to draw under the GEM Agreement and result in proceeds that are less than anticipated.

In addition, the occurrence of the Merger triggered (i) payment of a commitment fee of $1.2 million to GEM Global payable in either our common stock or cash, of which all has been satisfied with 46,062 shares of common stock transferred from related parties in July 2022 and an additional 533,334 shares of common stock issued in January 2023 and (ii) the issuance of a warrant granting GYBL the right to purchase 55,306 shares of our common stock, at a strike price per share of $0.7512 as of January 12, 2023. The number of shares underlying the warrant as well as the strike price is subject to adjustments for recapitalizations, reorganizations, change of control, stock split, stock dividend, reverse stock splits and certain issuances of additional shares of our common stock.

The issuances of shares at discount under the GEM Agreement and the anti-dilution protection granted to GEM Global in connection with issuances of additional shares of our common stock, would result in dilution of existing stockholders and have a negative impact on the market price of our common stock and our ability to obtain equity financing.

In addition, the negative covenants under the GEM Agreement are onerous and any breach thereof may trigger indemnification, reimbursement of losses and other liability for us thereby diverting our time and resources. To date, we have not used the GEM facility to raise capital.

Our business is highly dependent on the success of our product candidates. If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize one or more of our product candidates, or if we experience delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

Our future success and ability to generate significant revenue from our product candidates, which we do not expect will occur for several years, is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. A Phase 1b study of PF614 was initiated in 2021. Part A of the study completed enrollment in December 2021 and Part B was completed mid-year 2022. A Phase 1 trial was also initiated for PF614-MPAR™ in December 2021 and the clinical portion of Part A of that trial was completed in December 2022. All of our other product candidates are in earlier stages of development and will require substantial additional investment for manufacturing, preclinical testing, clinical development, regulatory review and approval in one or more jurisdictions. If any of our product candidates encounter safety or efficacy problems, development delays or regulatory issues or other problems, our development plans and business would be materially harmed.

We may not have the financial resources to continue development of our product candidates. Even if clinical trials are completed, we may experience other issues that may delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our product candidates, including:

Our product candidates will require additional, time-consuming development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical studies, clinical trials and approval by the FDA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities. All product candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that such product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot assure stockholders that any such products that are approved will be manufactured or produced economically, successfully commercialized or widely accepted in the marketplace or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives.

We depend heavily on the success of our lead product candidate PF614, which is currently in clinical trials. Our clinical trials of PF614 may not be successful. If we are unable to commercialize PF614 or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in the research and development of our lead product candidate, PF614 and we expect to continue to do so. Our ability to generate revenues from the sale of abuse-deterrent opioid products, which may not occur at a significant level for several years, will depend heavily on the successful development, regulatory approval and eventual commercialization of PF614.

We cannot commercialize product candidates in the United States without first obtaining regulatory approval for the product from the FDA; similarly, we cannot commercialize product candidates outside of the United States without obtaining regulatory approval from similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Even if PF614 or another product candidate were to successfully obtain approval from the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities, any approval might contain significant limitations related to use restrictions for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for PF614 in one or more jurisdictions, or any approval contains significant limitations, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding or generate sufficient revenue to continue the development, marketing and/or commercialization of PF614 or any other product candidate that we may discover, in-license, develop or acquire in the future. Furthermore, even if we obtain regulatory approval for PF614, we will still need to develop a commercial organization, or collaborate with third parties for the commercialization of PF614, establish commercially viable pricing and obtain approval for adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payors. If we or our commercialization collaborators are unable to successfully commercialize PF614, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenues to continue our business.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our product pipeline, and depending on our ability to access capital, we must prioritize the development of certain product candidates over others. Moreover, we may fail to expend our limited resources on product candidates or indications that may have been more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

We currently have three clinical-stage product candidates as well as certain other product candidates that are at various stages of preclinical development. We seek to maintain a process of prioritization and resource allocation to maintain an optimal balance between aggressively pursuing our more advanced clinical-stage product candidates, such [as nafamostat], PF614 and PF614-MPAR™, and ensuring the development of additional potential product candidates.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our product candidates, we must focus on specific diseases and disease pathways and decide which product candidates to pursue and advance and the amount of resources to allocate to each. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, development, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular product candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of any viable commercial products and may divert resources away from better opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the viability or market potential of any of our product candidates or misinterpret trends in the pharmaceutical industry, in particular for opioid abuse and drug overdose, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. As a result, we may (i) fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities, (ii) be required to forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or other diseases and disease pathways that may later prove to have greater commercial potential than those we choose to pursue, or (iii) relinquish valuable rights to such product candidates through collaboration, licensing, or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been advantageous for us to invest additional resources to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

Our PF614 and PF614-MPAR™ product candidates may not be successful in limiting or impeding abuse, overdose or misuse or providing additional safety upon commercialization.

We are committing a substantial majority of our resources to the development of products utilizing our TAAP and MPAR^TM. There can be no assurance that our products will perform as tested and limit or impede the actual abuse, overdose or misuse of such products or provide other benefits in commercial settings. Moreover, there can be no assurance that if our products are approved by the FDA, the post-approval epidemiological studies required by the FDA as a condition of any such approvals of the products will show a reduction in the consequences of abuse and misuse by patients for whom the applicable product is prescribed. The failure of our products to limit or impede actual abuse, overdose or misuse or provide other safety benefits in practice will have a material adverse impact on market acceptance for such products and on our financial condition and results of operations.

If we fail to discover, develop and commercialize other product candidates, we may be unable to grow our business and our ability to achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired. In addition, we may also seek to commercialize certain treatments that may not be proprietary to us.

Although the development and commercialization of our current product candidates are our initial focus, as part of our long-term growth strategy, we plan to develop other product candidates. We may also seek to commercialize treatments that may not be proprietary to us. We intend to evaluate internal opportunities from our existing product candidates or other potential product candidates. While our technology platforms have potential applicability to other uses, we have not conducted any clinical trials on these other uses and we may not be successful in developing product candidates for other uses.

In addition, we intend to devote capital and resources for basic research to discover and identify additional product candidates. These research programs require technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any product candidates are ultimately identified. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for many reasons, including the following:

In addition, future acquisitions may entail numerous operational and financial risks, including:

If we are unsuccessful in identifying and developing additional product candidates, either through internal development or acquisition from third parties, our potential for growth and achieving our strategic objectives may be impaired.

If we do not achieve our projected development and commercialization goals within the timeframes we expect, the development and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, and our business and results of operations may be harmed.

For planning purposes, we seek to estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development objectives. These milestones may include our expectations regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies and clinical trials, the submission of regulatory filings, or commercialization objectives. From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones, such as the completion of an ongoing clinical trial, the initiation of other clinical programs, receipt of marketing approval or a commercial launch of a product. The potential achievement of many of these milestones may be outside of our control. Each of these milestones is based on a variety of assumptions which, if not realized as expected, may cause the timing of such potential achievement of the respective milestones to vary considerably from our estimates, including:

If we fail to achieve any announced milestones in the timeframes we expect, the development and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, and our business and results of operations may be harmed and it could negatively impact our share price performance. Please see “Business” for more information.

