As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2017

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

☐

REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

​

OR

☒

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

​

For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017

OR

☐

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

​

OR

☐

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

​

Commission File Number 001-35892

GW PHARMACEUTICALS PLC

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

England and Wales

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Sovereign House, Vision Park
Chivers Way, Histon
Cambridge, CB24 9BZ
United Kingdom
(Address of principal executive offices)
Justin D. Gover, Chief Executive Officer
Sovereign House, Vision Park
Chivers Way, Histon
Cambridge, CB24 9BZ
United Kingdom
Telephone No. (44) 1223 266800
E-Mail: investors@gwpharm.com
Facsimile: (44) 1223 235667
(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report: 304,439,740 ordinary shares, par value £0.001 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 ☐

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or an emerging growth company. See definition of  “accelerated filer,” “large accelerated filer,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

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

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

U.S. GAAP ☐

Other ☐

If  “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.

Item 17 ☐ Item 18 ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

​

ii

GENERAL INFORMATION

In this annual report on Form 20-F (“Annual Report”), “GW Pharma,” the “Group,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to GW Pharmaceuticals plc and its consolidated subsidiaries, except where the context otherwise requires.

Epidiolex ® and Sativex ® are registered trademarks of GW Pharmaceuticals plc.

PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA

The consolidated financial statement data as at September 30, 2017 and 2016 and for the years ended September 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015 have been derived from our consolidated financial statements, as presented elsewhere in this Annual Report, which have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB, and as adopted by the European Union and audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). The consolidated financial statement data as at September 30, 2015, 2014 and 2013 and for the years ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 have been derived from our consolidated financial statements, which are not presented herein, which have also been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB, and as adopted by the European Union and audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).There are no differences applicable to us between IFRS as issued by the IASB and IFRS-EU for any of the periods presented herein.

All references in this Annual Report to “$” are to U.S. dollars, all references to “£” are to pounds sterling and all references to “€” are to euros. Solely for the convenience of the reader, unless otherwise indicated, all pounds sterling amounts as at and for the year ended September 30, 2017 have been translated into U.S. dollars at the rate at September 30, 2017, the last business day of our year ended September 30, 2017, of £0.7486 to $1.00. These translations should not be considered representations that any such amounts have been, could have been or could be converted into U.S. dollars at that or any other exchange rate as at that or any other date.

INFORMATION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements that are based on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections about us and our industry. All statements other than statements of historical fact in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that could cause our actual results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, performance, prospects, opportunities, achievements or industry results, as well as those of the markets we serve or intend to serve, to differ materially from those expressed in, or suggested by, these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions regarding our present and future business strategies and the environment in which we expect to operate in the future. Important factors that could cause those differences include, but are not limited to:

•

the inherent uncertainty of product development;

​

•

our and our contract manufacturers’ ability to successfully manufacture commercial quantities of our products in compliance with regulatory requirements;

​

•

our ability to establish and maintain commercialization organizations in the US, Europe and elsewhere;

​

•

our ability to submit and maintain INDs and NDAs with the FDA, including our NDA for Epidiolex as submitted on October 27, 2017;

​

•

our ability to successfully design, commence and complete clinical trials;

​

•

our ability to receive and maintain regulatory exclusivities, including Orphan Drug Designations for our drugs and our drug candidates;

​

1

•

patents, including, but not limited to, our ability to have patents issued covering our drugs, drug candidates and processes, as well as oppositions and legal challenges;

​

•

government regulation and approval, including, but not limited to, the expected timing of potential regulatory approval dates for Epidiolex;

​

•

future revenue being lower than expected;

​

•

the level of pricing and reimbursement for our products and product candidates, if approved;

​

•

increasing competitive pressures in our industry;

​

•

general economic conditions or conditions affecting demand for the products offered by us in the markets in which we operate, both domestically and internationally, being less favorable than expected;

​

•

currency fluctuations and hedging risks;

​

•

worldwide economic and business conditions and conditions in the industry in which we operate;

​

•

our relationships with our customers and suppliers;

​

•

increased competition from other companies in the industry in which we operate;

​

•

changing technology;

​

•

claims for personal injury or death arising from the use of products and product candidates produced by us;

​

•

the occurrence of accidents or other interruptions to our production processes;

​

•

changes in our business strategy or development plans, and our expected level of capital expenses;

​

•

our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, including with respect to our preparation for potential commercialization of Epidiolex;

​

•

regulatory, environmental, legislative and judicial developments;

​

•

our intention not to pay dividends; and

​

•

factors that are not known to us at this time.

​

Additional factors that could cause actual results, financial condition, liquidity, performance, prospects, opportunities, achievements or industry results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, those discussed under “Risk Factors” or elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. Additional risks that we may currently deem immaterial or that are not presently known to us could also cause the forward-looking events discussed in this Annual Report on Form 20-F not to occur. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect” and similar words are intended to identify estimates and forward-looking statements. Estimates and forward-looking statements speak only at the date they were made, and we undertake no obligation to update or to review any estimate and/or forward-looking statement because of new information, future events or other factors. Estimates and forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and are not guarantees of future performance. Our future results may differ materially from those expressed in these estimates and forward-looking statements. In light of the risks and uncertainties described above, the estimates and forward-looking statements discussed in this Annual Report on Form 20-F might not occur and our future results and our performance may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements due to, inclusive of, but not limited to, the factors mentioned above. Because of these uncertainties, you should not make any investment decision based on these estimates and forward-looking statements.

2

NOTE REGARDING EXPANDED ACCESS STUDIES

The expanded access studies we are currently supporting are uncontrolled, carried out by individual physician investigators independent from us, and not always conducted in strict compliance with Good Clinical Practices, all of which can lead to an observed treatment effect that may differ from one seen in placebo-controlled trials. Data from these studies provide only anecdotal evidence of efficacy for regulatory review, although they may provide supportive safety information for regulatory review. These studies contain no control or comparator group for reference and are not designed to be aggregated or reported as study results. Moreover, data from such small numbers of patients may be highly variable. Such information, including the statistical principles that the independent investigators have chosen to apply to the data, may not reliably predict results achieved after systematic evaluation of the efficacy in company-sponsored clinical trials or evaluated via other statistical principles that may be applied in these trials. Reliance on such information may lead to Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 clinical trials that are not adequately designed to demonstrate efficacy and could delay or prevent our ability to seek approval of Epidiolex or other product candidates. Physicians conducting these studies may use Epidiolex or other product candidates in a manner inconsistent with GW’s protocols, including in children with conditions different from those being studied in GW-sponsored trials. Any adverse events or reactions experienced by subjects in the expanded access program may be attributed to the product candidate and may limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval with labeling that we consider desirable, or at all.

3

(1)

The selected historical consolidated financial data as at September 30, 2017 and 2016 and for the years ended September 30, 2017, 2016, and 2015 have been derived from our consolidated financial statements, as presented elsewhere in this Annual Report, which have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB and as adopted by the European Union, and audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). The consolidated financial statement data as at September 30, 2015, 2014 and 2013, and for the years ended

​

5

September 30, 2014 and 2013 have been derived, after certain reclassifications to conform to the current presentation, from our consolidated financial statements, which are not presented herein, which have also been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB, and as adopted by the European Union.

(2)

The selected historical consolidated financial data as at September 30, 2013 and for the year then ended, reflects a reclassification to report foreign exchange gains and losses, primarily from balance sheet revaluation, previously reported within “Management and administrative expenses” in a new income statement line item, titled “Net foreign exchange (losses)/gains.” Such reclassification had no impact on operating profit, profit before tax or profit for the year.

​

(3)

The selected historical consolidated financial data as at September 30, 2014 and for the year then ended, reflects a reclassification to report the deferred tax asset, previously reported within “Current assets”, to “Non-current assets.” Such reclassification had no impact on operating loss, loss before tax or loss for the year.

​

Exchange rate information

The table below shows the period end, average, high and low exchange rates of U.S. dollars per pound sterling for the periods shown. Average rates are computed by using the noon buying rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the U.S. dollar on the last business day of each month during the relevant year indicated or each business day during the relevant month indicated. The rates set forth below are provided solely for your convenience and may differ from the actual rates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.

(1)

The average of the noon buying rate for pounds sterling on the last day of each full month during the relevant year or each business day during the relevant month indicated.

​

B.

Capitalization and Indebtedness.

​

Not Applicable.

C.

Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds.

​

Not Applicable.

6

D.   Risk Factors.

Our business has significant risks. You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are those significant risk factors, currently known and specific to us that we believe are relevant to our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we now deem immaterial may also impair our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Business

We are dependent on the success of our product candidates, none of which may receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized.

Our success will depend on our ability to successfully commercialize our product pipeline, including commercialization of Epidiolex and our other cannabinoid product candidates. We are evaluating Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) and Infantile Spasms (IS). We have initiated pivotal trials for all four of these indications and have completed one Phase 3 trial for Dravet syndrome and two Phase 3 trials for LGS. We completed our rolling submission of a New Drug Application, or NDA, for Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS to the FDA on October 27, 2017. We anticipate submitting a marketing authorization application to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, for Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS in late 2017. Nevertheless, Epidiolex may never receive regulatory approval for the treatment of any of these indications in the U.S. or elsewhere. Even if completed Phase 3 clinical trials and/or ongoing or future Phase 3 clinical trials conducted for regulatory approval show positive results, there can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authority will approve Epidiolex or any other product candidate for any indication for several potential reasons, including failure to follow Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, negative assessment of risk to benefit, unacceptable risk of abuse or diversion, insufficient product quality control and standardization, non-Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliant manufacturing facilities and, in the U.S., absence of a protocol agreed through the FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment process, refusal by FDA to accept our clinical trial design and/or failure to agree on appropriate clinical endpoints.

Our ability to successfully commercialize Sativex, Epidiolex, if approved, and our other product candidates will depend on, among other things, our ability to:

•

successfully complete pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, including human factors testing requirements and the assessment of abuse potential;

​

•

demonstrate to the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities that the efficacy of Sativex, Epidiolex, or any other product candidates in clinical trials, can be attributed to the investigative product and not exclusively to its interaction with concomitant medications. It is possible that FDA may convene an advisory committee of external experts to consider our NDA for Epidiolex or any of our other drug candidates, and the course and outcome of meetings with these advisory committees can be hard to predict;

​

•

receive regulatory approvals from the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities;

​

•

produce, through a validated process, in manufacturing facilities inspected and approved by regulatory authorities, including the FDA, sufficiently large quantities of the product candidate, and the related Botanical Drug Substances, or BDSs, to permit successful commercialization;

​

•

build and maintain strong sales, distribution and marketing capabilities sufficient to launch commercial sales of our product candidates, or otherwise establish collaborations with third parties for the commercialization of our product candidates;

​

•

obtain reimbursement from payers such as government health care programs and insurance companies and other third-party payers, as well as achieve commercially attractive levels of pricing;

​

7

•

secure acceptance of our product candidates from physicians, health care payers, patients and the medical community;

​

•

create positive publicity surrounding our product candidates;

​

•

manage our spending as costs and expenses increase due to clinical trials and commercialization; and

​

•

obtain and enforce sufficient intellectual property for our product candidates.

​

Our failure or delay with respect to any of the factors above could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our product candidates, if approved, may be unable to achieve the expected market acceptance and, consequently, limit our ability to generate revenue from new products.

Even when product development is successful and regulatory approval has been obtained, our ability to generate sufficient revenue depends on the acceptance of our products by physicians and patients. We cannot assure you that Epidiolex or our other product candidates will achieve the expected level of market acceptance and revenue if and when they obtain the requisite regulatory approvals. The market acceptance of any product depends on a number of factors, including the indication statement and warnings required by regulatory authorities in the product label, continued demonstration of efficacy and safety in commercial use, physicians’ willingness to prescribe the product, reimbursement from third-party payers such as government health care systems and non-governmental third-party payers, the price of the product, the nature of any post-approval risk management activities mandated by regulatory authorities, competition, and marketing and distribution support. Further, the success and acceptance of a product in one country may be negatively affected by our activities in another. By way of example, our approval and pricing strategy in Europe could create post-approval commitments to EMA and other European regulators that damages our market or price in the U.S. Likewise, if we fail to adapt our approach to clinical trials in the U.S. market to meet the needs of EMA or other European regulatory authorities, or to generate the health economics and outcomes research data needed to support pricing and reimbursement negotiations in Europe, we may have difficulties obtaining marketing authorization for our products from EMA and may have difficulties obtaining pricing and reimbursement approval for our products at a national level. Any factors preventing or limiting the market acceptance of our products could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In respect of our product candidates targeting rare indications, orphan drug exclusivity may afford limited protection, and if another party obtains orphan drug exclusivity for the drugs and indications we are targeting, we may be precluded from commercializing our product candidates in those indications during that period of exclusivity.

The first NDA applicant with an Orphan Drug Designation for a particular active moiety to treat a specific disease or condition that receives FDA approval is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that drug, for that indication. We rely in part on this orphan drug exclusivity and other regulatory exclusivities to protect Epidiolex and our other products and product candidates from competitors, and we expect to continue relying in part on these regulatory exclusivities in the future. However, although we received Orphan Drug Designation for Epidiolex, for Dravet syndrome, LGS, TSC and IS, there is no assurance that we will successfully obtain Orphan Drug Designation for other product candidates or other rare diseases or that a product candidate for which we receive Orphan Drug Designation will be approved, or that we will be awarded orphan drug exclusivity upon approval as, for example, the FDA may reconsider whether the eligibility criteria for such exclusivity have been met and/or maintained. Even if we do obtain orphan exclusivity for any product candidate, the period of exclusivity may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the drug. Moreover, a drug product with an active moiety that is a different cannabinoid from that in our drug candidate or, under limited circumstances, the same drug product, may be approved by the FDA for the same indication during the period of marketing exclusivity. The limited circumstances include a showing that the second drug is clinically superior to the drug with marketing exclusivity through a demonstration of superior safety or efficacy or that it makes a

8

major contribution to patient care. In addition, if a competitor obtains approval and marketing exclusivity for a drug product with an active moiety that is the same as that in a product candidate we are pursuing for the same indication before us, approval of our product candidate would be blocked during the period of marketing exclusivity unless we could demonstrate that our product candidate is clinically superior to the approved product. In addition, if a competitor such as Insys Therapeutics Inc., or the other competitors set forth below, obtains approval and marketing exclusivity for a drug product with an active moiety that is the same as that in a product candidate we are pursuing for a different orphan indication, this may negatively impact the market opportunity for our product candidate. There have been legal challenges to aspects of the FDA’s regulations and policies concerning the exclusivity provisions of the Orphan Drug Act, including whether two drugs are the same drug product, and future challenges could lead to changes that affect the protections potentially afforded our products in ways that are difficult to predict. In a recent successful legal challenge, a court invalidated the FDA’s denial of orphan exclusivity to a drug on the grounds that the drug was not proven to be clinically superior to a previously approved product containing the same ingredient for the same orphan use. In response to the decision, the FDA released a policy statement stating that the court’s decision is limited just to the facts of that particular case and that the FDA will continue to require the sponsor of a designated drug that is the “same” as a previously approved drug to demonstrate that its drug is clinically superior to that drug upon approval in order to be eligible for orphan drug exclusivity, or in some cases, to even be eligible for marketing approval. In the future, there is the potential for additional legal challenges to the FDA’s orphan drug regulations and policies, and it is uncertain how such challenges might affect our business.

In the European Union, if a marketing authorization is granted for a medicinal product that is designated an orphan drug, that product is entitled to ten years of marketing exclusivity. During the period of marketing exclusivity, subject to limited exceptions, no similar medicinal product may be granted a marketing authorization for the orphan indication. There is no assurance that we will successfully obtain Orphan Drug Designation for future rare indications or orphan exclusivity upon approval of any of our product candidates that have already obtained designation. Even if we obtain orphan exclusivity for any product candidate, the exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if at the end of the fifth year it is established that the orphan designation criteria are no longer met or if it is demonstrated that the orphan drug is sufficiently profitable that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Further, a similar medicinal product may be granted a marketing authorization for the same indication notwithstanding our marketing exclusivity if we are unable to supply sufficient quantities of our product, or if the second product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to our orphan drug. In addition, if a competitor such as Insys Therapeutics Inc., or the other competitors set forth below, obtains marketing authorization and orphan exclusivity for a product that is similar to a product candidate we are pursuing for the same indication, approval of our product candidate would be blocked during the period of orphan marketing exclusivity unless we could demonstrate that our product candidate is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the approved product.

We have to date commercialized only one product, Sativex.

Our only approved product, Sativex, is currently being commercialized for spasticity due to multiple sclerosis, or MS, outside the United States. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product in addition to Sativex, our future success will still depend in part on the continued successful commercialization of Sativex. Although Sativex is currently approved in a number of countries outside of the United States for MS spasticity and is sold in many of those countries, it may never be successfully commercialized in all of these jurisdictions. The commercial success of Sativex for MS spasticity depends on a number of factors beyond our control, including the willingness of physicians to prescribe Sativex to patients, payers’ willingness and ability to pay for the drug, the level of pricing achieved, patients’ response to Sativex, the ability of our marketing partners to generate sales and, given that we generate revenue from the supply of Sativex to our partners at a fixed percentage of partners’ net sales and that any increase in our manufacturing costs will adversely affect our margins and our financial condition, our ability to manufacture Sativex on a cost effective and efficient basis. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will succeed in generating revenue growth through the commercialization of Sativex for MS spasticity. If we are not successful in the continued commercialization of Sativex for MS spasticity, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be harmed.

9

We expect to face intense competition, often from companies with greater resources and experience than we have.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid change. The industry continues to expand and evolve as an increasing number of competitors and potential competitors enter the market. Many of these competitors and potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technological, managerial and research and development resources and experience than we have. Some of these competitors and potential competitors have more experience than we have in the development of pharmaceutical products, including validation procedures and regulatory matters. In addition, Sativex competes with, and our product candidates, if successfully developed, will compete with, product offerings from large and well-established companies that have greater marketing and sales experience and capabilities than we or our collaboration partners have. In particular, Insys Therapeutics, Inc. has publicly stated its intention to develop cannabidiol (CBD) in Dravet syndrome, LGS, IS, glioma and potentially other indications. Zogenix, Inc. is developing low dose fenfluramine in Dravet syndrome and has commenced an open-label study with this product in LGS, and other companies with greater resources than us may announce similar plans in the future. In addition, there are non-FDA approved CBD preparations being made available from companies in the medical marijuana industry, which may be competitive to Epidiolex. If we are unable to compete successfully, our commercial opportunities will be reduced and our business, results of operations and financial conditions may be materially harmed.