Competitive products may reduce or eliminate commercial opportunity for our product candidates, if approved. If our competitors develop technologies or product candidates more rapidly than we do, or their technologies or product candidates are more effective or safer than any such technologies or product candidate of ours, our ability to develop and successfully commercialize our own technologies or product candidates may be adversely affected.

The clinical and commercial landscapes for the solution of opioid abuse and drug overdose are highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We face competition with respect to our indications for our product candidates and will face competition with respect to any other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are several large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell drugs or are pursuing the development of product candidates for the treatment of the indications that we are pursuing. These companies include, but are not limited to, Purdue Pharma, LP, and Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. Potential competitors include companies developing novel non-opioid pain drug candidates such as pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

We believe that a significant number of product candidates are currently under development for the same indications that we are currently pursuing, and some or all may become commercially available in the future for the treatment of conditions for which we are trying or may try to develop product candidates. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. See the section entitled “Business — Competition” for examples of the competition that our product candidates face.

Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than us. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in obtaining regulatory approval for therapies and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ products may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any product candidate we may commercialize and may render our therapies obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover development and commercialization expenses. If any of our product candidates, including PF614, is approved, these product candidates could compete with a range of therapeutic treatments that are in development. In addition, our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing technologies and products that are more effective or less costly than PF614, our other product candidates or any other product candidates that we may develop, which could render our product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive.

If we obtain approval for any of our product candidates, we may face competition based on many different factors, including the efficacy, safety and tolerability of our products, the ease with which our products can be administered, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage and patent position. Existing and future competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including being more effective, safer, less expensive or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop.

Competitive products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we are able to recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

In addition, our competitors may obtain patent protection, regulatory exclusivities or FDA approval and commercialize products more rapidly than we do, if we are successful at all, which may impact future approvals or sales of any of our product candidates that receive regulatory approval. If the FDA approves the commercial sale of PF614 or any other product candidate, we will also be competing with respect to marketing capabilities and manufacturing efficiency. We expect any such competition among products will be based on product efficacy and safety, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals, availability of supply, marketing and sales capabilities, product price, reimbursement coverage by government and private third-party payors, regulatory exclusivities and patent position. Our profitability and financial position will suffer if our product candidates receive regulatory approval but cannot compete effectively in the marketplace.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our business could be harmed if we lose the services of our key personnel or if we are unable to hire additional highly qualified employees.

Our business depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel, including managerial, sales and technical personnel. We compete for key personnel with other companies, healthcare institutions, academic institutions, government entities and other organizations. Our ability to maintain and expand our business may be impaired if we are unable to retain our current key personnel or hire or retain other qualified personnel in the future.

We currently only have seven full-time employees and five consultants and we expect to add additional employees. Our future success also depends on our ability to identify, attract, hire or engage, retain and motivate other well-qualified managerial, technical, clinical and regulatory personnel.

Competition for such individuals, particularly in the United States, is intense, and we may not be able to hire sufficient personnel to support our efforts. There can be no assurance that such professionals will be available in the market, or that we will be able to retain existing professionals or to meet or to continue to meet their compensation requirements. Furthermore, our cost base with respect to such compensation, which may include equity compensation, may increase significantly, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results, including the potential for additional dilution to our stockholders. Failure to establish and maintain an effective management team and work force could adversely affect our ability to operate, grow and manage our business.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that we and our contract research organizations’ (“CROs”) employees and contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and regulations of the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such regulatory bodies; manufacturing standards; federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse and health regulatory laws and other similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained during clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations

Some of our programs are partially supported by government grant awards, which may not be available to us in the future.

We have received funding under grant award programs funded by governmental agencies, such as the NIH and NIDA. To fund a portion of our future research and development programs, we may apply for additional grant funding from these or similar governmental agencies in the future. However, funding by these, and other, governmental agencies may be significantly reduced or eliminated in the future for several reasons. For example, some programs are subject to a yearly appropriations process in Congress. In addition, we may not receive full funding under current or future grants because of budgeting constraints of the agency administering the program or unsatisfactory progress on the study being funded. Also, the continued spread of COVID-19 could affect governmental priorities in the future or prospective funding for our product candidates. Therefore, we cannot provide any assurance that we will receive any future grant funding from any government agencies, or, that if received, we will receive the full amount of the particular grant award. Any such reductions could delay the development of our product candidates and the introduction of new products.

Dependent on financing, we expect to expand our organization, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

Dependent on financing, we expect to experience growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our management may need to devote a significant amount of their attention to managing these growth activities. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, retain key employees, or identify, recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our inability to manage the expansion of our operations effectively may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could also require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If we are unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate revenues could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy, including the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

The failure of financial institutions or transactional counterparties could adversely affect our current and projected business operations and our financial condition and results of operations. 

On March 8, 2023, Silvergate Bank announced that it would self liquidate. On March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) appointed as receiver.  On March 12, 2023, Signature Bank was closed by the New York State Department of Financial Services, with the FDIC appointed as receiver. The standard deposit insurance amount is up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for specified account categories. Although we do not have any funds deposited with the above-named banks, we regularly maintain cash balances with other financial institutions in excess of the FDIC insurance limit. A failure of a depository institution to return deposits could impact access to our invested cash or cash equivalents and could adversely impact our liquidity and financial performance.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third-Party Providers

We currently rely on, and expect to rely on in the future, third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for completing such trials, failing to satisfy legal or regulatory requirements or terminating the relationship.

We currently rely on, and expect to rely on in the future, third-party CROs to conduct research and development activities and our clinical trials for our product candidates. Agreements with these CROs might terminate for a variety of reasons, including for their failure to perform. Entry into alternative arrangements, if necessary, could significantly delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these CROs for research and development activities and clinical trials will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of any of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols in the applicable IND. Moreover, the FDA requires compliance with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected.

If these CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct the clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, it could adversely affect the development of our product candidates and it could result in us not being able to obtain, or being delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and it could adversely affect our efforts to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

We expect to be completely dependent on third parties to manufacture our product candidates, and our commercialization of our product candidates could be halted, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, fail to provide to us with sufficient quantities of our product candidates or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the capability or infrastructure to manufacture the ingredients in our product candidates for use in our clinical trials or for commercial product, if any. We have entered into a Manufacturing Agreement (the “Recro Agreement”) with Recro Gainesville LLC (“Recro”) now known as Societal CDMO, (“Societal”) for the production of PF614 capsules and other materials and services with respect to our clinical studies. In addition, we do not have the capability to encapsulate any of our product candidates as a finished product for commercial distribution. As a result, we expect to be obligated to rely on contract manufacturers, like Societal, if and when any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization. In the event that Societal is unable to perform its obligations under the Recro Agreement, we may be unable to replace the Societal Agreement on terms as favorable to us. We have not entered into an agreement with any contract manufacturers for commercial supply and may not be able to engage a contract manufacturer for commercial supply of any of our product candidates on favorable terms to us, or at all.