Product shipment delays could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The shipment, import and export of Epidiolex, Sativex and our other product candidates require import and export licenses. In the United States, the FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, and in the United Kingdom, the Home Office, and in other countries, similar regulatory authorities regulate the import and export of pharmaceutical products that contain controlled substances, including Sativex, Epidiolex and our other product candidates. Specifically, the import and export process requires the issuance of import and export licenses by the relevant controlled substance authority in both the importing and exporting country. We may not be granted, or if granted, maintain, such licenses from the authorities in certain countries. Even if we obtain the relevant licenses, shipments of Sativex, Epidiolex and our product candidates may be held up in transit, which could cause significant delays and may lead to product batches being stored outside required temperature ranges. Inappropriate storage may damage the product shipment resulting in a partial or total loss of revenue from one or more shipment of Sativex, Epidiolex or our other product candidates. A partial or total loss of revenue from one or more shipments of Sativex, Epidiolex or our other product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If the price for Sativex or any future approved products decreases or if governmental and other third-party payers do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement levels, our revenue and prospects for profitability will suffer.

Reimbursement systems in international markets vary significantly by country and by region, and reimbursement approvals generally must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. Where we have chosen to collaborate with a third party on product candidate development and commercialization, our partner may elect to reduce the price of our products in order to increase the likelihood of obtaining reimbursement approvals. In many countries, products cannot be commercially launched until reimbursement is approved and the negotiation process in some countries can exceed 12 months. In addition, pricing and reimbursement decisions in certain countries can be affected by decisions taken in other countries, which can lead to mandatory price reductions and/or additional reimbursement restrictions across a number of other countries, which may thereby adversely affect our sales and profitability. In the event that countries impose prices that are not sufficient to allow us or our partners to generate a profit, our partners may refuse to launch the product in such countries or withdraw the product from the market, which would adversely affect sales and profitability. For example, whereas the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group has recommended Sativex for use in MS spasticity in Wales, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published MS treatment guidelines which did not recommend Sativex for use in England. While this example refers to the commercialization of Sativex, the same or similar events, such as price decreases,

10

government mandated rebates or unfavorable reimbursement decisions could affect the pricing and reimbursement of Epidiolex and our other product candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, results of operations and financial condition.

Problems in our manufacturing process, failure to comply with manufacturing regulations or unexpected increases in our manufacturing costs could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are responsible for the manufacture and supply of Sativex to our collaboration partners and for the manufacture and supply of Sativex, Epidiolex and other product candidates for use in clinical trials. The manufacturing of Sativex and our product candidates necessitates compliance with GMP and other regulatory requirements in jurisdictions internationally. Our ability to successfully manufacture Sativex, Epidiolex and other product candidates involves cultivation of botanical raw material from specific cannabinoid plants, extraction and purification processes, manufacture of finished products and labeling and packaging, which includes product information, tamper evidence and anti-counterfeit features, under tightly controlled processes and procedures. For Sativex and our product candidates, production also requires the cultivation of cannabinoid plants under highly controlled and standardized conditions. In addition, we must ensure chemical consistency among our batches, including clinical batches and, if approved, marketing batches. Demonstrating such consistency may require typical manufacturing controls as well as clinical data. We must also ensure that our batches conform to complex release specifications. For each step in the manufacturing process for Sativex, we are currently reliant on single manufacturing facilities and no back-up facilities are yet in place. We have a second site at which we can grow the specific cannabinoid plants which produce the CBD used in Epidiolex, a second site at which we can extract CBD from botanical raw material and a second site at which we can crystallize the purified CBD from the liquid plant extract, but we are currently reliant on a single manufacturing facility, and no back-up facilities are yet in place, for the other steps in the Epidiolex production process. Because Sativex is a complex mixture manufactured from plant materials, and because the release specifications may not be identical in all countries, certain batches may fail release testing and not be able to be commercialized. A number of our product candidates (excluding Epidiolex) also consist of a complex mixture manufactured from plant materials, and are therefore subject to a similar risk. If we are unable to manufacture Sativex, Epidiolex or other product candidates in accordance with regulatory specifications, including GMP or if there are disruptions in our manufacturing process due to damage, loss or otherwise, or failure to pass regulatory inspections of our manufacturing facilities, we may not be able to meet current demand or supply sufficient product for use in clinical trials, and this may also harm our ability to commercialize Sativex, Epidiolex and our product candidates on a timely or cost-competitive basis, if at all. We have an on-going program for expanding and upgrading parts of our growing and manufacturing facilities and we are working with a number of contract manufacturing partners. This has allowed us to submit an NDA for Epidiolex that we believe includes a sufficient number of growing and manufacturing sites that should provide sufficient quantities to meet initial demand, and meet FDA’s stringent requirements for demonstrating equivalence of the scaled up manufacturing process. This program requires significant time and resources and may not be successful, for example the FDA may refuse to accept our facilities or those of our contract manufactures as being suitable for the production of Epidiolex. We are planning a significant expansion of our growing facilities over the next few years in order to meet potential peak demand for Epidiolex, including working with several new contractor manufacturers and adopting new methods in order to handle and process bulk quantities of botanical raw material. We are planning to increase the scale in which we manufacture Epidiolex over the next few years in order to meet potential peak demand for Epidiolex, including working with several new contractors and, potentially, adopting new processes. These activities may be unsuccessful, may lead to delays, interruptions to supply, or may prove to be more costly than anticipated. We may fail to expand our growing and manufacturing capability in time to meet market demand for our products and product candidates, and the FDA may refuse to accept our facilities or those of our contract manufactures as being suitable for the production of our products and product candidates. Any problems in our growing or manufacturing process could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, before we can begin commercial manufacture of any product candidates for sale in the United States, we must obtain FDA regulatory approval for the product, which requires a successful FDA inspection of our manufacturing facilities and those of our contract manufacturing partners, processes and

11

quality systems in addition to other product-related approvals. Further, pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities are continuously subject to inspection by the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities, before and after product approval. Due to the complexity of the processes used to manufacture our product candidates, we may be unable to initially or continue to pass federal, state or international regulatory inspections in a cost effective manner. If we are unable to comply with manufacturing regulations, we may be subject to fines, unanticipated compliance expenses, recall or seizure of any approved products, total or partial suspension of production and/or enforcement actions, including injunctions, and criminal or civil prosecution. These possible sanctions would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Further, the processes we use for cultivation of botanical raw material and the production of product candidates for use in clinical trials may be different to the processes we use to produce commercial product and/or may not be capable of producing sufficient quantities of product for commercial purposes. We may therefore need to undertake additional manufacturing process development and scale-up activities before we can commercialize a product. This may include the conduct of bioequivalence studies to demonstrate that product produced by the process used to manufacture on a commercial scale is the same as the material used in clinical trials. If we cannot demonstrate that our commercial scale product is the same as material used in our clinical trials, we may not be permitted to sell that product, which could have an impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Product recalls or inventory losses caused by unforeseen events, cold chain interruption and testing difficulties may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex, are manufactured and distributed using technically complex processes requiring specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict company and government standards for the manufacture of our products, subjects us to production risks. For example, during the manufacturing process we have from time to time experienced defects in components which have caused vial sealing faults, resulting in vial leakage, pump dispenser faults which have resulted in under-filling of vials and misalignment of labels and tamper evident seals, as well as receipt of faulty electronic dose counters from our supplier. While product batches released for use in clinical trials or for commercialization undergo sample testing, some defects may only be identified following product release. In addition, process deviations or unanticipated effects of approved process changes may result in these intermediate products not complying with stability requirements or specifications. Some of our products must be stored and transported at temperatures within a certain range, which is known as “strict cold chain” storage and transportation. If these environmental conditions deviate, our products’ remaining shelf-lives could be impaired or their efficacy and safety could become adversely affected, making them no longer suitable for use. The occurrence or suspected occurrence of production and distribution difficulties can lead to lost inventories, and in some cases product recalls, with consequential reputational damage and the risk of product liability. The investigation and remediation of any identified problems can cause production delays, substantial expense, lost sales and delays of new product launches.

Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex, contain controlled substances, the use of which may generate public controversy.

Since Sativex, Epidiolex and our other product candidates contain controlled substances; their regulatory approval may generate public controversy. Political and social pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in approval of, and increased expenses for, Sativex and our product candidates. These pressures could also limit or restrict the introduction and marketing of Sativex and our product candidates. Adverse publicity from cannabis misuse or adverse side effects from cannabis or other cannabinoid products may adversely affect the commercial success or market penetration achievable by Sativex and our product candidates. The nature of our business attracts a high level of public and media interest, and in the event of any resultant adverse publicity, our reputation may be harmed.

Business interruptions could delay us in the process of developing our product candidates and could disrupt our product sales.

Loss of our manufacturing facilities, our growing plants, stored inventory or laboratory facilities through fire, theft or other causes, or loss of our botanical raw material due to pathogenic infection or other

12

causes, could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet demand for Sativex, to continue product development activities and to conduct our business. Failure to supply our partners with commercial product may lead to adverse consequences, including the right of partners to take over responsibility for product supply. We currently have insurance coverage to compensate us for such business interruptions; however, such coverage may prove insufficient to fully compensate us for the damage to our business resulting from any significant property or casualty loss to our inventory or facilities.

We have significant and increasing liquidity needs and may require additional funding.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. For the year ended September 30, 2016, we reported a net operating cash outflow of £84.6 million and a net cash outflow from investing activities of £8.8 million. For the year ended September 30, 2017, we reported a net operating cash outflow of £110.2 million and a net cash outflow from investing activities of £15.3 million.

Looking forward, 2018 will be a pivotal year with the progression of the Epidiolex NDA and the continued investments in our pre-launch activities and manufacturing scale-up. Cash outflow for the quarter ended September 30, 2017 was $51 million. We expect spending to continue at current levels and anticipate total cash outflows for the first half of the year ended September 30, 2018 in the range of $100 million to $120 million (£75 million to £90 million), which includes capital expenditure of  $10 million to $20 million related to manufacturing expansion. Thereafter, following NDA approval, we expect cash outflows to increase in preparation for product launch.

Research and development, management and administrative expenses and cash used for operations will continue to be significant and may increase substantially in the future in connection with new research and development initiatives, continued product commercialization efforts and as we prepare for the potential commercial launch of Epidiolex and continue to grow as a U.S. public company. We may need to raise additional capital to fund our operations, continue to conduct clinical trials to support potential regulatory approval of marketing applications, and to fund commercialization of our products.

The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

•

the timing of FDA approval, if any, and approvals in international markets of our product candidates, if at all;

​

•

the timing and amount of revenue from sales of Sativex, or revenue from grants or other sources;

​

•

the rate of progress and cost of our clinical trials and other product development programs;

​

•

costs of establishing or outsourcing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities;

​

•

costs and timing of completion of expanded in-house manufacturing facilities as well as any outsourced growing and commercial manufacturing supply arrangements for our product candidates;

​

•

costs of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing any patent claims and other intellectual property rights associated with our product candidates;

​

•

costs of operating as a U.S. public company;

​

•

the effect of competing technological and market developments;

​

•

personnel, facilities and equipment requirements; and

​

•

the terms and timing of any additional collaborative, licensing, co-promotion or other arrangements that we may establish.

​

While we expect to fund our future capital requirements from a number of sources including cash flow from operations, the proceeds from further public offerings, the proceeds from the exercise of share options, we cannot assure you that any of these funding sources will be available to us on favorable terms, or at all. Further, even if we can raise funds from all of the above sources, the amounts raised may not be sufficient to meet our future capital requirements.

13

We may identify a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting for future fiscal years. If we do not remediate material weaknesses or are unable to implement and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in the future, the accuracy and timeliness of our financial reporting may be adversely affected.

We may discover future deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting, including those identified through testing conducted by us or subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm. If we are unable to achieve effective internal control over financial reporting, or if our independent registered public accounting firm determines we continue to have a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our ordinary shares and ADSs could decline, and our reputation may be damaged.

We are exposed to risks related to currency exchange rates.

We conduct a significant portion of our operations outside the United Kingdom. Because our financial statements are presented in pounds sterling, changes in currency exchange rates have had and could have a significant effect on our operating results. Exchange rate fluctuations between local currencies and the pound sterling create risk in several ways, including the following: weakening of the pound sterling may increase the pound sterling cost of overseas research and development expenses and the cost of sourced product components outside the United Kingdom; strengthening of the pound sterling may decrease the value of our revenues denominated in other currencies, such as sales of Sativex in Europe, especially due to the low price margin on our sales of Sativex to Almirall S.A.; the exchange rates on non-sterling transactions and cash deposits can distort our financial results; and commercial Sativex pricing and profit margins are affected by currency fluctuations.

If product liability lawsuits are successfully brought against us, we will incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit the commercialization of Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex.

Although we have never had any product liability claims or lawsuits brought against us, we face potential product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and we currently face exposure to claims in jurisdictions where we market and distribute Sativex. We may face exposure to claims by an even greater number of persons if we begin marketing and distributing our products commercially in the United States and elsewhere. Now, and in the future, an individual may bring a liability claim against us alleging that Sativex or one of our product candidates, such as Epidiolex, caused an injury. While we continue to take what we believe are appropriate precautions, we may be unable to avoid significant liability if any product liability lawsuit is brought against us. Large judgments have been awarded in class action or individual lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated side effects, including side effects that are less severe than those associated with Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex. Although we have purchased insurance to cover product liability lawsuits, if we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, or if such insurance coverage is inadequate, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

•

decreased demand for Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex, if such product candidates are approved;

​

•

injury to our reputation;

​

•

withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

​

•

costs of related litigation;

​

•

substantial monetary awards to patients and others;

​

•

increased cost of liability insurance;

​

•

loss of revenue; and

​

•

the inability to successfully commercialize our products.

​

14

Counterfeit versions of our products could harm our business.

Counterfeiting activities and the presence of counterfeit products in a number of markets and over the Internet continue to be a challenge for maintaining a safe drug supply for the pharmaceutical industry. Counterfeit products are frequently unsafe or ineffective, and can be life-threatening. To distributors and users, counterfeit products may be visually indistinguishable from the authentic version. Reports of adverse reactions to counterfeit drugs along with increased levels of counterfeiting could be mistakenly attributed to the authentic product, affect patient confidence in the authentic product and harm the business of companies such as ours. If our products were to be the subject of counterfeits, we could incur substantial reputational and financial harm.

We have recently grown our business and will need to further increase the size and complexity of our organization in the future, and we may experience difficulties in managing our growth and executing our growth strategy.

Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support our business plan and future growth. With the submission of our NDA for Epidiolex and the decision to promote and market in the United States the product candidates for which we receive marketing approval from FDA, we have increased our number of full-time equivalent employees from 194 on September 30, 2013 to 568 as of September 30, 2017, primarily because we are conducting all of our Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of Epidiolex and our other product candidates ourselves and establishing a commercial organization and our commercial infrastructure. As a result of these activities the complexity of our business operations has substantially increased. We will need to further expand our scientific, manufacturing, sales and marketing, managerial, compliance, operational, financial and other resources to support our planned research, development, manufacturing and commercialization activities.

Our need to effectively manage our operations, growth and various projects requires that we:

•

continue to improve our operational, financial, management and regulatory compliance controls and reporting systems and procedures;

​

•

attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees;

​

•

manage our commercialization activities effectively and in a cost-effective manner;

​

•

manage our clinical trials effectively;

​

•

manage our internal manufacturing operations effectively and in a cost effective manner;

​

•

manage our development efforts effectively while carrying out our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties; and

​

•

continue to improve our facilities.

​

In addition, historically, we have utilized and continue to utilize the services of part-time outside consultants and contractors to perform a number of tasks for us, including tasks related to compliance programs, clinical trial management, regulatory affairs, formulation development and other drug development functions. Our growth strategy may entail expanding our use of consultants and contractors to implement these and other tasks going forward. As we rely on consultants and contractors for certain functions of our business, we will need to be able to effectively manage these consultants and contractors to ensure that they successfully carry out their contractual obligations and meet expected deadlines. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants and contractors or find other competent outside expertise, as needed, on economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our use of consultants and contractors, we may be unable to successfully implement the tasks necessary to effectively execute on our planned research, development, manufacturing and commercialization activities and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

We depend upon our key personnel and our ability to attract and retain employees.

Our future growth and success depend on our ability to recruit, retain, manage and motivate our employees. The inability to hire or retain experienced management personnel could adversely affect our

15

ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. Due to the specialized scientific and managerial nature of our business, we rely heavily on our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and managerial personnel. The competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical field is intense. Due to this intense competition, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business or to recruit suitable replacement personnel.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, provide accurate information to the FDA, comply with applicable manufacturing standards, comply with other federal and state laws and regulations, report information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information, including information obtained in the course of clinical trials, or illegal appropriation of drug product, which could result in government investigations and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct. The precautions we take to detect and prevent these prohibited activities 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, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

If we are unable to use net operating loss carry-forwards and certain built-in losses to reduce future tax payments, or benefit from favorable tax legislation, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

As a U.K. resident trading company, we are predominantly subject to U.K. corporate taxation. At September 30, 2017, we had cumulative carry-forward tax losses of £204.1 million, available to offset against future profits (subject to the restrictions on the use of such losses described below). The majority of these tax loss attributes have not been recognized on our balance sheet at September 30, 2017. It should, however, be noted that the use of carried forward losses has recently been restricted with effect from April 1, 2017, such that they would not be available for offset against more than 50% of taxable profits in any accounting period (subject to a £5 million annual allowance). Additionally, as we carry out extensive research and development activities in the U.K., we benefit from the U.K. research and development tax credit regime. Up until the end of the financial year ended September 30, 2017, we have benefitted from the U.K. research and development tax credit regime for small and medium sized companies, whereby our principal research subsidiary, GW Research Ltd, was able to surrender a portion of available losses that arise from research and development activity for a refundable credit of up to approximately 33.4% of the eligible research and development expenditure. However, due to the increase in the size of our employee workforce in the U.K. and our annual turnover we are now subject to the U.K. research and development tax credit regime for large companies. Starting with the financial year ending September 30, 2018, GW Research Ltd is still able to surrender a portion of available losses that arise from research and development activity for a refundable credit, but the rate of tax relief on the eligible research and development expenditure is significantly reduced. We may also benefit in the future from the UK’s “patent box” regime, which would allow certain profits attributable to revenue from patented products to be taxed at a lower rate of 10%. When taken in combination with our available carry-forward tax losses and the enhanced relief available on our research and development expenditure, we expect that this may result in a long-term low rate of corporation tax. If, however, we are unable to generate sufficient future taxable profits, or for any reason to utilize our carry-forward losses (as currently restricted), or there are unexpected adverse changes to the U.K. research and development tax credit regime or “patent box” regime, or we are unable to qualify for such advantageous tax legislation, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

16

We are subject to the U.K. Bribery Act, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, customs laws, sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations. If we fail to comply with these laws, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties, other remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or Bribery Act, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business. The Bribery Act, FCPA and these other laws generally prohibit us and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. We and our commercial partners operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA or local anti-corruption laws. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions on countries and persons, customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the Trade Control laws.

However, there is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by the United Kingdom, the United States or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our proprietary information, or that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, may be lost or we may suffer security breaches.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, clinical trial data, our proprietary business information and that of our customers, suppliers and business partners, and personally identifiable information of our customers, clinical trial subjects and employees, in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Although to our knowledge we have not experienced any such material security breach to date, any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties, disrupt our operations, damage our reputation, and cause a loss of confidence in our products and our ability to conduct clinical trials, which could adversely affect our business and reputation and lead to delays in gaining regulatory approvals for Epidiolex. Although we maintain business interruption insurance coverage, our insurance might not cover all losses from any future breaches of our systems.

Failure of our information technology systems could significantly disrupt the operation of our business.

Our business increasingly depends on the use of information technologies, which means that certain key areas such as research and development, production and sales are to a large extent dependent on our information systems or those of third party providers. Our ability to execute our business plan and to comply with regulators requirements with respect to data control and data integrity, depends, in part, on the

17

continued and uninterrupted performance of our information technology systems, or IT systems and the IT systems supplied by third-party service providers. These systems are vulnerable to damage from a variety of sources, including telecommunications or network failures, malicious human acts and natural disasters. Moreover, despite network security and backup measures, some of our servers are potentially vulnerable to physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses and similar disruptive problems. Despite the precautionary measures we and our third-party service providers have taken to prevent unanticipated problems that could affect our IT systems, sustained or repeated system failures or problems arising during the upgrade of any of our IT systems that interrupt our ability to generate and maintain data, and in particular to operate our proprietary technology platform, could adversely affect our ability to operate our business.

Legislative or regulatory reform of the health care system in the United States and foreign jurisdictions may affect our ability to profitably sell our products, if approved.

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

Specifically, in both the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the health care system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, enacted in the United States in March 2010, substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Both Congress and the U.S. President have already taken some actions that are intended to limit significantly the ACA, and other proposals have been made and are being considered to further modify or even repeal the ACA. While some of these actions already appear to be limiting the scope of the ACA, it is not clear at this point whether the new proposals will be adopted (either in their current form or a modified form) in the future.

We expect additional federal and state proposals and health care reforms to continue to be proposed by legislators, which could limit the prices that can be charged for the products we develop and may limit our commercial opportunity.

The continuing efforts of government and other third-party payers to contain or reduce the costs of health care through various means may limit our commercial opportunity. It will be time consuming and expensive for us to go through the process of seeking coverage and reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental health programs and from and private payers. Our products may not be considered cost effective, and government and third-party private health insurance coverage and reimbursement may not be available to patients for any of our future products or sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by ACA, changes to the ACA, and by other health care reforms that may be enacted or adopted in the future. In addition, increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States will continue to put pressure on the pricing of pharmaceutical products. Cost control initiatives could decrease the price that we or any potential collaborators could receive for any of our future products and could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue in the U.S. market and maintain profitability.

In some foreign countries, including major markets in the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take six to 12 months or longer after the receipt of regulatory approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a pharmacoeconomic study that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies. Such pharmacoeconomic studies can be costly and the results uncertain. Our business could be harmed if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels.

18

We may acquire other companies which could divert our management’s attention, result in additional dilution to our shareholders and otherwise disrupt our operations and harm our operating results.

We may in the future seek to acquire businesses, products or technologies that we believe could complement or expand our product offerings, enhance our technical capabilities or otherwise offer growth opportunities. The pursuit of potential acquisitions may divert the attention of management and cause us to incur various expenses in identifying, investigating and pursuing suitable acquisitions, whether or not they are consummated. If we acquire additional businesses, we may not be able to integrate the acquired personnel, operations and technologies successfully, or effectively manage the combined business following the acquisition. We also may not achieve the anticipated benefits from the acquired business due to a number of factors, including:

•

incurrence of acquisition-related costs;

​

•

diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns;

​

•

unanticipated costs or liabilities associated with the acquisition;

​

•

harm to our existing business relationships with collaboration partners as a result of the acquisition;

​

•

harm to our brand and reputation;

​

•

the potential loss of key employees;

​

•

use of resources that are needed in other parts of our business; and

​

•

use of substantial portions of our available cash to consummate the acquisition.

​

In the future, if our acquisitions do not yield expected returns, we may be required to take charges to our operating results arising from the impairment assessment process. Acquisitions may also result in dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt, which could adversely affect our operating results. In addition, if an acquired business fails to meet our expectations, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

The United Kingdom’s vote in favor of withdrawing from the European Union and the result of the U.S. presidential election could lead to increased market volatility which could adversely impact the market price of our ADSs and make it more difficult for us to do business in Europe or have other adverse effects on our business.

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). On March 29, 2017, the U.K. government delivered to the European Council notice of its intention to leave the European Union and, in the absence of an executed withdrawal agreement with the European Union, the effective date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union will be March 29, 2019. There are many ways in which our business could be affected by this event, only some of which we can identify at this time. It is already apparent that negotiation of the withdrawal agreement will be a lengthy process, and we will have no certainty as to the terms on of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union until these negotiations have been completed. Alternatively, negotiations may be unsuccessful and the United Kingdom may not reach agreement with the European Union on the future terms of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. There will be a long period of considerable uncertainty particularly in relation to United Kingdom financial and banking markets as well as on the regulatory process in Europe. As a result of this uncertainty, financial markets could experience significant volatility which could adversely affect the market price of our ADSs. We may also face new regulatory costs and challenges that could have a material adverse effect on our operations. In this regard, the EMA has already issued a notice reminding marketing authorization holders of centrally authorized medicinal products for human and veterinary use of certain legal requirements that need to be considered as part of Brexit, such as the requirement for the marketing authorization holder of a product centrally approved by European Commission to be established in the European Union (or EEA), and the requirement for some activities relating to centrally approved products, such as batch release and pharmacovigilance, be performed in the European Union (or EEA). As a result of the foregoing, and in the absence of any clear indication that the withdrawal agreement will contain a

19

contrary requirement, we are already in the process of establishing a network of subsidiary undertakings in the major European markets and planning to establish pharmacovigilance and batch release operations in the European Union. Depending on the terms of Brexit, the United Kingdom could lose the benefits of global trade agreements negotiated by the European Union on behalf of its members, which may result in increased trade barriers which could make our doing business worldwide more difficult. In addition, currency exchange rates in the pound sterling and the euro with respect to each other and the U.S. dollar have already been adversely affected by Brexit. Should this foreign exchange volatility continue it could cause volatility in our quarterly financial results.

The current White House administration has expressed concerns regarding existing trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and raised the possibility of imposing significant increases on tariffs on goods imported into the United States, particularly from China and Mexico. This administration has also supported Congress’ attempt to make significant changes to U.S. tax laws, significant changes, replacement or elimination of the ACA, and government negotiation/regulation of drug prices paid by government programs. Changes in U.S. social, political, regulatory and economic conditions or laws and policies governing the health care system and drug prices, U.S. tax laws, foreign trade, immigration, manufacturing, and development and investment in the territories and countries where we or our customers and suppliers operate could adversely affect our operating results and our business.

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

Clinical trials for our product candidates are expensive, time-consuming, uncertain and susceptible to change, delay or termination. The results of clinical trials are open to differing interpretations

Clinical trials are expensive, time consuming and difficult to design and implement. Regulatory agencies may analyze or interpret the results differently than us. Even if the results of our clinical trials are favorable, the clinical trials for a number of our product candidates are expected to continue for several years and may take significantly longer to complete. In addition, we, the FDA or other regulatory authorities, including state and local authorities, or an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, with respect to a trial at its institution, may suspend, delay or terminate our clinical trials at any time, require us to conduct additional clinical trials, require a particular clinical trial to continue for a longer duration than originally planned, require a change to our development plans such that we conduct clinical trials for a product candidate in a different order, e.g., in a step-wise fashion rather than running two trials of the same product candidate in parallel, or the DEA could suspend or terminate the registrations and quota allotments we require in order to procure and handle controlled substances, for various reasons, including:

•

lack of effectiveness of any product candidate during clinical trials;

​

•

discovery of serious or unexpected toxicities or side effects experienced by trial participants or other safety issues, such as drug: drug interactions, including those which cause confounding changes to the levels of other concomitant medications. In this regard it should be noted that the data from the expanded access studies with Epidiolex we are currently supporting, as presented by Devinsky et al. at the Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society held in December 2015, indicates that clobazam co-therapy is associated with a higher rate of treatment response (median reduction in convulsive seizures (CBD with versus without clobazam) at week 12 of treatment. At the Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society held in December 2017, data from the Phase 3 LGS trials was presented showing responder rates in patients taking clobazam and those not taking clobazam, which showed some differences in response between these patient groups. Regulatory agencies may consider this analysis and/or may analyze the data differently. We have also completed a Company-sponsored double-blinded, placebo controlled Phase 2 trial to investigate this drug:drug interaction in a controlled and scientific manner;

​

•

slower than expected rates of subject recruitment and enrollment rates in clinical trials;

​

•

difficulty in retaining subjects who have initiated a clinical trial but may withdraw at any time due to adverse side effects from the therapy, insufficient efficacy, fatigue with the clinical trial process or for any other reason;

​

20

•

delays or inability in manufacturing or obtaining sufficient quantities of materials for use in clinical trials due to regulatory and manufacturing constraints;

​

•

inadequacy of or changes in our manufacturing process or product formulation;

​

•

delays in obtaining regulatory authorization to commence a trial, including “clinical holds” or delays requiring suspension or termination of a trial by a regulatory agency, such as the FDA, before or after a trial is commenced;

​

•

DEA-related recordkeeping, reporting or security violations at a clinical site, leading the DEA or state authorities to suspend or revoke the site’s controlled substance license and causing a delay or termination of planned or ongoing trials;

​

•

changes in applicable regulatory policies and regulation, including changes to requirements imposed on the extent, nature or timing of studies;

​

•

delays or failure in reaching agreement on acceptable terms in clinical trial contracts or protocols with prospective clinical trial sites;

​

•

uncertainty regarding proper dosing;

​

•

delay or failure to supply product for use in clinical trials which conforms to regulatory specification;

​

•

unfavorable results from ongoing pre-clinical studies and clinical trials;

​

•

failure of our contract research organizations, or CROs, or other third-party contractors to comply with all contractual requirements or to perform their services in a timely or acceptable manner;

​

•

failure by us, our employees, our CROs or their employees to comply with all applicable FDA or other regulatory requirements relating to the conduct of clinical trials or the handling, storage, security and recordkeeping for controlled substances;

​

•

scheduling conflicts with participating clinicians and clinical institutions;

​

•

failure to design appropriate clinical trial protocols;

​

•

regulatory concerns with cannabinoid products generally and the potential for abuse;

​

•

insufficient data to support regulatory approval. In this regard, we submitted our NDA for Epidiolex for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and LGS prior to completing our second Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in Dravet syndrome. FDA may consider the results of a single Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in Dravet syndrome to be insufficient to grant regulatory approval;

​

•

inability or unwillingness of medical investigators to follow our clinical protocols; or

​

•

difficulty in maintaining contact with patients during or after treatment, which may result in incomplete data.

​

Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Any failure by us to comply with existing regulations could harm our reputation and operating results.

We are subject to extensive regulation by U.S. federal and state and foreign governments in each of the markets where we currently sell Sativex or in markets where we have product candidates progressing through the approval process. We must adhere to all regulatory requirements including FDA’s Good Laboratory Practice, current GMP, and GCP requirements and their European equivalents. If we or our suppliers fail to comply with applicable regulations, including FDA pre-or post-approval GMP requirements, then the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities could sanction us. Even if a drug is FDA-approved, regulatory authorities may impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-marketing trials.

21

If any of our product candidates is approved in the United States, it will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, import, export, advertising, promotion, sampling, recordkeeping and submission of safety and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States. In addition, manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to GMP. As such, we and our contract manufacturers (in the event contract manufacturers are appointed in the future) are subject to continual review and periodic inspections to assess compliance with GMP. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, quality control and quality assurance. We will also be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label.

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of the product, it may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may:

•

issue warning letters;

​

•

impose civil or criminal penalties;

​

•

suspend regulatory approval;

​

•

suspend any of our ongoing clinical trials;

​

•

refuse to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications submitted by us;

​

•

impose restrictions on our operations, including by requiring us to enter in to a Corporate Integrity Agreement or closing our contract manufacturers’ facilities, if any; or

​

•

seize or detain products or require a product recall.

​

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our business and our operating results will be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to generate revenue from sales of Sativex, our potential for achieving profitability will be diminished and the capital necessary to fund our operations will be increased.

Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses, divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business and damage our reputation. We expend significant resources on compliance efforts and such expenses are unpredictable and might adversely affect our results. Changing laws, regulations and standards might also create uncertainty, higher expenses and increase insurance costs. As a result, we intend to invest all reasonably necessary resources to comply with evolving standards, and this investment might result in increased management and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities.

Information obtained from expanded access studies may not reliably predict the efficacy of our product candidates in company-sponsored clinical trials and may lead to adverse events that could limit approval.

The expanded access studies we are currently supporting are uncontrolled, carried out by individual investigators and not typically conducted in strict compliance with GCPs, all of which can lead to a treatment effect which may differ from that in placebo-controlled trials. These studies provide only anecdotal evidence of efficacy for regulatory review. These studies contain no control or comparator group for reference and these patient data are not designed to be aggregated or reported as study results.

22

Moreover, data from such small numbers of patients may be highly variable. Information obtained from these studies, including the statistical principles that we and the independent investigators have chosen to apply to the data, may not reliably predict data collected via systematic evaluation of the efficacy in company-sponsored clinical trials or evaluated via other statistical principles that may be applied in those trials. Reliance on such information to design our clinical trials may lead to Phase 2 and 3 trials that are not adequately designed to demonstrate efficacy and could delay or prevent our ability to seek approval of Epidiolex.

Expanded access programs provide supportive safety information for regulatory review. Physicians conducting these studies may use Epidiolex in a manner inconsistent with the protocol, including in children with conditions beyond those being studied in GW-sponsored trials. Any adverse events or reactions experienced by subjects in the expanded access program may be attributed to Epidiolex and may limit our ability to obtain regulatory approval with labeling that we consider desirable, or at all.

There is a high rate of failure for drug candidates proceeding through clinical trials.

Generally, there is a high rate of failure for drug candidates proceeding through clinical trials. We may suffer significant setbacks in our clinical trials similar to the experience of a number of other companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, even after receiving promising results in earlier trials. Further, even if we view the results of a clinical trial to be positive, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of the data. For example, as the endpoint preferred by EMA was not achieved in our first phase 3 trial of Epidiolex for Dravet syndrome, our Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for Dravet syndrome may not be accepted even if our NDA is. In the event that we obtain negative results from clinical trials for Epidiolex or our other product candidates, or other problems related to potential Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls issues or other hurdles occur and our product candidates are not approved, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue or obtain financing to continue our operations, our ability to execute on our current business plan will be materially impaired, our reputation in the industry and in the investment community would likely be significantly damaged and the price of our ADSs would likely decrease significantly. In addition, our inability to properly design, commence and complete clinical trials may negatively impact the timing and results of our clinical trials and ability to seek approvals for our drug candidates.

The development of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for our product candidates could cause delays in the approval process and would add additional layers of regulatory requirements that could impact our ability to commercialize our product candidates in the United States and reduce their market potential.

As a condition of approval of an NDA, the FDA may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS elements can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. We may be required to adopt a REMS for our product candidates to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks of abuse, misuse, diversion and other potential safety concerns. Even if abuse, misuse and diversion are not as high as for other cannabinoid products, there can be no assurance that the FDA will approve a manageable REMS for our product candidates, which could create material and significant limits on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates in the United States. Delays in the REMS approval process could result in delays in the NDA approval process. In addition, as part of the REMS, the FDA could require significant restrictions, such as restrictions on the prescription, distribution and patient use of the product, which could significantly impact our ability to effectively commercialize our product candidates, and dramatically reduce their market potential thereby adversely impacting our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if initial REMS are not highly restrictive, if, after launch, our product candidates were to be subject to significant abuse/non-medical use or diversion from licit channels, this could lead to negative regulatory consequences, including a more restrictive REMS.

23

If we are found in violation of federal or state “fraud and abuse” laws, we may be required to pay a penalty and/or be suspended from participation in federal or state health care programs, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

After we obtain regulatory approval for our products in the United States, if any, we will be subject to various federal and state health care “fraud and abuse” laws, including anti-kickback laws, false claims laws and other laws intended to reduce fraud and abuse in federal and state health care programs, which could affect us particularly upon successful commercialization of our products in the United States. The Medicare and Medicaid Patient Protection Act of 1987, or federal Anti-Kickback Statute, makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or prescription of a particular drug for which payment may be made under a federal health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Under federal law, some arrangements, known as safe harbors, are deemed not to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Although we seek to structure our business arrangements in compliance with all applicable requirements, these laws are broadly written, and it is often difficult to determine precisely how the law will be applied in specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that our practices may be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. False claims laws prohibit anyone from knowingly and willfully presenting or causing to be presented for payment to third-party payers, including government payers, claims for reimbursed drugs or services that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services that were not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Cases have been brought under false claims laws alleging that off-label promotion of pharmaceutical products or the provision of kickbacks has resulted in the submission of false claims to governmental health care programs. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we are prohibited from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payers, or knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. Violations of fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including fines and/or exclusion or suspension from federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and debarment from contracting with the U.S. government. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions on behalf of the government under the federal False Claims Act as well as under the false claims laws of several states.

Many states have adopted laws similar to the federal anti-kickback statute, some of which apply to the referral of patients for health care services reimbursed by any source, not just governmental payers. In addition, California and a few other states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. In addition, several states impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state. There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to penalties.

Neither the government nor the courts have provided definitive guidance on the application of fraud and abuse laws to our business. Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing these laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws. While we believe we have structured our business arrangements to comply with these laws, it is possible that the government could allege violations of, or convict us of violating, these laws. If we are found in violation of one of these laws, we could be required to pay a penalty and could be suspended or excluded from participation in federal or state health care programs, and our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Our ability to research, develop and commercialize Sativex and our product candidates, such as Epidiolex, is dependent on our ability to maintain licenses relating to the cultivation, possession and supply of controlled substances.

Our research and manufacturing facilities are located exclusively in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, licenses to cultivate, possess and supply cannabis for medical research are granted by the

24

Home Office on an annual basis. Although the Home Office has renewed our licenses each year since 1998, it may not do so in the future, in which case we may not be in a position to carry on our research and development program in the United Kingdom. In addition, we are required to maintain our existing commercial licenses to cultivate, produce and supply cannabis. However, if the Home Office were not prepared to renew such licenses, we would be unable to manufacture and distribute our products on a commercial basis in the United Kingdom or beyond. In order to carry out research in countries other than the United Kingdom, similar licenses to those outlined above are required to be issued by the relevant authority in each country. In addition, we will be required to obtain licenses to export from the United Kingdom and to import into the recipient country. To date, we have obtained necessary import and export licenses to over 30 countries. Although we have an established track record of successfully obtaining such licenses as required, this may change in the future.

In the United States, the DEA regulates the cultivation, possession and supply of cannabis for medical research and/or commercial development, including the requirement of annual registrations to manufacture or distribute pharmaceutical products derived from cannabis extracts. We do not currently conduct manufacturing or repackaging/relabeling of any product candidates in the United States. In the event that we sought to do so in the future, a decision to manufacture, or supply cannabis extracts for medical research or commercial development in the United States would require that we and/or our contract manufacturers maintain such registrations, and be subject to other regulatory requirements, and if the DEA failed to issue or renew such registrations, we would be unable to manufacture and distribute any product in the United States on a commercial basis.