The processes used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the facilities at which the product candidates are manufactured must maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities. FDA and foreign regulatory authorities will conduct inspections after we submit a new drug application, or NDA, to the FDA or its equivalent to other relevant regulatory authorities. We will not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, its contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished products. These cGMP regulations cover all aspects of the manufacturing, testing, quality control and record keeping relating to our product candidates. If our contract manufacturers, including Societal, do not successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, our product candidates may not be approved. If these facilities do not maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, or comparable regulatory authorities, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Our contract manufacturers, including Societal, will be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, DEA and corresponding state and foreign agencies for compliance with cGMPs, security, recordkeeping and similar regulatory requirements. Although we will not have control over our contract manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards, we are nonetheless responsible for assuring such compliance. Failure by any of our contract manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure to grant approval to market any of our product candidates, delays, suspensions or withdrawals of approvals, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our business and results of operations. Failure by our contract manufacturers to comply with or maintain any of these standards could adversely affect our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market any of our product candidates.

If, for any reason, these third parties, including Societal, are unable or unwilling to perform, we may not be able to terminate our agreements with them, and we may not be able to locate alternative manufacturers or formulators or enter into favorable agreements with them and we cannot be certain that any such third parties will have the manufacturing capacity to meet future requirements. If these manufacturers or any alternate manufacturer of finished drug product experiences any significant difficulties in its respective manufacturing processes for our ingredients or finished products or should cease doing business with us, we could experience significant interruptions in the supply of any of our product candidates or may not be able to create a supply of our product candidates at all. Our inability to coordinate the efforts of our third-party manufacturing partners, or the lack of capacity available at our third-party manufacturing partners, could impair our ability to supply any of our product candidates at required levels. Because of the significant regulatory requirements that we would need to satisfy in order to qualify a new bulk or finished product manufacturer, if we face these or other difficulties with our current manufacturing partners, we could experience significant interruptions in the supply of any of our product candidates if we decide to transfer the manufacture of any of our product candidates to one or more alternative manufacturers in an effort to deal with the difficulties.

Any manufacturing problem or the loss of a contract manufacturer, including Societal, could be disruptive to our operations and delay development of our investigational products. Additionally, we rely on third parties to supply the raw materials needed to manufacture our potential products. 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 a future contract manufacturer caused by problems at suppliers could delay shipment of any of our investigational products and, if approved, product candidates.

We cannot guarantee that our future manufacturing and supply partners will be able to reduce the costs of commercial scale manufacturing of any of our product candidates over time. If the commercial-scale manufacturing costs of any of our product candidates are higher than expected, these costs may significantly impact our operating results. In order to reduce costs, we may need to develop and implement process improvements. However, in order to do so, we will need, from time to time, to notify or make submissions with regulatory authorities, and the improvements may be subject to approval by such regulatory authorities.

We cannot be sure that we will receive these necessary approvals or that these approvals will be granted in a timely fashion. We also cannot guarantee that we will be able to enhance and optimize output in our commercial manufacturing process. If we cannot enhance and optimize output, we may not be able to reduce our costs over time.

If we are unable to develop our sales, marketing and distribution capability on our own or through collaborations with marketing partners, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution capabilities. We intend to establish a sales and marketing organization, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize PF614 or one or more of our other product candidates that may receive regulatory approval in key territories. These efforts will require substantial additional resources, some or all of which may be incurred in advance of any approval of the product candidate. Any failure or delay in the development of our or third parties’ internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of PF614, our other product candidates and other future product candidates.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our product candidates on our own include:

With respect to our existing and future product candidates, we may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems to serve as an alternative to our own sales force and distribution systems. Our future product revenue may be lower than if we directly marketed or sold our product candidates, if approved. In addition, any revenue we receive will depend in whole or in part upon the efforts of these third parties, which may not be successful and are generally not within our control. If we are not successful in commercializing any approved products, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Risks Related to Product Development, Regulatory Approval, Manufacturing and Commercialization

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

We are not permitted to commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate in the United States without obtaining regulatory approval from the FDA. Foreign regulatory authorities, such as the EMA, impose similar requirements. The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is inherently unpredictable, but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. To date, we have not submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar drug approval submissions to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for our most advanced product candidate, PF614, or any other product candidate. We must complete additional preclinical studies and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans before we will be able to obtain these approvals.

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is inherently uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. The clinical development of our initial and potential additional product candidates is susceptible to the risk of failure inherent at any stage of development, including failure to demonstrate efficacy in a clinical trial or across a broad population of patients, the occurrence of adverse events that are severe or medically or commercially unacceptable, failure to comply with protocols or applicable regulatory requirements, and determination by the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority that a product candidate may not continue development or is not approvable. It is possible that even if any of our product candidates has a beneficial effect, that effect will not be detected during clinical evaluation as a result of one or more of a variety of factors, including the size, duration, design, measurements, conduct or analysis of our clinical trials. Conversely, as a result of the same factors, our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of such product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any. Similarly, in our clinical trials, we may fail to detect toxicity of, or intolerability caused by, such product candidate, or mistakenly believe that our product candidates are toxic or not well tolerated when that is not in fact the case. Serious adverse events, or SAEs, or other adverse effects, as well as tolerability issues, could hinder or prevent market acceptance of the product candidate at issue.

Our current and future product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

This lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of clinical trial results may result in us failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any product candidate we develop, which would substantially harm our business, results of operations and prospects. The FDA and other comparable foreign authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and determining when or whether regulatory approval will be granted for any product candidate that we develop. Even if we believe the data collected from future clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or any other regulatory authority.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with labeling that does not include the claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

The FDA may recommend scheduling with respect to any of our current or future product candidates. In such event, prior to a product launch, the DEA will need to determine the controlled substance schedule of the product, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA. The timing of the scheduling process is uncertain and may delay our ability to market any product candidate that we successfully developed and approved.

If our clinical trials fail to replicate positive results from earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by us or third parties, we may be unable to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize our product candidates.

The results observed from preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials of our product candidates may not necessarily be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials that we conduct. Similarly, positive results from such preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials may not be replicated in our subsequent preclinical studies or clinical trials. For example, preclinical studies showed that PF614 does not readily convert into oxycodone in the blood stream following direct injection, and the Phase 1 trial we have conducted with TAAP prodrug PF614 (“prodrug”: a medication or compound that, after administration, is metabolized, i.e., converted within the body into a pharmacologically active drug), demonstrated that, after oral administration, the corresponding opioid was measured in the subjects’ blood. Furthermore, our product candidates may not be able to demonstrate similar activity or adverse event profiles as other product candidates that we believe may have similar profiles.

There can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our product candidates. There is a high failure rate for drugs proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in early-stage development, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical trials were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events.

Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval.

The FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our regulatory plan for our product candidates.