Serious adverse events or other safety risks could require us to abandon development and preclude, delay or limit approval of our product candidates, limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance, or cause the recall or loss of marketing approval of products that are already marketed.

If Sativex or any of our product candidates, such as Epidiolex, prior to or after any approval for commercial sale, cause serious or unexpected side effects, or are associated with other safety risks such as misuse, abuse or diversion, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

•

regulatory authorities may interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials;

​

•

regulatory authorities may deny regulatory approval of our product candidates;

​

•

regulatory authorities may require certain labeling statements, such as warnings or contraindications or limitations on the indications for use, and/or impose restrictions on distribution in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, in connection with approval, if any;

​

•

regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval, require more onerous labeling statements, impose a more restrictive REMS, or require us to recall any product that is approved;

​

•

we may be required to change the way the product is administered or conduct additional clinical trials;

​

•

our relationships with our collaboration partners may suffer;

​

•

we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; or

​

•

our reputation may suffer. The reputational risk is heightened with respect to those of our product candidates that are being developed for pediatric indications.

​

We may voluntarily suspend or terminate our clinical trials if at any time we believe that they present an unacceptable risk to participants or if preliminary data demonstrate that our product candidates are unlikely to receive regulatory approval or unlikely to be successfully commercialized. Following receipt of approval for commercial sale of a product we may voluntarily withdraw or recall that product from the market if at any time we believe that its use, or a person’s exposure to it, may cause adverse health consequences or death. To date we have not withdrawn, recalled or taken any other action, voluntary or mandatory, to remove an approved product from the market. To date, we have only voluntarily suspended clinical trials when recruitment of the target patients has proven to be too difficult or, temporarily, to

25

properly investigate suspected adverse events. In addition, regulatory agencies, IRBs or data safety monitoring boards may at any time recommend the temporary or permanent discontinuation of our clinical trials or request that we cease using investigators in the clinical trials if they believe that the clinical trials are not being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, or that they present an unacceptable safety risk to participants. Although we have never been asked by a regulatory agency, IRB or data safety monitoring board to temporarily or permanently discontinue a clinical trial, if we elect or are forced to suspend or terminate a clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for that product will be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue from that product may be delayed or eliminated. Furthermore, any of these events may result in labeling statements such as warnings or contraindications. In addition, such events or labeling could prevent us or our partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates and impair our ability to generate revenue from the commercialization of these products either by us or by our collaboration partners.

If third parties claim that intellectual property used by us infringes upon their intellectual property, our operating profits could be adversely affected.

There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry. We may, from time to time, be notified of claims that we are infringing upon patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights owned by third parties, and we cannot provide assurances that other companies will not, in the future, pursue such infringement claims against us, our commercial partners or any third-party proprietary technologies we have licensed. If we were found to infringe upon a patent or other intellectual property right, or if we failed to obtain or renew a license under a patent or other intellectual property right from a third party, or if a third party that we were licensing technologies from was found to infringe upon a patent or other intellectual property rights of another third party, we may be required to pay damages, including damages of up to three times the damages found or assessed, if the infringement is found to be willful, suspend the manufacture of certain products or reengineer or rebrand our products, if feasible, or we may be unable to enter certain new product markets. Any such claims could also be expensive and time consuming to defend and divert management’s attention and resources. Our competitive position could suffer as a result. In addition, if we have declined or failed to enter into a valid non-disclosure or assignment agreement for any reason, we may not own the invention or our intellectual property, and our products may not be adequately protected. Although we have reviewed certain third-party patents and patent filings that we believe may be relevant to Sativex, Epidiolex and our other product candidates, we have not conducted full freedom-to-operate searches or analyses, and we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing Sativex, Epidiolex or our other product candidates. Thus, we cannot guarantee that Sativex, Epidiolex or our other product candidates, or our commercialization thereof, does not and will not infringe any third party’s intellectual property.

Risks Related to Our Reliance Upon Third Parties

We depend substantially on the commercial expertise of our collaboration partners for Sativex.

Although we intend to commercialize Epidiolex using our own sales and marketing operation in the United States and potentially elsewhere, we rely on the expertise and commercial skills of our collaboration partners to sell Sativex. We have entered into agreements for the commercialization of Sativex with Almirall S.A., or Almirall, in Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) and Mexico; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Otsuka, in the United States; Bayer HealthCare AG in the United Kingdom and Canada; Ipsen Biopharm Ltd, or Ipsen, in Latin America (excluding Mexico and the Islands of the Caribbean); and Neopharm Group in Israel. Our ability to successfully market and sell Sativex in each of these markets depends entirely on the expertise and commercial skills of our collaboration partners. Our partners have the right, under certain circumstances, to terminate their agreements with us, and two of our partners, Almirall and Otsuka, have the right to terminate their agreements with us without cause. In November 2016 we entered into a mutual termination agreement with Novartis, pursuant to which rights in Sativex in Australia and New Zealand, Asia (excluding Japan, China and Hong Kong), the Middle East (excluding Israel) and

26

Africa have been returned to GW, and we have appointed new distributors in Australia and New Zealand, where Sativex is approved. We are in late stage negotiations with Otsuka for the return of US development and commercialization rights to Sativex in the United States and expect these rights to be returned in the near future. No other partner has given notice of termination of their agreement with us to date, but given the fact that not one of three Phase 3 cancer pain trials for Sativex showed a statistically significant difference for Sativex compared with placebo, we cannot be certain that any one or all of these remaining partners will not terminate their agreement with us. Further, a failure by our partners to successfully market Sativex, or the termination of agreements with our partners, may have an adverse effect on our business at least in the near term period following such termination.

We have relied on Otsuka for funding of our Sativex research and development programs in the United States and as we expect Otsuka to terminate its agreement with us we will have to fund any future development of Sativex in the United States ourselves.

Under the terms of our agreement with Otsuka with respect to Sativex in the United States, Otsuka funds all pre-clinical and clinical trials for the development of Sativex in the treatment of cancer pain as well as potential additional indications. In light of the results of the Phase 3 cancer pain trials for Sativex discussed above, we are in late stage negotiations with Otsuka for the return of US development and commercialization rights to Sativex in the United States and expect these rights to be returned in the near future. Following termination of this agreement and the recovery of rights to Sativex in the United States, we will be required to find alternative funding for our clinical program for any future development of Sativex in the United States.

In addition, under the terms of the research collaboration agreement we entered with Otsuka in 2007 all intellectual property rights (including both patents and non-manufacturing related know-how) that was conceived by either Otsuka or us during the course of the collaboration is to be jointly owned by Otsuka and us unless Otsuka elects to cease funding the prosecution and maintenance costs for these rights. As at September 30, 2017 we had 6 patent families which consist of 61 jointly owned patent applications and 97 granted patents relating to our collaboration with Otsuka. Because Otsuka exercises some control over this jointly owned intellectual property, we may need to seek Otsuka’s consent to out-license and/or enforce some of this collaboration intellectual property in the future.

Our existing collaboration arrangements and any that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex.

We are a party to, and may seek additional, collaboration arrangements with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development or commercialization of Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex. We may, with respect to our product candidates, enter into new arrangements on a selective basis depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into selective collaboration arrangements with leading pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for each product candidate, both in the United States and internationally. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we will face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document and implement. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish, implement and maintain collaborations or other alternative arrangements if we choose to enter into such arrangements and, as noted above, our selected partners may be given, and may exercise, a right to terminate their agreement with us without cause. The terms of any collaboration or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

Any existing or future collaboration that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. For example, the mutual termination of the Sativex distribution and license agreement with Novartis follows the prior amendment agreement with Novartis which permitted Novartis not to make a determination about launching Sativex in any country in its territory until final data was available for the Phase 3 clinical trials for Sativex in cancer pain.

27

Disagreements between parties to a collaboration arrangement regarding development, intellectual property, regulatory or commercialization matters, can lead to delays in the development process or commercialization of the applicable product candidate and, in some cases, termination of the collaboration arrangement. These disagreements can be difficult to resolve if neither of the parties has final decision making authority.

Collaborations with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies and other third parties often are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration could harm our business reputation, and may adversely affect us financially.

We depend on a limited number of suppliers for materials and components required to manufacture Sativex and our product candidates, such as Epidiolex. The loss of these suppliers, or their failure to supply us on a timely basis, could cause delays in our current and future capacity and adversely affect our business.

We depend on a limited number of suppliers for the materials and components required to manufacture Sativex and our product candidates, such as Epidiolex. For example, we rely on single-source suppliers to supply various components of Sativex, including the glass vial and pump actuator, and we rely on a single contractor for commercial supply of botanical raw material for Sativex. Although we are actively working on expanding the number of suppliers and facilities for Epidiolex production, at present we are dependent on single-source suppliers and facilities for the following steps in Epidiolex production: drug product formulation and bottling, and packing and labelling. As a result, we may not be able to obtain sufficient quantities of critical materials and components in the future. A delay or interruption by our suppliers may also harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the lead time needed to establish a relationship with a new supplier can be lengthy, and we may experience delays in meeting demand in the event we must switch to a new supplier. The time and effort to qualify for and, in some cases, obtain regulatory approval for a new supplier could result in additional costs, diversion of resources or reduced manufacturing yields, any of which would negatively impact our operating results. Our dependence on single-source suppliers exposes us to numerous risks, including the following: our suppliers may cease or reduce production or deliveries, raise prices or renegotiate terms; our suppliers may become insolvent or cease trading; we may be unable to locate a suitable replacement supplier on acceptable terms or on a timely basis, or at all; and delays caused by supply issues may harm our reputation, frustrate our customers and cause them to turn to our competitors for future needs.

A significant portion of our cash and cash equivalents are held at a small number of banks.

A significant portion of our cash and cash equivalents is presently held at a small number of banks. Although our board has adopted a treasury policy requiring us to limit the amount of cash held by each banking group taking into account their credit ratings, we are subject to credit risk if any of these banks are unable to repay the balance in the applicable account or deliver our securities or if any bank should become bankrupt or otherwise insolvent. Any of the above events could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may not be able to adequately protect Sativex, our product candidates, including Epidiolex, or our proprietary technology in the marketplace.

Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain patents, protect our trade secrets and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others. We rely upon a combination of patents, plant variety rights, trade secret protection (i.e., know how), and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property of Sativex and our product candidates, including Epidiolex. The strengths of patents in the pharmaceutical field involve complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. Where appropriate, we seek patent protection for certain aspects of our products and technology. However, patent protection for naturally occurring compounds is exceedingly difficult to obtain, defend and enforce. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, so our policy is to see to patent technologies with commercial potential in jurisdictions with significant commercial opportunities. However, patent protection may not be available for some of the products or technology we are developing. If we must spend significant time and money protecting, defending or enforcing our

28

patents, designing around patents held by others or licensing, potentially for large fees, patents or other proprietary rights held by others, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be harmed. We may not develop additional proprietary products that are patentable.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical products are complex and uncertain. The scope and extent of patent protection for Sativex and our product candidates are particularly uncertain. To date, our principal product candidates, including Sativex and Epidiolex, have been based on specific formulations of certain previously known cannabinoids found in nature in the cannabis sativa plant. While we have sought patent protection, where appropriate, directed to, among other things, composition of matter for our specific formulations, their methods of use, and methods of manufacture, we do not have and will not be able to obtain composition of matter protection on these previously known cannabinoids per se. We anticipate that the products we develop in the future will continue to include or be based on the same or other naturally occurring compounds, as well as synthetic compounds we may discover. Although we have sought and expect to continue to seek patent protection for our product candidates, their methods of use, and methods of manufacture, any or all of them may not be subject to effective patent protection. For example, we are unable to obtain composition of matter patent protection for CBD, the active ingredient in Epidiolex, as it is a naturally occurring compound and to date we have not been granted patent protection for its method of use to treat any of the indications for which we are currently seeking marketing approval, although we continue to prosecute a number of pending patent applications. If Epidiolex (or any of our other commercial products) is approved and marketed for an indication for which we do not have an issued patent, our ability to use our patents to prevent a competitior from commercializing a non-branded version of Epidiolex or our other commercial products for that non-patented indication could be significantly impaired or even eliminated.

Publication of information related to Sativex and our product candidates by us or others may prevent us from obtaining or enforcing patents relating to these products and product candidates. Furthermore, others may independently develop similar products, may duplicate our products, or may design around our patent rights. In addition, any of our issued patents may be opposed and/or declared invalid or unenforceable. A number of our recently issued European patents, including our European patent claiming the use of CBD in the treatment of partial seizures, have received notices of opposition, which may result in claims in these patents being narrowed or cancelled such that the scope of the opposed patent may not be as broad, or the opposed patent may be revoked in its entirety. In the case of our European patent claiming the use of CBD in the treatment of partial seizures, the patent was maintained based on amended claims at first instance, but this decision is being appealed by both parties. Our US patent claiming the use of CBD in the treatment of partial seizures is also subject of a petition for inter partes review by the Patents Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The petition has been instituted on two of the three grounds claimed and is now proceeding towards a hearing in March 2018. If we fail to adequately protect our intellectual property, we may face competition from companies who attempt to create a generic product to compete with Sativex or Epidiolex. We may also face competition from companies who develop a substantially similar product to Sativex, Epidiolex or one of our other product candidates that is not covered by any of our patents.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting, defending and enforcing intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property rights, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals, 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 could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

Risks Related to Controlled Substances

Controlled substance legislation differs between countries and legislation in certain countries may restrict or limit our ability to sell Sativex and our product candidates such as Epidiolex.

Most countries are parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, which governs international trade and domestic control of narcotic substances, including cannabis extracts. Countries may interpret and implement their treaty obligations in a way that creates a legal obstacle to our obtaining

29

regulatory approval for Sativex, Epidiolex and our other products in those countries. These countries may not be willing or able to amend or otherwise modify their laws and regulations to permit Sativex, Epidiolex or our other products to be marketed, or achieving such amendments to the laws and regulations may take a prolonged period of time. For example, we are currently unable to file a regulatory application in Mexico or Japan due to a national law which the regulators consider prevents the approval of a cannabis-based medicine. In the case of countries with similar obstacles, we would be unable to market Sativex, Epidiolex and our product candidates in countries in the near future or perhaps at all if the laws and regulations in those countries do not change.

The product candidates we are developing will be subject to U.S. controlled substance laws and regulations and failure to comply with these laws and regulations, or the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations, may adversely affect the results of our business operations, both during clinical development and post approval, and our financial condition.

The product candidates we are developing contain controlled substances as defined in the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, or CSA. Controlled substances that are pharmaceutical products are subject to a high degree of regulation under the CSA, which establishes, among other things, certain registration, manufacturing quotas, security, recordkeeping, reporting, import, export and other requirements administered by the DEA. The DEA classifies controlled substances into five schedules: Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, no currently “accepted medical use” in the United States, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and may not be prescribed, marketed or sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical products approved for use in the United States which contain a controlled substance are listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest potential for abuse or dependence and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule I and II drugs are subject to the strictest controls under the CSA, including manufacturing and procurement quotas, security requirements and criteria for importation. In addition, dispensing of Schedule II drugs is further restricted. For example, they may not be refilled without a new prescription.

While cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance, products approved for medical use in the United States that contain cannabis or cannabis extracts should be placed in Schedules II-V, since approval by the FDA satisfies the “accepted medical use” requirement. If and when any of our product candidates receive FDA approval, the DEA will make a scheduling determination and place the product in a schedule other than Schedule I in order for it to be prescribed to patients in the United States. At the Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society held in December 2017, we presented data from our human abuse liability study, which demonstrated that CBD has a low potential for abuse when compared to a Schedule III or Schedule IV drug product. If approved by the FDA, we expect the finished dosage form of Epidiolex to be controlled in Schedule IV or V. Consequently, the manufacture, importation, exportation, domestic distribution, storage, sale and legitimate use will be subject to specific and potentially significant levels of regulation by the DEA. On November 25, 2015 the President of the United States signed a new law that (i) amends the CSA to require the DEA to issue an interim final scheduling rule within ninety days following FDA approval and the Secretary of Health and Human Services recommending that the Attorney General control the drug in Schedule II, III, IV or V, and (ii) amends the FDCA to ensure that companies do not lose exclusivity on newly approved drugs because of the DEA drug scheduling process. Insys Therapeutics Inc., a competitor who is developing products for the treatment of Dravet Syndrome and LGS (among other indications) which are based on CBD produced by a synthetic process, has already petitioned DEA to reschedule its synthetic CBD. Any DEA rescheduling action on the Insys petition might be limited to CBD produced by a synthetic process and thereby not apply to our product. If Insys succeeds with its petition before its product is approved by FDA, it will avoid the 90-day post-FDA approval rescheduling delay. Furthermore, if the FDA, DEA, or any foreign regulatory authority determines that Sativex or Epidiolex may have potential for abuse, it may require us to generate more clinical or other data than we currently anticipate to establish whether or to what extent the substance has an abuse potential, which could increase the cost and/or delay the launch of that product.

DEA registration and inspection of facilities.    Facilities conducting research, manufacturing, distributing, importing or exporting, or dispensing controlled substances must be registered (licensed) to perform these activities and have the security, control, recordkeeping, reporting and inventory mechanisms

30

required by the DEA to prevent drug loss and diversion. All these facilities must renew their registrations annually, except dispensing facilities, which must renew every three years. The DEA conducts periodic inspections of certain registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Obtaining the necessary registrations may result in delay of the importation, manufacturing or distribution of Sativex and/or Epidiolex. Furthermore, failure to maintain compliance with the CSA, particularly non-compliance resulting in loss or diversion, can result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to restrict, suspend or revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings.

State-controlled substances laws.    Individual states have also established controlled substance laws and regulations. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule our product candidates as well. While some states automatically schedule a drug based on federal action, other states schedule drugs through rulemaking or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval and adverse scheduling could have a material adverse effect on the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or our partners must also obtain separate state registrations, permits or licenses in order to be able to obtain, handle, and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions by the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.

Clinical trials.    Because Sativex and Epidiolex contain cannabis extracts, which are Schedule I substances, to conduct clinical trials with Sativex and Epidiolex in the United States prior to approval, each of our research sites must submit a research protocol to the DEA and obtain and maintain a DEA researcher registration that will allow those sites to handle and dispense Sativex and/or Epidiolex (as applicable) and to obtain the product from our importer. If the DEA delays or denies the grant of a research registration to one or more research sites, the clinical trial could be significantly delayed, and we could lose clinical trial sites. The importer for the clinical trials must also obtain a Schedule I importer registration and an import permit for each import. We do not currently conduct any manufacturing or repackaging/relabeling of either Sativex or its active ingredients (i.e., the cannabis extract) or Epidiolex or its active ingredient (purified CBD) in the United States. Sativex and Epidiolex are both imported in fully-finished, packaged and labeled dosage forms.