We have submitted IND applications for PF614 and nafamostat and completed a Phase 1 trial for each product candidate. We have applied for and received fast track designation for PF614. However, fast track designation does not guaranty a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not assure FDA approval. We have received feedback from the FDA on requirements to achieve abuse deterrent labeling claims for PF614. We have submitted an IND for PF614-MPAR™ and have received feedback on required pre-clinical, manufacturing and clinical studies that will be required for an NDA.

Our clinical trial results may not support approval of our product candidates. The general approach for FDA approval of a new drug is dispositive data from two or more well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials of the product candidate in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve a large number of patients, have significant costs, and take years to complete. In addition, there is no assurance that the endpoints and trial designs that we intend to use for our planned clinical trials, including those that we have developed based on feedback from regulatory agencies or those that have been used for the approval of similar drugs, will be acceptable for future approvals. For example, while we have designed our Phase 2 clinical trials of nafamostat for coronaviral infections after receiving input and feedback from the FDA, there can be no assurance that the design of our planned clinical trials will be satisfactory to the FDA, the FDA will not require us to modify our trials, these trials will enable us to conduct the required Phase 3 studies or other testing or that completing these trials will result in regulatory approval.

Interim topline and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim topline or preliminary data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data is available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our reputation and business prospects.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of our product candidates.

Any product candidate we develop and the activities associated with such development and commercialization, including our design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of the product candidates we are developing or may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. Ensysce has no experience in submitting and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and we expect to rely on third-party CROs or regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude us from obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and requires additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval that we may ultimately obtain could be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable. For example, during the product approval process, the FDA will determine whether a REMS plan is necessary to assure the safe use of the product. All opioid analgesic products currently on the market in the United States are subject to a REMS. A REMS may be required to include various elements, such as a medication guide or patient package insert, a communication plan to educate health care providers of the risks, limitations on who may prescribe or dispense the drug or other measures that the FDA deems necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. In addition, the REMS plan must include a timetable to assess the strategy at eighteen months, three years and seven years after approval. We may be required to develop a REMS for the product, or participate in a REMS with other manufacturers, or to develop a similar strategy as required by a regulatory authority.

Even if approved, our contract manufacturers will need to obtain quota from DEA to manufacture sufficient quantities and maintain inventories of product to be commercially distributed.

If we experience delays in obtaining manufacturing approval or if we fail to obtain manufacturing approval of any product candidates we may develop, the commercial prospects for those product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

We may incur unexpected costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the preclinical and clinical studies necessary for development and commercialization of our product candidates.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective in humans. We may experience delays in completing our clinical trials or preclinical studies and initiating or completing additional clinical trials or preclinical studies, including as a result of regulators not allowing or delay in allowing clinical trials to proceed under an IND, or not approving or delaying approval for any clinical trial grant or similar approval that we need to initiate a clinical trial. We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during our clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize the product candidates we develop, including:

Regulators or IRBs of the institutions in which clinical trials are being conducted may suspend, limit or terminate a clinical trial, or data monitoring committees may recommend that we suspend or terminate a clinical trial, due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold (such as the clinical hold placed on PF614-MPAR in January 2021), safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. Negative or inconclusive results from our clinical trials or preclinical studies could mandate repeated or additional clinical trials and, to the extent we choose to conduct clinical trials in other indications, could result in changes to or delays in clinical trials of our product candidates in such other indications. We do not know whether any clinical trials that we conduct will demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety to result in regulatory approval to market our product candidates for the indications that we are pursuing. If later-stage clinical trials do not produce favorable results, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates will be adversely impacted.

Our failure to successfully initiate and complete clinical trials and to demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates would significantly harm its business. The development costs of our product candidates will also increase if we experience delays in testing or regulatory approvals and we may be required to obtain additional funds to complete clinical trials. We cannot assure stockholders that our clinical trials will begin as planned or be completed on schedule, if at all, or that we will not need to restructure or otherwise modify our trials after they have begun. Significant clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which may harm our business and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, delays of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with our protocols depends on, among other things, our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of factors, including:

In addition, our clinical trials may compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Furthermore, if significant adverse events or other side effects are observed in any of our clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our trials and patients may drop out of our trials.

Our inability to enroll enough patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays or might require us to abandon one or more clinical trials or our development efforts altogether. Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs, negatively affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, delay the product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to seek and obtain the regulatory approval required to commence product sales and generate revenue, which could cause our value to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing if needed.

Fast track designation by the FDA for PF614 for chronic pain may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not assure FDA approval.

We have obtained fast track designation for PF614 for management of moderate to severe chronic pain when a continuous, around-the-clock analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. We believe that fast track designation will enable us to facilitate the development and expedite the review of PF614. Fast track designation does not ensure that PF614 will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. As a result, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast track designation does not guarantee that an NDA will obtain priority review designation. If any of these events occur, it could require us to conduct more extensive clinical trials and go through more extensive FDA review, which could substantially increase expenses and delay the time for commercializing our products.

If the FDA does not conclude that certain of our product candidates satisfy the requirements for the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway, or if the requirements for such product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for those product candidates will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in either case may not be successful.

We may seek FDA approval through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for our product candidate PF614. Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDC Act, permits the submission of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDC Act, would allow an NDA we submit to FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or on the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of an approved product, or listed drug, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. If the FDA does not agree that the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway is appropriate or scientifically justified for PF614, we may need to conduct additional preclinical and clinical trials, provide additional data and information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. For example, the FDA may not agree that we have provided a scientific bridge, through comparative bioavailability data, to demonstrate that reliance on the prior findings of safety or efficacy for a listed drug is justified. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for this product candidate, and complications and risks associated with this product candidate, would likely substantially increase. We could need to obtain additional funding, which could result in significant dilution to the ownership interests of our then existing stockholders to the extent we issue equity securities or convertible debt. We cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain such additional financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway may result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than our product candidates, which would likely materially adversely impact of our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure our stockholders that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2) over the last few years, certain brand-name pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2). The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. Even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to accelerated product development or earlier approval.

Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved under Section 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

If we submit a 505(b)(2) application that references a third-party product, we may be subject to a patent infringement suit and the approval of our product may be delayed.

If we submit a 505(b)(2) application that relies in whole or in FDA’s findings for a listed drug, we will be required to certify to the FDA that either: (1) there is no patent information listed in the FDA’s publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, which we refer to as the Orange Book, with respect to the listed drug; (2) the patents listed in the Orange Book have expired; (3) the listed patents have not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of our product. A certification that our new drug will not infringe the Orange Book-listed patents for the applicable listed drug, or that such patents are invalid, is called a paragraph IV certification. If we submit a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, a notice of the paragraph IV certification must also be sent to the NDA holder once our 505(b)(2) application is filed by the FDA. The third party may then initiate a lawsuit to defend the patents identified in the notice. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of receipt of the notice automatically prevents the FDA from approving our 505(b)(2) application until the earliest of 30 months or the date on which the patent expires, the lawsuit is settled, or the court reaches a decision in the infringement lawsuit in our favor. If the third party does not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, our 505(b)(2) application will not be subject to the 30-month stay of FDA approval.

Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates proceed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards potential approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the materials manufactured using altered processes. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. This could delay or prevent completion of clinical trials, require conducting bridging clinical trials or repeating one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay or prevent approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence sales and generate revenue.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following regulatory approval, if obtained.

Undesirable side effects caused by any of our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in restrictive warnings or contraindication or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In our planned and future clinical trials of our product candidates, we may observe a less favorable safety and tolerability profile than was observed in earlier-stage testing of these candidates.

Undesirable side effects have been observed in our product candidates to date. For example, in clinical trials of PF614, opioid side effects were observed. Many compounds that initially showed promise in clinical or earlier-stage testing are later found to cause undesirable or unexpected side effects that prevented further development of the compound. Results of future clinical trials of our product candidates could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics, despite a favorable tolerability profile observed in earlier-stage testing. If unacceptable side effects arise in the development of our product candidates, we, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the IRBs, or independent ethics committees at the institutions in which its trials are conducted, could suspend, limit or terminate our clinical trials, or the independent safety monitoring committee could recommend that we suspend, limit or terminate our trials, or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-emergent side effects that are deemed to be drug-related could delay recruitment of clinical trial subjects or may cause subjects that enroll in our clinical trials to discontinue participation in our clinical trials. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We may need to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in harm to patients that are administered our product candidates. Any of these occurrences may adversely affect our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Moreover, clinical trials of our product candidates are conducted in carefully defined sets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects.

FDA’s evolving standards for the approval of opioid products may delay or prevent approval of our product candidates.

FDA has identified addressing misuse and abuse of opioid drugs as one of its highest priorities. As part of its plan, the agency has established new standards for the development of prescription opioids with abuse-deterrent formulations and has published two sets of guidance. Since the publication of the second guidance in November 2017, FDA has not approved any new abuse–deterrent opioid drugs. If we are unable to meet FDA’s new and evolving standards for approving opioid products, we will not be able to market our products.

Product liability lawsuits against us or any of our future collaborators could divert our resources and attention, cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We are exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of pharmaceutical products. Currently, we have no products that have been approved for commercial sale; however, the use of our product candidates by us and any collaborators in clinical trials, and the sale of these product candidates, if approved, in the future, may expose us to liability claims. We face an inherent risk of product liability lawsuits related to the use of our product candidates in patients and will face an even greater risk if product candidates are approved by regulatory authorities and introduced commercially. Product liability claims may be brought against us by participants enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, our collaborators or others using, administering or selling any of our future approved products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against any such claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, clinical development does not always fully characterize the safety and efficacy profile of a new medicine, and it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If our product candidates were to cause adverse side effects during clinical trials or after approval, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities. Physicians and patients may not comply with any warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and patients who should not use our product candidates. If any of our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of us and the safety and quality of our products. We could be adversely affected if we are subject to negative publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies.

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage consistent with industry norms, including clinical trial liability, this insurance may not fully cover potential liabilities that we may incur. The cost of any product liability litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. We will need to increase our insurance coverage if we commercialize any product that receives regulatory approval. In addition, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. If we are unable to maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, it could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Oxycodone is a Schedule II controlled substance under the federal CSA, and any failure to comply with the CSA or its state equivalents would have a negative impact on our business.

Oxycodone, the ingredient in PF614, is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, or CSA and regulations promulgated by the DEA. The law and regulations classify substances as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V controlled substances, with Schedule I controlled substances considered to present the highest risk of substance abuse and Schedule V controlled substances the lowest risk. Scheduled controlled substances are subject to DEA regulations relating to supply, procurement, manufacturing, storage, shipment, sale, use, distribution and physician prescription procedures. For example, Schedule II controlled substances are subject to various restrictions, including, but not limited to, mandatory written prescriptions and the prohibition of refills. In addition to federal scheduling, oxycodone is subject to state-controlled substance laws and regulations, and in some cases, with additional requirements than those imposed by federal law and regulations. Though state controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may schedule products separately.

Entities must register annually with the DEA to manufacture, distribute, dispense, import, export and conduct research using controlled substances. In addition, the DEA requires entities handling controlled substances to maintain complete and accurate records and file reports, including reports related to thefts or losses of any controlled substances, and to obtain authorization to destroy any controlled substances. Registered entities also must follow specific labeling and packaging requirements. Facilities must maintain appropriate security measures to control against diversion of controlled substances. Security requirements vary by controlled substance schedule with the most stringent requirements applying to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances. Required security measures include background checks on employees and physical control of inventory through measures such as vaults and inventory reconciliations.

Our contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, who manufacture and distribute PF614 are required to be registered with DEA and relevant state authorities and comply with all security, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Manufacturers and distributors are subject to routine inspections and audits by the DEA related to compliance with security, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Failure to maintain the required registrations or to comply and follow these requirements can lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and possibly even lead to a revocation of a DEA registration to manufacture or distribute such products.

Manufacturing of oxycodone is subject to annual quotas that limit the amount of API and dosage forms that can be produced in any given year; the failure of our CMOs to obtain the necessary manufacturing and/or procurement quota would have a negative impact on our business.

The CSA and DEA regulations establish an annual aggregate production quota for Schedule I and II controlled substances, including oxycodone and other narcotic drugs. In addition, each manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API or dosage forms must obtain an individual manufacturing or production quota that limits the amount of product that a company can produce and/or distribute each year. The DEA allocates manufacturing quota issued to companies so as to not exceed the aggregate quota established for a given year. Moreover, companies must demonstrate the need for procurement quota based on expected demand and sales of the controlled substance the DEA requires the submission of substantial evidence of expected legitimate medical and scientific need for the drug product before assigning its aggregate production quotas, or manufacturing and procurement quotas to manufacturers. The DEA has decreased the aggregate quota for certain narcotic drugs, including oxycodone over the last five years. Also, in October 2018, Congress passed the SUPPORT Act which requires the DEA to consider potential diversion in establishing quotas for narcotic drugs which could lead to continued decreases in quota available to API manufacturers and dosage form manufacturers of these substances.

In future years, we may need greater amounts of controlled substances that are subject to the DEA’s quota system to sustain our development program. We may also need significantly greater amounts to implement our commercialization plans if the FDA approves our proposed formulations. If any of our manufacturers of API or dosage forms are unable to obtain the necessary annual quota to meet the research and development or commercial demand for PF614, our business would be negatively impacted. Any delay or refusal by the DEA in establishing a quota, a reduction in quota, or a failure to increase quota over time could delay or stop the clinical development or commercial sale of some of our products or product candidates. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize product candidates that are similar or identical to our product candidates, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our commercial success will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with significant commercial markets with respect to our product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our product candidates that are important to our business, as appropriate. We cannot be certain that patents will be issued or granted with respect to applications that are currently pending or that we may apply for in the future with respect to one or more of our product candidates, or that issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid and/or unenforceable.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we may enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, distribution partners, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection.