Importation.    If one of our product candidates is approved and classified as a Schedule II or III substance, an importer can import for commercial purposes if it obtains an importer registration and files an application for an import permit for each import. The DEA provides annual assessments/estimates to the International Narcotics Control Board which guides the DEA in the amounts of controlled substances that the DEA authorizes to be imported. The failure to identify an importer or obtain the necessary import authority, including specific quantities, could affect product availability and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, an application for a Schedule II importer registration must be published in the Federal Register, and there is a waiting period for third party comments to be submitted. It is always possible a competitor could take this opportunity to make adverse comments that delay the grant of an importer registration.

If one of our product candidates is approved and classified as a Schedule II controlled substance, federal law may prohibit the import of the substance for commercial purposes. If a product is listed as a Schedule II substance, we will not be allowed to import that drug for commercial purposes unless the DEA determines that domestic supplies are inadequate or there is inadequate domestic competition among domestic manufacturers for the substance as defined by the DEA. It is always possible the DEA could find that the active substance in a product, even if it is a plant derived substance, could be manufactured in the US. Moreover, Schedule I controlled substances, including BDSs, have never been registered with the DEA for importation commercial purposes, only for scientific and research needs. Therefore, if neither Sativex nor its BDSs, nor Epidiolex or its purified BDS could be imported, that product would have to be wholly manufactured in the United States, and we would need to secure a manufacturer that would be required to obtain and maintain a separate DEA registration for that activity.

Manufacture in the United States.    If, because of a Schedule II classification or voluntarily, we were to conduct manufacturing or repackaging/relabeling in the United States, our contract manufacturers would

31

be subject to the DEA’s annual manufacturing and procurement quota requirements. Additionally, regardless of the scheduling of Sativex and Epidiolex, cannabis and the BDSs comprising the active ingredient in the final dosage form are currently Schedule I controlled substances and would be subject to such quotas as these substances could remain listed on Schedule I. The annual quota allocated to us or our contract manufacturers for the active ingredients in our products may not be sufficient to complete clinical trials or meet commercial demand. Consequently, any delay or refusal by the DEA in establishing our, or our contract manufacturers’, procurement and/or production quota for controlled substances could delay or stop our clinical trials or product launches, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and operations.

Distribution in the United States.    If any of our product candidates is scheduled as Schedule II or III, we would also need to identify wholesale distributors with the appropriate DEA and state registrations and authority to distribute the product to pharmacies and other health care providers. We would need to identify distributors to distribute the product to pharmacies; these distributors would need to obtain Schedule II or III distribution registrations. The failure to obtain, or delay in obtaining, or the loss any of those registrations could result in increased costs to us. If any of our product candidates is a Schedule II drug, pharmacies would have to maintain enhanced security with alarms and monitoring systems and they must adhere to recordkeeping and inventory requirements. This may discourage some pharmacies from carrying either or both of these products. Furthermore, state and federal enforcement actions, regulatory requirements, and legislation intended to reduce prescription drug abuse, such as the requirement that physicians consult a state prescription drug monitoring program may make physicians less willing to prescribe, and pharmacies to dispense, Schedule II products.

The approval and use of medical and recreational marijuana in various U.S. states may impact our business.

There is a substantial amount of change occurring in various states of the United States regarding the use of medical and recreational marijuana. While marijuana is a Schedule I substance as defined under federal law, and its possession and use is not permitted according to federal law, at least 30 states have enacted state laws to enable possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes, and at least nine states for recreational purposes. Our business is quite distinct from that of crude herbal marijuana. Our prospects and our reputation, however, may be impacted by developments of these laws at the state level in the United States.

Risks Related to Ownership of our American Depositary Shares (ADSs)

The liquidity of our ADSs may have an adverse effect on share price.

As at September 30, 2017, we had 304,439,740 ordinary shares outstanding. Of these ordinary shares, 283,563,168 were held as ADSs and 20,876,572 were held as ordinary shares outside the ADS facility. In connection with our May 2013 initial public offering, or IPO, of ADSs on the Nasdaq Global Market, we issued 3,678,000 ADSs. In January 2014 we issued an additional 2,807,275 ADSs in a public offering on the Nasdaq Global Market. In June 2014 we issued an additional 1,455,000 ADSs and certain selling shareholders sold an additional 500,000 ADSs in a public offering on the Nasdaq Global Market. In May 2015 we issued an additional 1,840,000 ADSs in a public offering on the Nasdaq Global Market. In July 2016 we issued an additional 3,220,000 ADSs in a public offering on the Nasdaq Global Market. There is a risk that there may not be sufficient liquidity in the market to accommodate significant increases in selling activity or the sale of a large block of our securities. Our ADSs have historically had limited trading volume, which may also result in volatility.

The market price of our ADSs may be volatile.

Many factors may have a material adverse effect on the market price of the ADSs, including, but not limited to:

•

the loss of any of our key scientific or management personnel;

​

•

announcements of the failure to obtain regulatory approvals or receipt of a complete response letter from the FDA;

​

32

•

announcements of restricted label indications or patient populations, or changes or delays in regulatory review processes;

​

•

announcements of therapeutic innovations or new products by us or our competitors;

​

•

adverse actions taken by regulatory agencies with respect to our clinical trials, manufacturing supply chain or sales and marketing activities, including actions with respect to any regulatory exclusivities for our drugs and our drug candidates;

​

•

changes or developments in laws or regulations applicable to Sativex, Epidiolex and our other product candidates;

​

•

any adverse changes to our relationship with licensors, manufacturers or suppliers;

​

•

the failure of our testing and clinical trials;

​

•

the failure to retain our existing, or obtain new, collaboration partners;

​

•

announcements concerning our competitors or the pharmaceutical industry in general;

​

•

the achievement of expected product sales and profitability;

​

•

the failure to obtain reimbursements for our products or price reductions;

​

•

manufacture, supply or distribution shortages;

​

•

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results;

​

•

our cash position;

​

•

changes in financial estimates or recommendations by securities analysts;

​

•

potential acquisitions;

​

•

the trading volume of ADSs on Nasdaq;

​

•

sales of our ADSs or ordinary shares by us, our executive officers and directors or our shareholders in the future;

​

•

the impact on the financial markets or otherwise of the expected withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union;

​

•

general economic and market conditions and overall fluctuations in the United States equity markets; and

​

•

changes in accounting principles.

​

In addition, the stock market in general, and Nasdaq in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of individual companies. The market for equity securities in pharmaceutical companies, in particular, has at various times experienced extreme volatility. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our ADSs, regardless of our actual operating performance.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation often has been instituted against that company. In January 2016, a shareholder-initiated class action lawsuit was filed against us. While this lawsuit has been dismissed, similar litigation if initiated against us in the future, could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources, which could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our largest shareholder owns a significant percentage of the share capital and voting rights of GW.

As of September 30, 2017, Capital Research and Management Company held approximately 14.65% of our issued share capital, accounting for approximately 14.65% of the voting rights of the Company. To the extent Capital Research and Management Company continues to hold a large percentage of our share capital and voting rights, it will remain in a position to exert greater influence in the appointment of the directors and officers of GW and in other corporate actions that require shareholders’ approval.

33

Substantial future sales of our ADSs in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, could cause the price of the ADSs to decline.

Sales of our ADSs in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, could cause the market price of the ADSs to decline. The ordinary shares held by our directors, including our officers, are available for sale in the form of ADSs and are not subject to contractual and legal restrictions on resale. If any of our large shareholders or members of our management team seek to sell substantial amounts of our ADSs, particularly if these sales are in a rapid or disorderly manner, or other investors perceive that these sales could occur, the market price of our ADSs could decrease significantly.

As a foreign private issuer, we are not subject to certain Nasdaq Global Market corporate governance rules applicable to U.S. listed companies and are subject to reporting obligations that are different and less frequent than those of a U.S. listed company. As a result, investors in our securities may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

We rely on a provision in Nasdaq’s Global Market Listed Company Manual that allows us to follow English corporate law and the Companies Act 2006 with regard to certain aspects of corporate governance. This allows us to follow certain corporate governance practices that differ in significant respects from the corporate governance requirements applicable to U.S. companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Market.

For example, we are exempt from Nasdaq Global Market regulations that require a U.S. listed company to:

•

have a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors;

​

•

require non-management directors to meet on a regular basis without management present;

​

•

promptly disclose any waivers of the code for directors or executive officers that should address certain specified items;

​

•

have an independent nominating committee;

​

•

have a compensation committee charter specifying the items enumerated in Nasdaq Stock Market, Marketplace Rule 5605(d)(1) and a review and assessment of the adequacy of that charter on an annual basis;

​

•

solicit proxies and provide proxy statements for all shareholder meetings; and

​

•

seek shareholder approval for the implementation of certain equity compensation plans and issuances of ordinary shares.

​

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted to, and we will continue to, follow home country practice in lieu of the above requirements.

Because we qualify and report as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), we are exempt from certain provisions of the Exchange Act that are applicable to U.S. public companies, including (i) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act, (ii) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time, and (iii) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q containing unaudited financial and other specified information, or current reports on Form 8-K, upon the occurrence of specified significant events. We intend to continue to furnish quarterly reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 6-K for so long as we are subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13(g) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, although the information we furnish may not be the same as the information that is required in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for U.S. domestic issuers. In addition, while U.S. domestic issuers that are large accelerated filers are required to file their annual reports on Form 10-K within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year foreign private issuers are not required to file their annual report on Form 20-F until 120 days after the end of each fiscal year. Foreign private issuers are also exempt from Regulation Fair Disclosure, aimed at preventing issuers from making

34

selective disclosures of material information. Although we intend to make quarterly financial reports available to our shareholders in a timely manner, investors in our securities may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are not foreign private issuers.

Because we are listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, our Audit Committee is required to comply with the provisions of Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act, both of which are also applicable to Nasdaq Global Market-listed U.S. companies. Because we are a foreign private issuer, however, our Audit Committee is not subject to additional Nasdaq Global Market requirements applicable to U.S. listed companies, including an affirmative determination that all members of the Audit Committee are “independent,” using more stringent criteria than those applicable to us as a foreign private issuer.

We expect to lose our foreign private issuer status in the future, which could result in significant additional costs and expenses.

We are a “foreign private issuer,” as such term is defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended (Securities Act), and therefore we are not required to comply with all the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and related rules and regulations. Under Rule 405, the determination of foreign private issuer status is made annually on the last business day of an issuer’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter and, accordingly, the next determination will be made with respect to us on March 31, 2018.

In the future, we expect to lose our foreign private issuer status, when a majority of our ordinary shares (including those represented by ADSs) are owned by U.S. shareholders and a majority of our shareholders, directors or management are U.S. citizens or residents and we fail to meet additional requirements necessary to avoid loss of foreign private issuer status. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under applicable U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly higher than our current regulatory and compliance costs. When we are no longer a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. For example, the annual report on Form 10-K requires domestic issuers to disclose executive compensation information on an individual basis with specific disclosure regarding the domestic compensation philosophy, objectives, annual total compensation (base salary, bonus, equity compensation) and potential payments in connection with change in control, retirement, death or disability, while the annual report on Form 20-F permits foreign private issuers to disclose compensation information on an aggregate basis. We will also have to report our results under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, rather than under International Financial Reporting Standards, as a domestic registrant. We will have to restate our previously-reported financial statements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. We will also have to mandatorily comply with U.S. federal proxy requirements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders will become subject to the short-swing profit disclosure and recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. We may also be required to modify certain of our policies to comply with corporate governance practices required for U.S. domestic issuers. Such conversion and modifications will involve additional costs. In addition, we may lose our ability to rely upon exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market that are available to foreign private issuers.

We incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a company whose ADSs are publicly traded in the United States, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a company whose ADSs commenced trading in the United States in May 2013, we incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses that we did not previously incur. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and related rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq Global Market have imposed various requirements on public companies including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls. We are required to comply with Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which involves considerable management time and expenses. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase our legal and financial compliance costs, relative to companies that are listed solely in the United Kingdom, and make

35

some activities more time-consuming and costly. We estimate that our annual compliance expenses will be approximately £2.3 million in each of the next two fiscal years. These rules and regulations have also made it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. These laws and regulations could also make it more difficult and expensive for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as our executive officers. Furthermore, if we are unable to satisfy our obligations as a public company, we could be subject to delisting of the ADSs, fines, sanctions and other regulatory action and potentially civil litigation; all of which could harm our reputation and negatively affect our share price.

U.S. investors may have difficulty enforcing civil liabilities against our Company, our directors or members of senior management and the experts named in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

Except for Justin Gover and Cabot Brown, our directors named in this Annual Report on Form 20-F are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible to serve process on such persons or us in the United States or to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts against them or us based on civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States. Mayer Brown International LLP, our English solicitors, advised us that there is doubt as to whether English courts would enforce certain civil liabilities under U.S. securities laws in original actions or judgments of U.S. courts based upon these civil liability provisions. In addition, awards of punitive damages in actions brought in the United States or elsewhere may be unenforceable in the United Kingdom. An award for monetary damages under the U.S. securities laws would be considered punitive if it does not seek to compensate the claimant for loss or damage suffered and is intended to punish the defendant. The enforceability of any judgment in the United Kingdom will depend on the particular facts of the case as well as the laws and treaties in effect at the time. The United States and the United Kingdom do not currently have a treaty providing for recognition and enforcement of judgments (other than arbitration awards) in civil and commercial matters.

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

We are incorporated under English law. The rights of holders of ordinary shares, and therefore certain of the rights of holders of ADSs, are governed by English law, including the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, and by our Articles. These rights differ in certain respects from the rights of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations. See “Description of Share Capital — Differences in Corporate Law” in our Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-217329), filed with the SEC on April 17, 2017 and which is incorporated by reference into this document for a description of the principal differences between the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 applicable to us and, for example, the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to shareholders’ rights and protections.

We may be classified as a passive foreign investment company, or a PFIC, in any taxable year and U.S. holders of our ordinary shares could be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences.

The rules governing passive foreign investment companies, or PFICs, can have adverse effects for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The tests for determining PFIC status for a taxable year depend upon the relative values of certain categories of assets and the relative amounts of certain kinds of income. The determination of whether we are a PFIC depends on the particular facts and circumstances (such as the valuation of our assets, including goodwill and other intangible assets) and may also be affected by the application of the PFIC rules, which are subject to differing interpretations. Based on our estimated gross income, the average value of our assets, including goodwill and the nature of our active business, we do not believe that we were classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes for our taxable year ended September 30, 2017.

If we are a PFIC, U.S. holders of our ordinary shares would be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, such as ineligibility for any preferred tax rates on capital gains or on actual or deemed dividends, interest charges on certain taxes treated as deferred, and additional reporting requirements under U.S. federal income tax laws and regulations. A U.S. holder of our ordinary shares may be able to mitigate some of the adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences described above with respect to owning the

36

ordinary shares if we are classified as a PFIC, provided that such U.S. investor is eligible to make, and validly makes, a “mark-to-market” election. In certain circumstances a U.S. Holder can make a “qualified electing fund” election to mitigate some of the adverse tax consequences described with respect to an ownership interest in a PFIC by including in income its share of the PFIC’s income on a current basis. However, we do not currently intend to prepare or provide the information that would enable a U.S. Holder to make a qualified electing fund election.

Investors should consult their own tax advisors regarding all aspects of the application of the PFIC rules to our ordinary shares. For more information related to classification as a PFIC, see “Taxation — U.S. Federal Income Taxation — Passive Foreign Investment Company.”

Changes in U.S. tax legislation could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Congress is currently considering various legislative proposals for tax reform that would result in significant changes to U.S. tax rules. It is possible that one or more proposals currently being considered or future tax reform proposals could be enacted that would have an adverse impact on our business, financial projections and results of operations or an adverse impact on holders or our ordinary shares. The timing and details of any tax reform legislation, as well as the impact it may have on us, or on investors, remain unclear.

37

Other Pipeline Product Candidates

39

Epidiolex ® for Orphan Childhood-onset Epilepsy

Our lead cannabinoid product candidate is Epidiolex, a liquid formulation of pure plant-derived CBD, which is in development for the treatment of a number of rare childhood-onset epilepsy disorders. Several features of the pharmacology of certain cannabinoids suggest that they may be candidates for investigation as anti-epileptic drugs, or AEDs. We have been conducting pre-clinical research of CBD in epilepsy since 2007, primarily in collaboration with the University of Reading in the United Kingdom. This research has shown that CBD has significant anti-epileptiform and anticonvulsant activity using a variety of in vitro and in vivo models and that it has the ability to treat seizures in acute animal models of epilepsy with significantly fewer side effects than existing AEDs.

Our strategy for the development of Epidiolex within the field of childhood-onset epilepsy is to initially concentrate formal development efforts on four orphan indications: Dravet syndrome, LGS, TSC and IS. We have to date received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, LGS, TSC and IS. Additionally, we have received Fast Track Designation from the FDA for the treatment of Dravet syndrome and conditional grant of rare pediatric disease designation by FDA for the treatment of LGS. We have also received Orphan Designation from the EMA for Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome and LGS.

We expect to further expand the potential market opportunity of Epidiolex by targeting additional orphan seizure disorders.

Epilepsy Market Overview

Epilepsy afflicts between 1.3 million to 2.8 million adults and children in the United States according to the Epilepsy Foundation. The Epilepsy Foundation believes its most accurate estimate is 2.2 million people, or 7.1 for every 1,000 people. According to Kwan and Brodie in the February 2000 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, 36 percent of patients with epilepsy were pharmacoresistant. Of the patients in the study, 47 percent became seizure-free during treatment with their first AED, 13 percent became seizure-free during treatment with a second AED as a monotherapy, and 4 percent became seizure-free with a third AED or treatment with multiple AEDs. The remaining 36 percent of patients were classified by the authors as having pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Furthermore it is recognized that some of those that do find relief often suffer side effects severe enough with their current medication that an alternative or adjunct treatment is often sought. The costs of uncontrolled epilepsy are significant, with direct and indirect costs associated with epilepsy totaling more than $15 billion per year. It is estimated that 50,000 epilepsy related deaths occur each year, more than breast cancer deaths annually.

According to Russ et al. in the February 2012 edition of Pediatrics, there are 466,000 childhood epilepsy patients in the United States and 765,000 patients in Europe, of which 30 percent, or about 140,000 patients in the United States and about 230,000 in Europe, are deemed medically intractable or pharmacoresistant.

Dravet Syndrome

Dravet syndrome is a severe infantile-onset, genetic, drug-resistant epilepsy syndrome with a distinctive but complex electroclinical presentation. Onset of Dravet syndrome occurs during the first year of life with clonic seizures (jerking) and tonic-clonic (convulsive) seizures in previously healthy and developmentally normal infants. Symptoms peak at about five months of age, and the latest onset beginning by 15 months of age. Other seizures develop between one and four years of age such as prolonged focal dyscognitive seizures and brief absence seizures, and duration of these seizures decreases during this period, but their frequency increases. Prognosis is poor and approximately 14 percent of children die during a seizure, because of infection due, for example, to prolonged periods of physical inactivity, the presence of advanced neurodegenerative disease or a compromised level of consciousness requiring a feeding tube, or suddenly due to uncertain causes, often because of the relentless neurological decline or from Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy, or SUPED. Patients develop intellectual disability and life-long ongoing seizures. Intellectual impairment varies from severe in 50 percent of patients, to moderate and mild intellectual disability each accounting for 25 percent of cases. Patients may rarely return to normal intellect.

40

According to Forsgren L. et al. in the 2004 edition of Epilepsy in Children, the incidence of epilepsy in the first year of life is 1.5 per 1,000 people, or, by our estimate, 6,450 new epilepsies per year worldwide. According to Dravet et al. in the 2012 edition of Epileptic Syndromes in Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence, up to 5 percent of epilepsies diagnosed in the first year of life are Dravet syndrome, equating to 320 new cases per year in the United States with a mortality rate that studies have shown may be as high as 15 percent in the first 20 years of life. By our estimate, there are approximately 5,440 patients with Dravet syndrome in the United States under the age of 20 years. Applying the same assumptions in Europe, we believe there are an estimated 6,710 Dravet syndrome patients in the European Union under the age of 20 years.

A large percentage of cases of Dravet syndrome have a family history for epilepsy or convulsions. Heterozygous de novo mutations of the alpha 1 (α-1) subunit of the SCN1A gene, which encodes a voltage-gated sodium channel, are the major cause of Dravet syndrome and are found in approximately 75 percent – 80 percent of patients and more than 500 SCN1A mutations have been reported to be associated with this disorder. There are currently no FDA-approved treatments specifically indicated for Dravet syndrome. The standard of care usually involves a combination of the following anticonvulsants: clobazam, clonazepam, leviteracetam, topirimate, valproic acid, ethosuximide or zonisamide. Stiripentol is approved in Europe for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in conjunction with clobazam and valproate. In the United States, stiripentol was granted an Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in 2008; however, the drug is not FDA approved. Potent sodium channel blockers used to treat epilepsy actually increase seizure frequency in patients with Dravet syndrome. The most common are phenytoin, carbamazepine, lamotrigine and rufinamide. Management of this disease may also include a ketogenic diet, and physical and communication therapy. In addition to anti-convulsive drugs, many patients with Dravet syndrome are treated with anti-psychotic drugs, stimulants and drugs to treat insomnia.

Dravet Syndrome Phase 3 Clinical Program

We held a pre-Investigational New Drug, or IND, meeting with the FDA in February 2014 to discuss the investigational plan for Epidiolex in Dravet syndrome, following which we opened a commercial IND in May 2014. In October 2014, we commenced a Phase 2/3 trial designed as a two-part randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group dose escalation, safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic and efficacy trial of single and multiple doses of Epidiolex to treat Dravet syndrome in children who are being treated with other AEDs. Part One was completed in February 2015, and included pharmacokinetic and dose-finding data elements in a total of 34 patients over a 3 week treatment period.

Following a review of the Part One data by an independent panel, Part Two (Phase 3) of the trial commenced in March 2015, and was a placebo-controlled safety and efficacy evaluation of Epidiolex (at a dose of 20mg/kg per day) over a 3-month treatment period.

This Phase 3 trial randomized 120 patients into two arms, Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day (n=61) and placebo (n=59). Epidiolex or placebo was added to current AED treatment regimens. On average, patients were taking approximately three AEDs, having previously tried and failed an average of more than four other AEDs. The average age of trial participants was ten years and 30 percent of patients were younger than six years of age. The median baseline convulsive seizure frequency per month was 13.

The primary efficacy endpoint was a comparison between Epidiolex and placebo measuring the percentage change in the monthly frequency of convulsive seizures during the 14-week treatment period compared with the 4-week baseline observation period. The results of this trial were published in May 2017 in The New England Journal of Medicine. Highlights of these results are as follows:

•

Patients taking Epidiolex achieved a median reduction in monthly convulsive seizures of 39 percent compared with a reduction on placebo of 13 percent (p=0.0123). A series of sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint confirmed the robustness of this result. The difference between Epidiolex and placebo emerged during the first month of treatment and was sustained during the entire treatment period.

​

•

In the 12-week maintenance period (not including the dose escalation period), Epidiolex treatment effect increased further, achieving a median reduction in monthly convulsive seizures of 41 percent

​

41

compared with a reduction on placebo of 16 percent (p=0.0052). Three CBD patients achieved total seizure freedom during the entire treatment period, with one additional CBD patient achieving convulsive seizure freedom during the entire maintenance period. No placebo patients experienced seizure freedom.

•

62 percent of patients treated with Epidiolex were rated as improved in overall condition on the Caregiver Global Impression of Change (CGIC) scale compared to 35 percent of the placebo group (p=0.0166).

​

•

During the treatment period, patients taking Epidiolex achieved a median reduction in monthly total seizures of 29 percent compared with a reduction of 9 percent in patients receiving placebo, which was statistically significant (p=0.0335). In the 12-week maintenance period, Epidiolex treatment effect increased further, achieving a median reduction in monthly convulsive seizures of 37 percent compared with a reduction on placebo of 10 percent (p=0.0234).

​

•

There was a consistent separation between Epidiolex and placebo across all response rates. The proportion of patients who had a 50 percent or better reduction in convulsive seizure frequency was 43 percent with Epidiolex versus 27 percent with placebo (p=0.0784).

​

Epidiolex was generally well tolerated in this trial. Overall, 93 percent of all Epidiolex patients experienced an adverse event compared with 75 percent of patients on placebo. The most common adverse events (occurring in greater than 10 percent of Epidiolex-treated patients) were: somnolence, diarrhea, decreased appetite, fatigue, pyrexia, vomiting, lethargy, upper respiratory tract infection and convulsion. Of those patients on Epidiolex that experienced an adverse event, 84 percent were assessed to be mild or moderate. Ten patients on Epidiolex experienced a serious adverse event compared with three patients on placebo. There was no difference in episodes of status epilepticus between Epidiolex and placebo. Nine patients on Epidiolex discontinued treatment due to adverse events compared with one patient on placebo. Increases in alanine aminotransferase, or ALT, or aminotransferase, or ALT, (levels >3× upper limit of normal, or ULN) occurred in 12 patients on Epidiolex and 1 placebo patient; all patients were on concomitant valproic acid. There is a set of accepted criteria for identifying whether these transient elevations of liver enzymes are a signal for serious toxicity. These criteria are known as Hy’s law. No patients met these criteria for drug-induced liver injury. All elevations resolved to lower than 3x ULN. Of the patients who completed this trial, over 90 percent have opted to continue into an open-label extension trial.

In addition to this first Phase 3 trial, we are conducting a second Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in Dravet syndrome which has recruited 186 patients. This placebo-controlled trial differs from the first Phase 3 trial in that it includes two Epidiolex dose arms, at 20mg/kg per day and at 10 mg/kg per day. We have completed enrolment in this trial and expect to report results in the second half of 2018.

Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome

LGS is a type of epilepsy with multiple types of seizures, particularly tonic (stiffening) and atonic (drop) seizures. According to Trevathan et al. in the December 1997 edition of Epilepsia, the estimated prevalence of LGS is between 3 percent and 4 percent of childhood epilepsy with the cause of the disorder unknown in 1 out of 4 children. LGS affects between 14,500 – 18,500 children under the age of 18 years in the United States and over 30,000 children and adults in the United States. Eighty percent of children with LGS continue to experience seizures, psychiatric, and behavioral deficits in adulthood. Seizures due to LGS are hard to control and they generally require life-long treatment as LGS usually persists into the adult years. Historically patients with LGS have had few effective treatment options. Intellectual and behavioral problems associated with LGS are common and add to the complexity of this syndrome and the difficulties in managing life with LGS.

Drug resistance is one of the main features of LGS. Generally, treatment often requires broad spectrum AEDs and/or polypharmacy. Treatment will also depend on the seizure type as some treatments that are effective for one type of seizure may worsen another. The FDA approved treatments for LGS are: Onfi (clobazam); Banzel (rufinamide); Lamictal (lamotrigine); Topamax (topirimate); and Felbatol (felbamate). These medicines are often used as adjunctive therapy with existing medications. When used with other particular AEDs, the FDA approved treatments for LGS show a level of efficacy, however, many

42

also have severe undesirable side effects. Furthermore, several of these medicines are based on the same mechanism of action as traditional AEDs. As patients with LGS generally need to take several treatments to gain any change to their seizure frequency, we believe that there is a need for further pharmacological treatments, particularly those with a different mechanism of action, to give prescribers more options in treating this rare, pharmacoresistant syndrome.

LGS Phase 3 Clinical Program

The LGS Phase 3 Clinical Program consisted of two randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Epidiolex for the treatment of LGS in patients who were being treated with other AEDs. Patients aged two to 55 years with a confirmed diagnosis of drug-resistant LGS currently uncontrolled on one or more concomitant AEDs were eligible to participate in these trials.

In April 2015, we commenced the first Phase 3 trial which randomized 171 patients into two arms, where Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day (n=86) or placebo (n=85) was added to current AED treatment. On average, patients were taking approximately 3 AEDs, having previously tried and failed an average of 6 other AEDs. The average age of trial participants was 15 years (34 percent were 18 years of age or older). The median baseline drop seizure frequency per month was 74.

The second Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in LGS commenced in June 2015. The trial randomized 225 patients into three arms, where Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day (n=76), Epidiolex 10mg/kg/day (n=73) or placebo (n=76) was added to current AED treatment. On average, patients were taking approximately 3 AEDs, having previously tried and discontinued an average of 7 other AEDs. The average age of trial participants was 16 years (30 percent were 18 years of age or older). The median drop seizure frequency over the 4 week baseline period was 85.

The primary efficacy endpoint, which was identical in both of these trials, was a comparison between Epidiolex and placebo in the percentage change in the monthly frequency of drop seizures during the 14 week treatment period (2 week dose escalation period followed by 12 weeks of maintenance) compared to the 4 week baseline period before randomization. Drop seizures were defined as atonic, tonic and tonic-clonic seizures involving the entire body, trunk or head that led or could have led to a fall, injury, slumping in a chair or hitting the patient’s head on a surface.

The results of the first LGS trial, as presented at the 2017 American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting were as follows:

•

During the treatment period, patients taking Epidiolex achieved a median reduction in monthly drop seizures of 44 percent compared with a reduction of 22 percent in patients receiving placebo (p=0.0135). A series of sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint confirmed the robustness of this result. The difference between Epidiolex and placebo emerged during the first month of treatment and was sustained during the entire treatment period.

​

•

In the 12-week maintenance period (not including the dose escalation period), Epidiolex treatment effect increased further, achieving a median reduction in monthly drop seizures of 49 percent compared with a reduction on placebo of 20 percent (p=0.0096).

​

•

No patients in either treatment group were drop seizure free during the treatment period. Three patients on Epidiolex were drop seizure free during the entire maintenance period, compared with no placebo patients.

​

•

Caregivers of patients on Epidiolex were significantly more likely to report an improvement in overall condition on the Subject/Caregiver Global Impression of Change scale (p=0.0008).

​

•

During the treatment period, patients taking Epidiolex achieved a median reduction in monthly total seizures of 41 percent compared with a reduction of 14 percent in patients receiving placebo (p=0.0005). In the 12-week maintenance period, Epidiolex treatment effect increased further, achieving a median reduction in monthly total seizures of 45 percent compared with a reduction on placebo of 15 percent (p=0.0004).

​

•

Median non-drop seizure frequency reduced by 49 percent in the CBD group, compared with 23 percent in the placebo group during the treatment period (p=0.0044).

​

43

•

A consistent separation between Epidiolex and placebo across all drop seizure response rates. At the 50 percent seizure reduction threshold, there was a statistically-significant separation between Epidiolex and placebo (p=0.0043).

​

Epidiolex was generally well tolerated in this trial. Overall, 86 percent of all Epidiolex patients experienced an adverse event compared with 69 percent of patients on placebo. The most common adverse events (occurring in greater than 10 percent of Epidiolex-treated patients) were: diarrhea, somnolence, decreased appetite, pyrexia, and vomiting. Of those patients on Epidiolex who experienced an adverse event, 78 percent were assessed to be mild or moderate. Nine patients on Epidiolex experienced a treatment-related serious adverse event compared with one patient on placebo. There was no difference in episodes of status epilepticus between Epidiolex and placebo. Twelve patients on Epidiolex discontinued treatment due to adverse events compared with one patient on placebo. Increases in ALT or AST (levels >3× ULN) occurred in 19 patients on Epidiolex and 1 placebo patient; 15 of the CBD patients were on concomitant valproic acid. There is a set of accepted criteria for identifying whether these transient elevations of liver enzymes are a signal for serious toxicity. These criteria are known as Hy’s law. No patients met these criteria for drug-induced liver injury. All elevations resolved to below 3x ULN. There was one death in the Epidiolex group, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Of the patients who completed this trial, 100 percent have opted to continue into an open-label extension trial.

The results of the second LGS trial, as highlighted at the American Academy of Neurology 2017 Annual Meeting , were as follows:

•

During the treatment period, patients taking Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day achieved a median reduction in monthly drop seizures of 42 percent compared with a reduction of 17 percent in patients taking placebo (p=0.0047), and patients taking Epidiolex 10mg/kg/day achieved a median reduction in monthly drop seizures of 37 percent compared with a reduction of 17 percent in patients taking placebo (p=0.0016). A series of sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint for both dose groups confirmed the robustness of these results. In both dose groups, the difference between Epidiolex and placebo emerged during the first month of treatment and was sustained during the entire treatment period.

​

•

Key secondary endpoints also showed that a significant number of patients receiving Epidiolex 10 mg/kg/day (36 percent) and Epidiolex 20 mg/kg/day (40 percent) experienced a 50 percent or greater reduction in monthly drop seizures compared with those taking placebo (15 percent, p=0.0030 and p=0.0006, respectively).

​

•

Significantly more patients/caregivers reported an improvement in overall condition with Epidiolex 10mg/kg/day (66 percent) and Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day (57 percent) compared to 44 percent for placebo (p<0.05 for both comparisons) based on the Subject/Caregiver Global Impression of Change (S/CGIC) questionnaire.

​

Epidiolex was generally well tolerated in this trial. One patient on 10mg/kg Epidiolex discontinued treatment due to an adverse event compared with six patients on 20mg/kg and one patient on placebo. Of the 84 percent of 10mg/kg patients who experienced an adverse event, 89 percent of them were assessed to be mild or moderate. Of the 94 percent of 20mg/kg patients who experienced an adverse event, 88 percent of them were assessed to be mild or moderate. 72 percent of patients on placebo experienced an adverse event. The most common adverse events (occurring in greater than 10 percent of Epidiolex-treated patients) in the 10mg/kg group were: somnolence, decreased appetite, upper respiratory infection, diarrhea, and status epilepticus. None of the cases of status epilepticus in the 10mg/kg group was deemed treatment-related. The most common adverse events (occurring in greater than 10 percent of Epidiolex-treated patients) in the 20mg/kg group were: somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, upper respiratory infection, pyrexia, vomiting, and nasopharyngitis. Thirteen patients on Epidiolex 10mg/kg experienced a serious adverse event (two of which were deemed treatment-related) compared with thirteen patients on 20mg/kg (five of which were deemed treatment-related) and eight patients on placebo (none of which were deemed treatment-related). There were no deaths in this trial. Of the patients who completed this trial, 99 percent have opted to continue into an open-label extension trial. Increases in ALT or AST (levels >3× ULN) occurred in 14 patients on Epidiolex (3 on Epidiolex 10mg/kg and 11 on 20mg/kg) and

44

no patients in the placebo group. Eleven of the 14 patients were on valproic acid. There is a set of accepted criteria for identifying whether these transient elevations of liver enzymes are a signal for serious toxicity. These criteria are known as Hy’s law. No patients met these criteria for drug-induced liver injury. All elevations resolved to lower than 3x ULN.

Drug:Drug Interactions

Drug:drug interactions, or DDIs, in epilepsy are commonplace and clinicians routinely monitor blood levels of concomitant AEDs. We now have extensive real world experience of Epidiolex, with over 1,700 patients having been exposed to treatment.

At our pre-NDA meeting, we reached agreement with FDA on the scope of our DDI studies. A number of these studies have now been completed. We have looked for potential interactions between Epidiolex and each of clobazam, lamotrigine, levetiracetam rufinamide, stiripentol, topiramate and valproate. To date the only pharmacokinetic DDI identified is an interaction with clobazam. Data from a phase 1 repeated-dose study in healthy volunteers to investigate the possible drug:drug interaction between clobazam and CBD was presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s Annual Meeting in December 2017. These data provided the first evidence to suggest that the pharmacokinetic CBD — clobazam interaction is bi-directional. These data demonstrate there is no important increase of clobazam exposure when CBD (750 mg twice daily) is combined with clobazam; however, there is a notable increase in its active metabolite N-desmethylclobazam (N-CLB). We believe that this interaction may be a novel finding and have submitted patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to this. Further, when clobazam is combined with CBD, there is also an increase in exposure to the active metabolite of CBD, 7-OH-CBD. This suggests that the reason for any potentially enhanced response of CBD on clobazam may in fact be partly because of increased levels of CBD and a key CBD metabolite.

Data presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s Annual Meeting in December 2017 showed patients on Epidiolex who achieved clinically meaningful responses did so regardless of concomitant clobazam therapy.

These data are from a pooled, post-hoc analysis of non-randomized subgroups of 396 LGS patients (73 Epidiolex 10mg/kg/day; 162 Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day; 161 placebo) from our two pivotal Phase 3 studies and should therefore be interpreted with caution. It is important to note that this analysis is limited to those LGS patients who responded to treatment with clinical meaningful seizure reductions. Patients, who did not have such a response, including those who did not respond with ≥25 percent reductions in drop seizure frequency, were not included in this analysis. Regulatory agencies may consider this analysis and/or may analyze the data differently.

Patients took a median 3 AEDs with approximately 50 percent on concomitant clobazam. 67 percent of patients not taking clobazam had previously discontinued clobazam by medical history. The proportions of patients achieving ≥25 percent, ≥50 percent, and ≥75 percent reductions in drop seizure frequency were greater for both doses of CBD than placebo, regardless of clobazam status. Data for the ≥50 percent responder analysis during the maintenance period are provided below:

Patients on Epidiolex reported more adverse events (AEs) than placebo for both the on-clobazam (92 percent vs 84 percent) and off-clobazam subgroups (73 percent vs 69 percent). Elevated transaminases (>3x ULN) were reported in 3 Epidiolex 10mg/kg/day, 31 Epidiolex 20mg/kg/day, and 1 placebo patient, most of whom were on concomitant valproic acid. Some withdrew from treatment; all elevations resolved either spontaneously or with CBD/AED dose adjustment.

45

It is important to note that these patients are also taking multiple concomitant anti-seizure medications in addition to the clobazam. In addition, as these were non-randomized subgroups, there were differences in baseline characteristics and clobazam doses ranged from 2 to 100 mg/day during the study with a median average daily dose of 0.80 mg/kg/day.