The patent position of pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued, and even if issued, the patents may not meaningfully protect our product candidates, effectively prevent competitors and third parties from commercializing competitive products or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Even if the patent applications that we own or licenses issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. For product candidates for which we do not hold or do not obtain composition of matter patents, competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval can offer products with the same composition as our product candidate so long as the competitors do not infringe any method patents that we may hold. Method patents protect the product when used or sold for the specified method. However, this type of patent protection can be more difficult to enforce and does not limit a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product candidate that is either labeled or marketed for an indication that is outside of the patented method, or for which there is a substantial use in commerce outside the patented method. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative products in a non-infringing manner.

Changes in either the patent laws, implementing regulations or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may also diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. The laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions.

We cannot be certain that our patents and patent rights will be effective in protecting our product candidates and technologies. Failure to protect such assets may have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, financial condition and prospects.

We may face litigation from third parties claiming that our products or business infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights, or seeking to challenge the validity of our patents.

Our future success is also dependent in part on the strength of our intellectual property, trade secrets and know-how, which have been developed from years of research and development, and on our ability, and the ability of our future collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates, if approved, and use our proprietary technologies without alleged or actual infringement, misappropriation or other violation of the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties.

We may be exposed to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or additional future litigation by third parties regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current and any future product candidates and technology, including interference or derivation proceedings, post grant review and inter partes review before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or similar adversarial proceedings or litigation in other jurisdictions seeking to challenge the validity of our intellectual property rights, claiming that we have misappropriated the trade secrets of others, or claiming that our technologies, products or activities infringe the intellectual property rights of others.

There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, post grant review, inter partes review and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties.

We are aware of patents owned by third parties, including potential competitors, that are directed to compositions comprising a chemically modified opioid, such as oxycodone, which decreases the potential of the opioid to be abused or cause overdose and related methods of use. Third parties, including potential competitors, may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future including, perhaps, the aforementioned patents, regardless of their merit. There is a risk that third parties may choose to engage in litigation with us to enforce or to otherwise assert their patent rights against us.

Even if we believe such claims are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed, and the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our compositions, formulations, or methods of treatment, prevention or use, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtain a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. Some claimants may have substantially greater resources than we do and may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation to a greater degree and for longer periods of time than we could. In addition, patent holding companies that focus solely on extracting royalties and settlements by enforcing patent rights may target us.

Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or to enable the commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In such an event, we would be unable to further practice our technologies or develop and commercialize any of our product candidates at issue, which could harm our business and financial condition significantly.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, if approved. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee time and resources from our business. Third parties making such claims may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to these legal actions than us or our licensors or collaborators can. In the event of a successful claim of infringement, misappropriation or other violation against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. The cost to us of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. During the course of any patent or other intellectual property litigation or other proceeding, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our product candidates or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, ability to compete in the marketplace, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property, or those of our licensors. To counter infringement, misappropriation, unauthorized use or other violations, we may be required to file legal claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel.

There can be no assurances that we will be successful with respect to any litigation matters which may arise in the ordinary course of our business. Such a failure may have a material impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition in the future.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with any future licensors, infringement, misappropriation or other violations of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

In any infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property litigation, any award of monetary damages we receive may not be commercially valuable. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

The expiration or loss of patent protection may adversely affect our future revenues and operating earnings.

We rely on patent, trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property protection in the discovery, development, manufacturing and sale of our product candidates. In particular, patent protection is important in the development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. Patents covering our product candidates normally provide market exclusivity, which is important in order to improve the probability that our product candidates are able to become profitable.

Certain of our patents relating to PF614 will expire in 2030. In addition, certain of our patents relating to the use of nafamostat for treating respiratory diseases will expire in 2028. While we are seeking additional patent coverage which may protect the technology underlying these patents, there can be no assurances that such additional patent protection will be granted, or if granted, that these patents will not be infringed upon or otherwise held enforceable. Even if we are successful in obtaining a patent, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a utility patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection of our product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of such methods and compositions.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by extending the patent term, our business may be harmed.

Our commercial success will largely depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting our product candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates begin to be commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the United States and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our United States patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension, or PTE, under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years beyond the normal expiration of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during development and the FDA regulatory review process, which is limited to the approved indication (and potentially additional indications approved during the period of extension) covered by the patent. This extension is limited to only one patent that covers the approved product, the approved use of the product, or a method of manufacturing the product. If we are unable to extend the expiration date of our existing patents or obtain new patents with longer expiry dates, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data to obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world, which could negatively impact our business.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents covering our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Further, licensing partners may not prosecute patents in certain jurisdictions in which we may obtain commercial rights, thereby precluding the possibility of later obtaining patent protection in these countries. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop our own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in our expected significant markets, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in all of our expected significant foreign markets.

Additionally, the requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. For example, unlike other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability, and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. In India, unlike the United States, there is no link between regulatory approval of a drug and our patent status. Furthermore, generic or biosimilar drug manufacturers or other competitors may challenge the scope, validity or enforceability of us or our licensors’ patents, requiring us or our licensees or any future licensors to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. In addition, certain countries in Europe and developing countries, including China and India, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, We and our licensees or any future licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensees or any future licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, we and our licensees’ or any future licensors’ efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license.

Changes in European law have caused uncertainty about our European patent portfolio and may result in additional costs to us.

In 2012, the European Patent Package, or EU Patent Package, regulations were passed with the goal of providing for a single pan-European Unitary Patent, and a new European Unified Patent Court, or UPC, for litigation of European patents. The EU Patent Package was ratified in February 2023 and currently covers 17 member states. On June 1, 2023, all European patents, including those issued prior to ratification, will by default automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the UPC and allow for the possibility of obtaining pan-European injunctions, and further will be at risk of a central revocation proceeding at the UPC in participating UPC states. Under the EU Patent Package, patent holders are permitted to “opt out” of the UPC on a patent-by-patent basis during an initial seven year period after the EU Patent Package is ratified, with the proviso that an “opt-out” is no longer available for EP patents for which a revocation has been initiated before the UPC. Owners of European patent applications who receive notice of grant after the EU Patent Package is ratified could, for the UPC contracting states, either obtain a Unitary Patent or validate the patent nationally and file an opt-out demand. The EU Patent Package may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the enforcement or defense of our issued European patents and pending applications. The full impact on future European patent filing strategy and the enforcement or defense of our issued European patents in member states and/or the UPC is not known.

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, contractors or advisors have infringed, misappropriated or otherwise violated the intellectual property of a third party, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of the contributors to our intellectual property, including patents and applications, were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the intellectual property and other proprietary information, know-how or trade secrets of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these employees have used or disclosed such intellectual property or other proprietary information. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

In addition, while we typically require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. For example, we have not obtained assignments for certain patent applications relating to abuse-resistant amphetamines. To the extent that we fail to obtain such assignments, such assignments do not contain a self-executing assignment of intellectual property rights or such assignments are breached, we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and scientific personnel.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed and if we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and products, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, in seeking to develop and maintain a competitive position. Because we expect to rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates and we expect to collaborate with third parties on the development of our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, consultants, independent contractors, advisors, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, suppliers and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with employees and certain consultants. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data, trade secrets and know-how by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective.

Since our inception, we have sought to contract with manufacturers to supply commercial quantities of pharmaceutical formulations and products. As a result, we have disclosed, under confidentiality agreements, various aspects of our technology with potential manufacturers and suppliers. We believe that these disclosures, while necessary for our business, may have resulted and may result in the attempt by potential manufacturers and suppliers to improperly assert ownership claims to our technology in an attempt to gain an advantage in negotiating manufacturing and supplier rights.

We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Any party with whom we have executed such an agreement may breach that agreement and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts both within and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Further, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such third party, or those to whom they communicate such technology or information, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business and competitive position could be harmed.

Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect as trade secrets and know-how will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles, and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. If we fail to prevent material disclosure of the know-how, trade secrets and other intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Even if we are able to adequately protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, our trade secrets could otherwise become known or could be independently discovered by our competitors. For example, we are aware that certain of our former employees founded Elysium Therapeutics, which appears to be developing orally administered abuse deterrent opioids. Additionally, competitors could purchase our products and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, in the absence of patent protection, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate, from using that technology or information to compete with us.

We may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property, trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we own or that we may own or license in the future. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own; our licensors may face similar obstacles. In addition, we have not updated the records in the patent offices to reflect our ownership of our patent filings relating to PF614 and other technologies. Failure to update such ownership may result in an innocent purchaser potentially acquiring rights in such patents that are adverse to our interests. Furthermore, as noted above, we have not obtained assignments for certain patent applications relating to abuse-resistant amphetamines. We could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

To the extent undertaken, we cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is or may be relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are not published until approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. In addition, certain United States patent applications can remain confidential until patents issue. Therefore, patent applications covering our products could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use of our product candidates.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, and our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates.

If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign product candidates or services so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.

Our intellectual property agreements with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. Disputes may arise between us and any of these counterparties regarding intellectual property rights that are subject to such agreements, including, but not limited to:

The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under any agreements, we may be required to pay damages and could lose intellectual property rights that are necessary or useful for developing and protecting our product candidates.

We have acquired all intellectual property rights from Signature and Mucokinetica, Ltd. (“Mucokinetica”), with the exception of our pending application directed to the use of orally administered nafamostat to treat coronaviruses. Any future collaboration agreements or license agreements we enter into are likely to impose various development, commercialization, funding, milestone, royalty, diligence, sublicensing, insurance, patent prosecution and enforcement or other obligations on us. If we breach any such material obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, which could result in us being unable to develop, manufacture and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology, or having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses on less favorable terms, or enable a competitor to gain access to the licensed technology.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our business.

Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such grant. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. In addition, the degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because even granted intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business. The following examples are illustrative:

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The validity, scope and enforceability of any patents listed in the Orange Book that cover our product candidates can be challenged by third parties.

If one of our product candidates is approved by the FDA, one or more third parties may challenge the current patents, or patents that may issue in the future, within our portfolio which could result in the invalidation of, or render unenforceable, some or all of the relevant patent claims or a finding of non-infringement. For example, if a third party submits an application under Section 505(b)(2) or an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, for a generic drug containing any of our product candidates, and relies in whole or in part on studies conducted by or for us, the third party will be required to certify to the FDA that either: (1) there is no patent information listed in the Orange Book with respect to our NDA for the applicable approved drug candidate; (2) the patents listed in the Orange Book have expired; (3) the listed patents have not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the third party’s generic drug. A certification that the new drug will not infringe the Orange Book-listed patents for the applicable approved drug candidate, or that such patents are invalid, is called a paragraph IV certification. If the third party submits a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, a notice of the paragraph IV certification must also be sent to us once the third party’s ANDA is accepted for filing by the FDA. We may then initiate a lawsuit to defend the patents identified in the notice. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of receipt of the notice automatically prevents the FDA from approving the third party’s ANDA until the earliest of 30 months or the date on which the patent expires, the lawsuit is settled, or the court reaches a decision in the infringement lawsuit in favor of the third party. If we do not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, the third party’s ANDA will not be subject to the 30-month stay of FDA approval.

Moreover, a third party may challenge the current patents, or patents that may be issued in the future, within our portfolio which could result in the invalidation of some or all the patents that might otherwise be eligible for listing in the Orange Book for one of our products. If a third party successfully challenges all of the patents that might otherwise be eligible for listing in the Orange Book for one of our products, we will not be entitled to the 30-month stay of FDA approval upon the filing of an ANDA for a generic drug containing any of our product candidates, and relies in whole or in part on studies conducted by or for us. Litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often very complex in nature, may be very expensive and time-consuming, may divert our management’s attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit our ability to prevent third parties from competing with our product candidates.

Cyber-attacks or other failures in our telecommunications or information technology systems, or those of our collaborators, CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors or other contractors or consultants, could result in information theft, data corruption and significant disruption of our business operations.

We, our collaborators, CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors and other contractors and consultants utilize information technology, or IT, systems and networks to process, transmit and store electronic information in connection with our business activities. As use of digital technologies has increased, cyber incidents, including third parties gaining access to employee accounts using stolen or inferred credentials, computer malware, viruses, spamming, phishing attacks or other means, and deliberate attacks and attempts to gain unauthorized access to computer systems and networks, have increased in frequency and sophistication. These threats pose a risk to the security of us, our collaborators’, CROs’, third-party logistics providers’, distributors’ and other contractors’ and consultants’ systems and networks, and the confidentiality, availability and integrity of our data. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in preventing cyber-attacks or successfully mitigating their effects. Similarly, there can be no assurance that our collaborators, CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors and other contractors and consultants will be successful in protecting our clinical and other data that is stored on their systems. Like other companies, we have on occasion experienced, and will continue to experience, threats to our data and systems, including malicious codes and viruses, phishing, business email compromise attacks or other cyber-attacks. Any cyber-attack, data breach or destruction or loss of data could result in a violation of applicable United States and international privacy, data protection and other laws and subject us to litigation and governmental investigations and proceedings by federal, state and local regulatory entities in the United States and by international regulatory entities, resulting in exposure to material civil and/or criminal liability. Further, our general liability insurance and corporate risk program may not cover all potential claims to which we are exposed and may not be adequate to indemnify us for all liability that may be imposed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing clinical trials for any of our product candidates could result in delays in our development and regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, we may suffer reputational harm or face litigation or adverse regulatory action as a result of cyber-attacks or other data security breaches and may incur significant additional expense to implement further data protection measures.