Regulatory Submissions for LGS and Dravet syndrome

Following the success of the first Dravet syndrome Phase 3 trial, we requested a pre-NDA meeting with the FDA to discuss a proposed Dravet syndrome NDA. This meeting took place in July 2016 and included some discussion of the LGS trial data. As a result of this meeting, we believe the guidance received was both positive and supportive of our proposed filing strategy to submit a single NDA that includes Phase 3 data from one Dravet trial and two LGS trials. In November 2016, we held a CMC pre-NDA meeting. At this meeting, agreement was reached on key questions related to the CMC content of our planned NDA submission. This NDA was submitted on October 27, 2017 and we expect a PDUFA date in mid-2018.

In addition, GW has received confirmation from the FDA granting rare pediatric disease designation of CBD in the treatment of LGS and Dravet syndrome. This conditional designation is a pre-cursor to the potential award of a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher which, if awarded, would be granted at the time of NDA approval.

In Europe, we have now completed formal pre-submission meetings with the EMA and the designated ‘rapporteur’ regulatory authority. Following these meetings, in which it was agreed that we could submit a single application for both the Dravet syndrome and LGS indications, we are advancing plans to submit a marketing authorization application in Europe in late 2017.

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC)

TSC is a genetic disorder that causes non-malignant tumors to form in many different organs, primarily in the brain, eyes, heart, kidney, skin and lungs. The brain and skin are the most affected organs. TSC results from a mutation in tumor suppression genes TSC1 or TSC2. According to the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance, TSC is estimated to affect approximately 50,000 patients in the United States. The most common symptom of TSC is epilepsy, which occurs in 75 – 90 percent of patients, about 70 percent of whom experience seizure onset in their first year of life. Approximately 60 percent of these TSC patients (or approximately 25,000 of patients in the United States) have treatment-resistant seizures. The seizures of TSC are typically focal in onset, meaning that they are localized to one hemisphere of the brain. There are significant co-morbidities associated with TSC including cognitive impairment in 50 percent, autism spectrum disorders in up to 40 percent and neurobehavioral disorders in over 60 percent of individuals with TSC.

A number of patients with TSC have been treated with Epidiolex in the expanded access program. Most recent Epidiolex data on TSC patients from the expanded access program was published in Epilepsia on 18 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children (Hess et al  — 2016) on Epidiolex treatment of refractory epilepsy in these patients. The findings from this paper, suggest that cannabidiol may be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with refractory seizures in TSC.

TSC Phase 3 Clinical Program

We have commenced a Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in patients with TSC. This dose-ranging trial is a 16-week comparison of Epidiolex versus placebo which is expected to recruit a total of approximately 200 patients, aged one to 65 years, to assess the safety and efficacy of Epidiolex as an adjunctive anti-epileptic treatment. The primary measure of this trial is the percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency during the treatment period. Primary endpoint seizures include focal motor seizures with or without impairment of consciousness or awareness and generalized convulsive seizures. Data is expected from this trial in the second half of 2018.

Infantile Spasms (IS)

According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, an infantile spasm is a specific type of seizure seen in an epilepsy syndrome of infancy and childhood known as West syndrome. West syndrome is characterized by infantile spasms, developmental regression, and a specific pattern on

46

electroencephalography, or EEG, testing called hypsarrhythmia (chaotic brain waves). The onset of infantile spasms is usually in the first year of life, typically between 4 to 8 months of age. The seizures primarily consist of a sudden bending forward of the body with stiffening of the arms and legs; some children arch their backs as they extend their arms and legs. Spasms tend to occur upon awakening or after feeding, and often occur in clusters of up to 100 spasms at a time. Infants may have dozens of clusters and several hundred spasms per day. Many underlying disorders, such as birth injury, metabolic disorders, and genetic disorders can give rise to spasms, making it important to identify the underlying cause. In some children, no cause can be found.

According to data published on Medscape, the condition constitutes 2 percent of childhood epilepsies and 25 percent of epilepsies with onset in the first year of life. There are approximately 2,000 to 4,000 new cases in the United States each year. Cognitive and developmental delay is severe in 70 percent of patients, often with psychiatric problems such as autistic features or hyperactivity. IS usually stops by five years of age, but may be replaced by other seizure types. It has been found that 50 percent to 70 percent of patients develop other seizure types and that 18 to 50 percent will develop LGS or some other form of symptomatic generalized epilepsy. The long-term prognosis is poor and includes increased mortality and severe neurodevelopmental impairment.

The FDA approved treatments for IS are ACTH (Acthar Gel) and vigabitrin (Sabril). These treatment options are successful in 20 percent to 80 percent of patients. Both of these medicines have significant adverse events, including boxed warnings limiting their long-term use.

On December 7, 2015, at the Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, safety and efficacy data on 9 patients suffering from epileptic spasms from the Epidiolex expanded access program were presented by Massachusetts General Hospital for Children (Abati et al.). Epilepsy spasms often remain refractory to standard AEDs. According to this poster, Epidiolex exerted its effects in a short time course, with a response rate of 67 percent after two weeks and 78 percent after one month. Three of nine patients became spasm-free after two weeks of Epidiolex treatment. By parent report, patients also showed cognitive gains including improvements in alertness, verbal capacity/communication, and cognitive availability.

IS Clinical Program

We commenced a two-part Phase 2/3 trial of Epidiolex in patients with IS in the fourth quarter of 2016. The first part is now underway and results in the first quarter of 2018 will determine whether the Company proceeds into the second pivotal safety and efficacy part of the trial.

Cannabinoid Rationale for Treating Epilepsy

Several features of the pharmacology of certain cannabinoids suggest that they may be candidates for investigation as AEDs. Based on recent findings in Epilepsy and Behaviour (Rosenberg et al , 2016), CBD is likely to be acting via more than one mechanism of action with the effect of reducing neuronal hyperexcitability. Neurons routinely fire via an influx of positive ions, e.g. sodium and calcium. The mechanism to recover from depolarization is called repolarization and involves moving positively charged ions back out of the cell. If either the depolarization or repolarization mechanisms are faulty, continuous or synchronous firing can result, known as ‘hyperexcitability’.

Several different ion channels influence seizure activity. It is the former to which a proportion of the actions of plant cannabinoids can be attributed, for example through activation and blockade of G-protein coupled receptors, including orphan receptors as well as modulation of transient receptor potential (TRP) channels (differentially activated, blocked and desensitized by different plant cannabinoids). Additionally it is now recognized that there is a role for inflammation in epilepsy. Some cannabinoids possess anti-inflammatory properties including inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokine release and modulation of glial cell/neuronal interactions. Research shows that other than THC, most plant cannabinoids have little or no affinity for the cannabinoid receptors, and therefore do not share the unwanted psychoactivity that goes along with stimulation of the CB1 receptor in particular. Finally, certain cannabinoids may possess disease modifying potential through regulation of epilepsy-related genes, as well as up-regulation of endogenous anti-convulsant neuropeptides and/or compensatory systems.

47

CBD Pharmacology in Epilepsy

Importantly, the anti-seizure effects of CBD are not dependent on cannabinoid receptors, nor on sodium channels. The epilepsy-relevant pharmacology of CBD can be summarized as follows: modulation of internal calcium stores via GPR-55, desensitization of synaptic cation channel TRPV1; inhibition of adenosine uptake and indirect agonism of the neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory A2a receptor; other neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects which are still under investigation.

There is a significant effort to identify the specific mechanisms of action that underpin the clinical effectiveness of Epidiolex (and other cannabinoids) in epilepsy, including investigation of the effects of cannabinoids on epilepsy associated gene expression. CBD has negligible binding at the CB1 receptor, and so shares neither the pharmacology of CB1 agonists such as THC nor that of CB1 inverse agonists such as Rimonabant. CBD’s mechanism for treating seizures is not fully understood but is believed to involve a combination of beneficial effects stacking upon one another (polypharmacology).

Preclinical models suggest a broad role for CBD in generalized and partial seizures, and clinical reports of benefit extend into other congenital seizure disorders.

Our CBD Pre-Clinical Research in Pediatric Epilepsy

We have conducted pre-clinical research of CBD in epilepsy since 2007 and have reported significant anti-epileptiform and anticonvulsant activity using a variety of in vitro and in vivo models. This research has shown the ability of CBD to treat seizures in acute models of epilepsy with significantly fewer side effects than existing AEDs. Our cannabinoid research compounds were screened in electrically discharging hippocampal brain slices caused by the omission of Mg2+ ions from, or addition of the K+ channel blocker, 4-aminopyridine (4-AP) to the bathing solution. In these models, 100μM of CBD decreased epileptiform amplitude and duration as well as burst frequency; importantly, this compound exerted no effect upon the propagation of epileptiform activity.

Subsequently, the anti-convulsant actions of 1, 10 and 100 mg/kg of CBD were examined in three different in vivo seizure rodent models. In the Pentylenetetrazol (PTZ) induced acute, generalized seizures model, 100 mg/kg of CBD significantly decreased mortality rate and the incidence of tonic-clonic seizures. In the acute pilocarpine model of temporal lobe seizures all doses of CBD significantly reduced the percentage of animals experiencing the most severe seizures. In this model of partial seizures, 10 and 100 mg/kg of CBD significantly decreased the percentage of animals dying as a result of seizures and all doses of CBD also decreased the percentage of animals experiencing the most severe tonic-clonic seizures.

During 2013, we received increasing interest among U.S. pediatric epilepsy specialists and patient organizations in the potential role of CBD in treating intractable childhood epilepsy, in particular Dravet syndrome. This interest led to a medical conference organized by the New York University School of Medicine on October 4, 2013 titled: “Cannabidiols: Potential Use in Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders.” Epilepsy specialists at the meeting viewed CBD as attractive for the treatment of these disorders for a variety of reasons, including:

•

Case reports of its efficacy in severe, refractory patients consistently provide encouraging signals; and

​

•

CBD’s plant-derived profile and safety data generated to date suggest that it could be an attractive treatment option without the unwanted side effects of other AEDs.

​

In addition, specialists at this conference concluded the following:

•

Only a pharmaceutical formulation of CBD which could meet FDA requirements for standardization and quality control would be appropriate for administering to children; and

​

•

Placebo-controlled trials should be performed as a matter of urgency in order to provide robust evidence of the safety and efficacy of CBD.

​

Epidiolex Expanded Access INDs

In parallel with our formal clinical trial program, the FDA has authorized access to Epidiolex to over 1,000 patients through a combination of Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs) to independent

48

physician investigators in the U.S and expanded access programs supported by seven U.S. states in the State EAP program, for which we are supplying Epidiolex free of charge. These include individual emergency and non-emergency INDs. The longest duration of patient use in the EAP is over 4 years. The FDA may authorize expanded access INDs to facilitate access to investigational drugs for treatment use for patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition who lack therapeutic alternatives.

Multiple IND sponsors have published open-label data from their programs, notably the following:

The Lancet Neurology (Devinsky et al .), December 2015

This publication titled Cannabidiol in Patients with Treatment Resistant Epilepsy: an open-label interventional trial, was from 11 independent epilepsy centers in the United States; 162 patients who had at least 12 weeks of follow-up after the first dose of CBD were included in the safety and tolerability analysis, and 137 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Of these 162 patients, there were 33 patients with Dravet syndrome and 31 patients with LGS. The published paper reported that Epidiolex reduced seizure frequency across multiple drug-resistant epilepsy syndromes and seizure types and was generally well tolerated. In the paper the authors note that the administration of Epidiolex as an add-on treatment led to a clinically meaningful reduction in seizure frequency in many patients and had an adequate safety profile in this patient population with highly treatment-resistant epilepsies. The safety and tolerability profile of Epidiolex was favorable and consistent with other clinical experience with only 3 percent of patients terminating therapy due to an adverse event. Additionally, Clobazam co-therapy was associated with a higher rate of treatment response (median reduction in convulsive seizures): 56.4 percent v. 35.0 percent at week 12; this may reflect elevations in the N-desmethyl clobazam metabolite. This apparent effect of clobazam co-therapy was not seen in Dravet syndrome or LGS groups — at week 12, 53 percent of Dravet/LGS patients on Clobazam were 50 percent responders compared with 54 percent not taking Clobazam (odds ratio 0.97 (95 percent Confidence Interval — 0.35 – 2.65)).

Epilepsia (Rosenberg et al ), July 2017 e-publication

The authors assessed caregiver-reported Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE) in a subset of patients enrolled in the EAP (n=48). Following 12 weeks of CBD treatment, median percent change in seizure frequency was -39.4%, with a ≥50% responder rate of 41.7%. Patients experienced a mean of 8.1 points improvement in QOLCE (p<0.001). Of the 16 subdomains, those with significant improvement included energy/fatigue, memory, control/helplessness, other cognitive functions, social interactions, behavior, and global QOL. QOLCE improvements were not correlated to changes in seizure frequency or adverse events, suggesting that CBD may have beneficial effects on patient QOL that are distinct from its seizure-reducing effects. As previously reported by Devinsky et al in 2015, the EAP found CBD was generally well-tolerated; common adverse events included somnolence, decreased appetite, diarrhea, fatigue, and convulsions.

2017 American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting Data

29 abstracts related to the Epidiolex clinical program were presented at the 71 st Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, or AES, including 15 from the physician-led Epidiolex expanded access program.

Expanded Access Program Clinical Effect and Safety Data — All Patients

At the AES Annual Meeting, physician reports of clinical effect and safety data from the expanded access program were presented on children and young adults with treatment-resistant epilepsy who had been treated with Epidiolex for a period of at least 10 weeks (Bebin et al.). These data are comprised of 607 patients in the safety data set with a median treatment duration of 338 days from 29 individually and state-sponsored INDs in the United States

Baseline monthly seizure frequency was 43 convulsive and 72 total seizures. For both convulsive and total seizures, the ≥50 percent, ≥75 percent, and the 100% responder rates were also consistent across the five time points. This long-term maintenance effect was achieved during the 96-week period when treating physicians also saw around 50% of patients reduce doses of clobazam and valproate.

49

The following data were presented showing the median percentage change in seizure frequency compared to a 4-week baseline period:

The most common AEs in the subset of patients on Epidiolex greater than ten weeks occurring in ≥10 percent of all patients include: diarrhea, somnolence, convulsion, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, vomiting, fatigue and pyrexia. Dose-related reversible elevations in liver transaminases were reported in 11 percent of patients.

Expanded Access Program Clinical Effect and Safety Data — Dravet syndrome and LGS patients only

Long-term pooled results from the expanded access program on Dravet syndrome and LGS patients only was presented at AES (Laux et al ). Data on this subset of patients included 152 patients in the safety data set with a mean treatment duration of 548 days and 147 patients in the efficacy data set. Baseline monthly seizure frequency was 41 convulsive and 63 total seizures. For both convulsive and total seizures, the ≥50 percent, ≥75 percent, and the 100% responder rates were also consistent across the five time points. This long-term maintenance effect was achieved during the 96-week period when treating physicians also saw around 50% of patients reduce doses of clobazam and valproate.

The following data were presented showing the median change in seizure frequency compared to a 4-week baseline period:

The most common AEs in the subset of patients on Epidiolex greater than ten weeks occurring in ≥10 percent of all patients include:, somnolence, convulsion, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased appetite, fatigue, pyrexia, vomiting, irritability and lethargy. Abnormal liver adverse events were reported in 14 percent of patients.

Note Regarding Expanded Access Studies

The expanded access studies we are currently supporting are uncontrolled, carried out by individual physician investigators independent from us, and not always conducted in strict compliance with Good Clinical Practices, all of which can lead to an observed treatment effect that may differ from one seen in placebo-controlled trials. Data from these studies provide only anecdotal evidence of efficacy for regulatory review, although they may provide supportive safety information for regulatory review. The patients treated under these expanded access INDs contain no control or comparator group for reference and these patient data are not designed to be aggregated or reported as study results. Moreover, data from such small numbers of patients may be highly variable. Information obtained from these INDs, including the statistical principles that the independent investigators have chosen to apply to the data, may not reliably predict data collected via systematic evaluation of efficacy in our sponsored clinical trials, or evaluated via other statistical principles that may be applied in these trials. We can offer no assurances that the observations reported by the treating physicians under these expanded access INDs are due solely to Epidiolex and not as a result of other factors, such as a beneficial or synergistic drug-drug interaction, as postulated above.

50

Further, due to the non-normal distribution of the data collected from the small sample size, we have chosen to use median data in its analysis. However, other statistical principles may be more appropriate to the analysis of the clinical data generated from our placebo controlled trials of Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome, LGS, TSC and IS.

We believe the data we have received to date under these expanded access INDs support the continued investigation of Epidiolex as a potential treatment for epilepsy, including for Dravet syndrome, LGS, TSC and IS.

Emergency INDs

The FDA has also granted to physicians 29 individual emergency INDs. An emergency IND is an IND for the use of an investigational new drug or biological product for clinical treatment of a patient in an emergency situation. In order to be granted an emergency IND the following five conditions must all be met: (1) the patient or patients to be treated have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory therapeutic options; (2) FDA must determine that the patient cannot obtain the drug under another IND or protocol; (3) the potential benefits to the patient justify the potential risks of the treatment and the risks from this investigational treatment are not unreasonable in the context of the disease or condition treated with this investigational product; (4) providing the investigational drug for the requested use will not interfere with the development of the drug for expanded access use; and (5) the physician must determine that the probable risk to the person from the investigational drug is not greater than the probable risk from the disease or condition. In these cases, we have responded to, and the FDA has approved, emergency treatment requests from physicians for children hospitalized as a result of severe and potentially life-threatening seizures. In a poster at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting in December 2014, Lopez C. et al. presented information on a four year old patient with super refractory status epilepticus due to febrile infection related epilepsy syndrome, or FIRES, treated with Epidiolex under an emergency IND concluding that CBD was very well tolerated and associated with a significant improvement in clinical and electrographic seizure burden. We believe eight of the children treated under emergency INDs remain on Epidiolex treatment. Two children treated under emergency INDs died while receiving treatment with Epidiolex and two withdrew due to lack of efficacy; both deaths were deemed unrelated to Epidiolex by the independent investigators. 20 of the 28 eIND patients treated as of last update are still active; of the remainder, two of the eight patients died.

Currently, over 800 patients have been exposed to Epidiolex in the expanded access program. Over 700 patients have participated in comparative clinical studies, including patients with Dravet Syndrome, LGS or Tuberous Sclerosis. A total of 16 deaths have been reported to date under the expanded access program, all have been investigated and assessed as not related to Epidiolex treatment. We are also aware of the death of three additional patients who received Epidiolex on a compassionate use basis in the United Kingdom. Outside of these programs, there was one patient death during our recently completed Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in LGS, one patient death during our ongoing Phase 3 trial of Epidiolex in TSC, and seven patient deaths during the open label extension trial for patients who have completed their treatment under our completed or ongoing Phase 3 trials of Epidiolex in Dravet syndrome and LGS. All twelve of these deaths were investigated by the independent investigators and determined to be unrelated to treatment with Epidiolex.

Collaborations with State Governments in Australia

In October 2015, we announced that we had signed a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, with the Government of New South Wales, or NSW, in Australia to advance a research program for Epidiolex and CBDV in children with severe, drug resistant childhood epilepsy. With respect to Epidiolex, the MOU will facilitate (i) a compassionate access program for Epidiolex, (ii) provision for NSW to host additional Phase 3 clinical trials of Epidiolex and (iii) a Phase 4 clinical trial of Epidiolex (to follow completion of the Phase 3 trials). The first patients received treatment under the compassionate access program for Epidiolex in Q3 2016.

In June 2016, we signed an MOU with the Queensland Government in Australia to advance research into the use of cannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products for the treatment of patients in Queensland with serious illness, including childhood epilepsy. The MOU will facilitate (i) establishing a center to

51

undertake clinician led observational studies using cannabinoid-based investigational medicinal products across a range of childhood developmental disorders, (ii) an expanded access treatment protocol using Epidiolex for a small number of patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy and (iii) an observational study for a small number of patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy using Epidiolex and other cannabinoids.

Epidiolex Manufacturing

We manufacture Epidiolex through utilization of in-house and external third party facilities for various steps in the production process. We are scaling-up various parts of the production process both in-house and with external third parties in readiness for commercial launch. In December 2016, we hosted a Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP, inspection from the UK’s regulatory authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). This inspection resulted in no critical or major findings. In November 2016, we held a CMC pre-NDA meeting. At this meeting, understanding was reached on key questions related to the CMC content of the NDA submission and we believe that we are on track to be ready for FDA GMP pre-approval inspection anticipated in the first quarter of 2018. A satisfactory FDA GMP pre-approval inspection is a prerequisite to the approval of an NDA by FDA. With expectations of significant demand for Epidiolex upon potential approval, we plan to continue expansion of our Epidiolex manufacturing capacity well beyond our expected launch levels.

Epidiolex Commercialization

We are planning to commercialize Epidiolex in the United States and Europe using our own sales and marketing organization. In June 2015, we appointed Julian Gangolli to the position of President, North America. Mr. Gangolli is leading our commercial organization in the United States, which is based in Carlsbad, CA.

We believe that the U.S. physician awareness and enthusiasm for a new therapeutic alternative for the treatment of pediatric epilepsies is high, and that, if approved, Epidiolex would represent a new class of anti-seizure medication for specific epilepsy conditions with a potentially differentiated mechanism of action.

We will commercialize Epidiolex, and any other products in the United States, under the name Greenwich Biosciences, Inc. (Greenwich). The U.S. organization continues to build out an experienced leadership team of medical affairs professionals, marketing and market access/payor expertise, many of whom have strong epilepsy knowledge and experience. Over 2017, Greenwich continued to expand its commercial organization in preparation of an expected 2018 Epidiolex approval and launch. The key near-term objectives for the U.S. commercial team include:

Continued visibility at major U.S. medical congresses

Working with clinicians, we expect to continue dissemination of important scientific data from the Epidiolex clinical program and anticipate data presentations at important upcoming medical congresses, all of which will reinforce awareness of Greenwich Biosciences within the physician community.

Specific to the 71 st AES Annual Meeting held in December 2017, an array of new data was presented from the placebo-controlled trials, the long-term open-label extension study, and from clinics involved in the Expanded Access Program. Data presented included pooled analyses, health economic data in Dravet syndrome and LGS, mechanism of action, and additional PK drug interaction data.

Continued Medical Affairs and Medical Science Liaison team build-out

The U.S. Medical Affairs team, which in addition to a very experienced in-house team has recently expanded its field-based operation to include 15 experienced Medical Science Liaison specialists with extensive epilepsy or other neurology experience, has enabled us to open scientific and consultative communications with key stakeholders, such as the patient and physician communities in the U.S. This team is developing Dravet/LGS disease state information, rolling out programs in cannabinoid education, and intensifying interaction with key epilepsy opinion leaders to collect their insights related to the science emerging from the Epidiolex program.

52

Increased payor initiatives

As we move closer to approval of Epidiolex, a major focus is on payor education and readiness. The January 2017 change in FDA guidance regarding sponsor/payor discussions (FADAMA Section 114) has allowed us to have a number of individual one on one and advisory board interactions with a wide variety of payors and insurance programs, including some of the larger commercial and state/federal payors.

Health Economic Outcomes Research and Compendia data initiatives

We have hired an experienced team of professionals focused on the development of a comprehensive pharmaco-economic dossier, including burden of illness and economic cost offset data in addition to clinical data for compendia support to assist and inform payor and formulary access and reimbursement decision making.

Patient advocacy initiatives

We continue to focus on support for, and outreach to, the major epilepsy patient advocacy groups. These initiatives include relationship building, advocacy and education.

Implementation of a dedicated sales force

As we approach the expected U.S. Epidiolex approval, we anticipate hiring approximately 60 – 70 sales professionals in the U.S. to target approximately 4,000 – 5,000 physicians. This commercial organization will be defined by a “high touch” patient, payor and physician communication, education and distribution model.

Progress in Europe

Outside the United States, we continue to make organizational preparations for the potential commercialization of Epidiolex in Europe. This European commercial effort is being led by our Chief Operating Officer, Chris Tovey, who has significant experience commercializing and launching products, including within the field of epilepsy. In addition, we have hired relevant staff in the areas of medical affairs, market access and marketing. We expect to continue to advance our planning for the potential commercialization of Epidiolex in Europe, including with respect to the development of a more comprehensive commercial organization in the major European markets and the continued development of a market access strategy.

Epidiolex Intellectual Property

In addition to orphan exclusivity, we have been seeking to protect Epidiolex through our patent portfolio. We have a portfolio of intellectual property relating to the use of CBD in epilepsy. This portfolio includes sixteen distinct patent families. This portfolio includes patent applications and granted patents with claims directed to the use of CBD in the treatment of epilepsy seizure subtypes, particular childhood epilepsy syndromes, and formulations. To date, this has resulted in 3 patents issued by the USPTO and a number of patent applications being prosecuted at the USPTO. Should the NDA for Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome and/or LGS be approved, we do not intend to seek to list any of our currently-granted patents in the Electronic Orange Book. However, we continue to prosecute a number of patent applications before USPTO which contain claims directed to the indications or seizures types for which we are seeking approval for Epidiolex. Should the NDA for Epidiolex be approved, and should the USPTO allow any of these pending patent applications directed to the use of Epidiolex, we would expect some of these patents could be listed in the Electronic Orange Book with respect to Epidiolex in the future.

We anticipate filing additional patent applications claiming the use of Epidiolex as new data is generated.

In addition other patent families include claims directed to related inventions such as extraction techniques, CBD extracts and highly purified CBD.

53

GWP42006 (CBDV) in Epilepsy and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

In addition to Epidiolex, our product candidates also include GWP42006, which features CBDV as the primary cannabinoid. CBDV has also shown anti-epileptic properties across a range of in vitro and in vivo models of epilepsy. In a paper published in the September 2012 issue of The British Journal of Pharmacology by scientists with whom we collaborate at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, GWP42006 was reported to have the potential to prevent more seizures, with few of the side effects caused by many existing AEDs, such as uncontrollable shaking. In the study, GWP42006 strongly suppressed seizures in six different experimental models commonly used in epilepsy treatment. GWP42006 was also found to provide additional efficacy when combined with drugs currently used to control epilepsy. Genetic biomarkers for response have been identified.

We have also evaluated GWP42006 in both general and syndromic pre-clinical models of ASD yielding promising signals on cognitive and social endpoints as well as repetitive behavior. These animal models include both genetically determined abnormalities of neurobehavioral, and chemically-induced models, and include Rett syndrome and Fragile X among others. Many of the pediatric intractable epilepsy conditions within the Epidiolex expanded access program share considerable overlap with ASD and these conditions often fall within the orphan disease space. Initial clinical observations from treating physicians suggest a potential role for cannabinoids in addressing problems associated with ASD such as deficits in cognition, behavior and communication.

In October 2017, a number of abstracts were presented at a symposium on the endocannabinoid system and the autism spectrum disorders, hosted by the Italian Society of Pharmacology. These abstracts included science that was developed in concert with numerous academic partners and highlighted a range of in vitro and in vivo ASD models including Rett syndrome-like phenotype rodent models and models related to cognitive and social impairment.

We have completed a Phase 1 trial of GWP42006 in 66 healthy subjects. In this trial, GWP42006 was well tolerated even at the highest tested dose. There were no serious or severe adverse events reported, nor any withdrawals due to adverse events.

We are pursuing multiple development programs for GWP42006 both within adult and childhood epilepsy and in childhood behavioral disorders:

•

We have completed enrolment in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled two-part trial to investigate the pharmacokinetics, followed by efficacy and safety of CBDV as add-on therapy in adult patients with inadequately controlled focal seizures. The first part of this trial completed with enrollment of 32 patients and the dose-ranging pharmacokinetic and safety data has been reviewed by an independent panel. The placebo-controlled safety and efficacy phase of the study is now fully enrolled with 162 patients randomized. Data from this part of the trial is expected in early 2018.

​

•

We are working on various clinical initiatives for CBDV within the field of ASD. A physician-led expanded access IND to treat seizures associated with autism has been granted by FDA in 10 patients. An investigator-led 100 patient placebo-controlled trial in autism is also due to commence in the first half of 2018. For patients with Rett Syndrome, a condition in which treatment-resistant seizures are a common problem, CBDV has received Orphan drug Designation from the FDA. An open label study in Rett Syndrome and a Phase 2 placebo-controlled trial in this condition are expected to commence in 2018. We have received scientific advice from both the FDA and EMA on the study design.

​

CBDV Intellectual Property Portfolio

We have a portfolio of intellectual property relating to CBDV for use in various indications including epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder. These patent families include issued and pending claims to use of CBDV alone or in combination with standard anti-epileptic drugs in the treatment of seizures, and pending claims to the use of CBDV in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders and associated conditions. Other families include pending claims directed to the use of CBDV in other therapeutic areas such as neuropathic

54

pain, Alzheimer’s disease and Duchenne’s disease, CBDV compositions and CBDV extracts. We anticipate additional patent applications being filed as new data is generated.

Other Orphan Product Candidates

Glioma

Beyond epilepsy-related orphan diseases, we are evaluating a combination product containing GWP42002:GWP42003 (THC:CBD) in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM, a particularly aggressive brain tumor. We have received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA and the EMA for GWP 42002:GWP42003 combination for the treatment of GBM.

Market Overview

Glioma describes any tumor that arises from the glial tissue of the brain. Glioblastoma is a particularly aggressive tumor that forms from abnormal growth of glial tissue. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, GBM accounts for approximately 46 percent of the 22,500 new cases of brain cancer diagnosed in the United States each year. Treatment options are limited and expected survival is a little over one year. GBM is considered a rare disease by the FDA and the EMA.

Our Research

Beginning in 2007, we have conducted substantial pre-clinical oncologic research on several cannabinoids in various forms of cancer including brain, lung, breast, pancreatic, melanoma, ovarian, gastric, renal, prostate and bladder. Cannabinoids have been shown to promote autophagy (the process of regulated self-degradation by cells) via several distinct mechanisms, including acting on the AKT/mTOR pathway, an important intracellular signaling pathway that is overactive in many cancers.

A study carried out in collaboration with us by specialists at St. George’s University of London, was the first to show a dramatic effect on brain tumors when combining cannabinoids with irradiation. This research, published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, showed that tumor growth in mouse brain was significantly slowed when a combination of THC and CBD was used with irradiation and tumor inhibition was higher than observed with irradiation alone.

In glioma, the combination of CBD and THC showed good efficacy in various animal models of glioma, particularly when used in combination with temozolomide. These pre-clinical studies justified the initiation of a Phase 2 clinical study.

Earlier this year, we completed a placebo-controlled Phase 2 study of a combination of CBD and THC in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM. The results from this Phase 2 study were presented in a poster at American Society of Clinical Oncology, or ASCO, Annual Meeting in June, and in a poster at Society for Neuro-Oncology, or SNO, Annual Scientific Meeting in November. This study, which evaluated a number of safety and exploratory efficacy endpoints, showed that patients with documented recurrent glioblastoma treated with CBD:THC as add-on therapy to dose-intense temozolomide, had an 83 percent one year survival compared with 44 percent for patients on placebo (plus dose-intense temozolomide) (p=0.042). Preliminary data showed that median survival time for the CBD:THC group was 662 days compared with 369 days in the placebo group. Further follow-up demonstrates continued increased survival in the CBD:THC arm. CBD:THC was generally well tolerated with treatment emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation in two patients in each group. The most common adverse events (three patients or more and greater than placebo) were vomiting, dizziness, nausea, headache, and constipation.

We believe that the signals of efficacy demonstrated in this study further reinforce the potential role of cannabinoids in the field of oncology and provides our Company with the prospect of a new and distinct cannabinoid product candidate in the treatment of additional oncology indications. These data are also a catalyst for the acceleration of our oncology research interests and we expect to consult with external experts and regulatory agencies on a pivotal clinical development program for CBD:THC in GBM and to expand its research interests in other cancers.

55

Our portfolio of intellectual property related to the use of cannabinoids in oncology includes a number of issued patents and pending applications in both the U.S. and Europe. This portfolio is directed to the use of various cannabinoids individually or in combination, in the treatment of a variety of oncology-specific disorders and product formulations.

Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy (NHIE)

NHIE is acute or sub-acute brain injury due to asphyxia caused during birth resulting from deprivation of oxygen, referred to as hypoxia, as a result of a sentinel event such as ruptured placenta, parental shock and even increased heart rate. Hypoxic damage can occur to most of the infant’s organs, but brain damage is the most serious and least likely to heal, resulting in encephalopathy. This can later manifest itself as either mental retardation (including developmental delay and/or intellectual disability) or physical disabilities such as spasticity, blindness and deafness. Indeed, spastic diplegia and the other forms of cerebral palsy almost always feature asphyxiation during the birth process as a contributing factor. The exact timing and underlying causes of these outcomes remains unknown but it is widely recognized that interventions need to be administered within six hours of hypoxic insult.

Market Overview

According to Kurinczuk et al. in the 2010 edition of Early Human Development, the incidence of NHIE is 1.5 to 2.8 per 1,000 births in the United States, or, by our estimate, 6,500 to 12,000 cases per year. Of these, 35 percent are expected to die in early life and 30 percent of cases will result in permanent disability. There are currently no FDA-approved medicines specifically indicated for NHIE. The only FDA-approved treatment is the Olympic Cool-Cap System and treatment guidelines in many European countries also support use of whole body hypothermia. Clinical trials have shown the Cool-Cap to reduce the occurrence of disability due to NHIE but not death, while whole body hypothermia had a more marginal effect on disability but is able to reduce mortality. This treatment is only available in specialized neonatal intensive care units and must be started within 6 hours of birth. Even if a patient is put into induced hypothermia there is still a significant rate of morbidity and mortality, with a meta-analysis of the available data revealing a 27 percent death rate. Among the patients who survive NHIE, 28 percent suffer from major neurodevelopment issues and 26 percent develop cerebral palsy. There are academic initiatives looking to develop treatments in this area. In addition, one intervention being investigated by the pharmaceutical industry is an IV infusion of 2-Iminobiotin. Neurophyxia B.V. attained Orphan Drug Designation for this treatment in both Europe and the United States and is conducting a Phase 2 trial.

Cannabinoid Rationale for Treating NHIE

The pathophysiology of NHIE includes processes such as apoptosis, oxidative stress, inflammation and excitotoxicity, and may involve not only the brain, but also other organs. Some cannabinoids are able to influence all of these processes, but unlike other therapeutic compounds under development, can combine these neuroprotective strategies within a single molecule. Firstly, cannabinoids can act on nuclear receptors that control neuronal homeostasis and survival. Secondly, not only do cannabinoids have important free radical scavenging actions, but they may also upregulate and activate endogenous antioxidant defenses. Thirdly, cannabinoids influence the immune network and modulate phenomena associated with infection or inflammation, via inhibition of macrophage and neutrophil migration, natural killer cell proliferation, and by their ability to inhibit harmful cytokine production. It has been widely reported that endocannabinoids are able to protect the glial cell, an effect that may be independent of CB receptors. Finally, the endocannabinoid system, or ECS, has been shown to be neuroprotective in animal models — the levels of endogenous cannabinoids become enhanced in the brains of newborn rats after acute injury, acting as a protective response, and it has been proposed that one additional mechanism by which plant cannabinoids work is by preventing the enzymatic degradation of endocannabinoids, thus enhancing endogenous defense mechanisms. Recent research into the neuroprotection that has been shown by cannabinoids in animal models of neonatal hypoxia has also suggested a role for the 5HT1A receptor, since some of the beneficial effects can be blocked by 5HT1A receptor antagonists.

CBD as the Primary Cannabinoid Product Candidate in NHIE

In addition to its other properties, the possible neuroprotective effects of CBD have been examined. These neuroprotective effects are thought to be based mainly on the potent anti-inflammatory and

56

anti-oxidant properties of CBD, although other actions of CBD that might also account for CBD-induced neuroprotection including: inhibition of calcium transport across membranes; inhibition of anandamide uptake and enzymatic hydrolysis; inhibition of iNOS protein expression and NF-|gkB activation; and inhibition of adenosine uptake. In a similar fashion to endocannabinoids, adenosine is thought to be part of a natural neuroprotective system, because adenosine levels rise in response to hypoxic insult in the brain and increasing extracellular adenosine acts as a neuroprotectant. It has been demonstrated that CBD enhances adenosine signaling through the inhibition of adenosine re-uptake and therefore indirectly activates the adenosine A2A receptor. Previously, it was demonstrated that CBD reduces brain damage after ischemic injury in adult animals. In a newborn piglet model of NHIE, CBD improved brain activity as measured by an EEG and reduced the numbers of seizures by half, while histological analysis of brain tissues showed that neuron degeneration was reduced. Neurological exams showed improved neurobehavioral performance up to three days after insult. There were also significant beneficial extra cerebral effects and the dose of dopamine needed by the animals to maintain blood pressure was less than half of what was required in vehicle-treated animals.

Our NHIE Research

In a paper by Castillo et al., published in Neurobiology of Disease in 2010, reporting results from our pre-clinical collaboration, CBD protected newborn mice forebrain slices from oxygen and glucose deprivation. We have further demonstrated that CBD was neuroprotective even when administered 18 hours after the hypoxic insult. A study from our pre-clinical collaboration with Lafuente, published in Paediatric Research in 2011, showed that administration of CBD to newborn piglets at doses much lower than those reported in the literature appears to protect brain cells, preserve brain activity, prevent seizures and improve neurobehavioral performance. These neuroprotective effects were not only free from side effects in the piglets but also associated with some cardiac, hemodynamic and ventilatory benefits unlike other promising compounds with neuroprotective activity. This data supports the view of CBD as a possible therapy for asphyxiated newborns. In a paper by Pazos et al. published in Neuropharmacology in 2012, post hypoxic-ischemic administration of CBD to newborn rats was shown to