Risks Related to the Ownership of Common Stock and Financial Reporting

Raising additional capital has caused, and may in the future cause, dilution to our stockholders, adversely affect the market price of our common stock, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our planned operations. Unless and until we can generate a substantial amount of revenue from our product candidates, we expect to finance our future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, licensing arrangements or other sources, or any combination of the foregoing. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities as we have done in the past, our stockholders’ ownership interest has been, and may in the future be, diluted. In addition, debt financing, if available, may result in fixed payment obligations and may involve agreements that include restrictive covenants that limit our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, creating liens, redeeming stock or declaring dividends, that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. In addition, securing financing could require a substantial amount of time and attention from our management and may divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our management’s ability to oversee the development of our product candidates. The possible issuance of additional shares of common stock at lower conversion prices in repayment of the 2022 Notes or obligations arising under the 2022 Notes could have a negative impact on the price of our common stock. Also, we will receive reduced proceeds if the exercise price of the Prior Warrants is reduced. The conversion price of the 2022 Notes and exercise price of the Prior Warrants issued in 2022 were reset to a price of $2.006 and we have, from time to time, temporarily lowered the conversion price such that a greater amount of principal on the 2022 Notes could be extinguished for shares. The conversion price of the 2022 Notes is $0.7512 for the period from January 12, 2023 until May 12, 2023. In the future, to conserve cash necessary for us to conduct operations, we may do similarly for amounts owed in connection with the 2022 Notes or other notes. The exercise price of the Prior Warrants issued in 2021 were reset to a price of $15.60. Because of a decline in the price of our common stock since issuance of the 2022 Notes and the ability of holders of the 2022 Notes to convert amounts payable under the 2022 Notes into additional shares of our common stock, we are required to register for resale with the SEC additional shares of common stock. We are obligated to register a sufficient number of shares of common stock for resale and our failure to timely register sufficient additional shares of common stock could cause us to default in our payments and result in our payment of additional shares and/or cash to the holders of the 2022 Notes.

In addition, we may sell securities in the public or private equity markets if and when conditions are favorable, or at prices per share below the current market price of our common stock, even if we do not have an immediate need for additional capital at that time. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our shares and our ability to raise capital. We may issue additional shares of common stock in future financing transactions or as incentive compensation for our executive management and other key personnel, consultants and advisors. Moreover, sales of substantial amounts of shares in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock and make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital.

Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making acquisitions, engaging in acquisition, merger or collaboration transactions, selling or licensing our assets, making capital expenditures, redeeming our stock, making certain investments, declaring dividends or encumbering our assets to secure future indebtedness. Such restrictions could adversely impact our ability to conduct our operations and execute our business plan. The Investor Notes contain such restrictions.

If we raise additional funds through upfront payments or milestone payments pursuant to strategic collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or intellectual property, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

In addition, any issuances of common stock pursuant to the GEM Agreement would result in dilution of the ownership interest of our shareholders. Any such issuances may also have a negative impact on the market price of our common stock because of the discount at issuance. Strike price resets of the GEM Warrants would also dilute our shareholders. See “—We require substantial additional funding. If we are unable raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or terminate our product discovery and development programs or commercialization efforts” for description of risks related to additional funding.

Our internal controls over financial reporting currently do not meet all of the standards contemplated by Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could impair our ability to produce timely and accurate financial statements or comply with applicable regulations and have a material adverse effect on our business.

We previously operated as a private company. In connection with the preparation of our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, we concluded that there were material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant deficiencies, in internal controls over financial reporting such that it is reasonably possible that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material weaknesses identified are insufficient internal controls because of inadequate technical accounting expertise and inappropriate level of supervision and review due to the limited number of accounting personnel. While we are taking steps to remediate the material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting, including hiring a Chief Financial Officer in February 2021, we may not be successful in remediating such weaknesses.

Following the Business Combination, our management has significant requirements for enhanced financial reporting and internal controls as a public company. The process of designing and implementing effective internal controls is a continuous effort that will require us to anticipate and react to changes in our business and the economic and regulatory environments and to expend significant resources to maintain a system of internal controls that is adequate to satisfy our reporting obligations as a public company. If we are unable to establish or maintain appropriate internal financial reporting controls and procedures, it could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations on a timely basis or result in material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements, which could harm our operating results. In addition, we are required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. This assessment needs to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing, and possible remediation. Testing and maintaining internal controls may divert management’s attention from other matters that are important to our business. Our independent registered public accounting firm is required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we are not required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. If we are not able to complete an initial assessment of our internal controls and otherwise implement the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to certify as to the adequacy of our internal controls over financial reporting.

Matters impacting our internal controls may cause us to be unable to report our financial information on a timely basis and thereby subject us to adverse regulatory consequences, including sanctions by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, or violations of applicable stock exchange listing rules, which may result in a breach of the covenants under existing or future financing arrangements. There also could be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. Confidence in the reliability of our financial statements also could suffer if we or our independent registered public accounting firm continue to report a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting. This could materially adversely affect us and lead to a decline in the market price of our common stock.

We are an emerging growth company and a smaller reporting company within the meaning of the Securities Act, and if we take advantage of certain exemptions from disclosure requirements available to “emerging growth companies” or “smaller reporting companies,” this could make our securities less attractive to investors and may make it more difficult to compare our performance with other public companies.

We are an “emerging growth company” within the meaning of the Securities Act, as modified by the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, our stockholders may not have access to certain information they may deem important. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the end of any second quarter of a fiscal year, in which case we would no longer be an emerging growth company as of the last day of such fiscal year. We cannot predict whether investors will find our securities less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our securities less attractive as a result of our reliance on these exemptions, the trading prices of our securities may be lower than they otherwise would be, there may be a less active trading market for our securities and the trading prices of our securities may be more volatile.

Further, Section 102(b)(1) of the JOBS Act exempts emerging growth companies from being required to comply with new or revised financial accounting standards until private companies (that is, those that have not had a registration statement under the Securities Act declared effective or do not have a class of securities registered under the Exchange Act) are required to comply with the new or revised financial accounting standards. The JOBS Act provides that a company can elect to opt out of the extended transition period and comply with the requirements that apply to non-emerging growth companies but any such election to opt out is irrevocable. We have elected not to opt out of such extended transition period, which means that when a standard is issued or revised and it has different application dates for public or private companies, we, as an emerging growth company, can adopt the new or revised standard at the time private companies adopt the new or revised standard. This may make comparison of our financial statements with another public company that is not an emerging growth company or is an emerging growth company which has opted out of using the extended transition period difficult or impossible because of the potential differences in accounting standards used.

Additionally, we are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in Item 10(f)(1) of Regulation S-K. Smaller reporting companies may take advantage of certain reduced disclosure obligations, including, among other things, providing only two years of audited financial statements. We will remain a smaller reporting company until the last day of the fiscal year in which (i) the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is greater than or equal to $250 million as of the end of that fiscal year’s second fiscal quarter, and (ii) our annual revenues are greater than or equal to $100 million during the last completed fiscal year and the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the end of that fiscal year’s second fiscal quarter. To the extent we take advantage of such reduced disclosure obligations, it may also make comparison of our financial statements with other public companies difficult or impossible.

The amount of our future losses is uncertain and our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly or fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including the following: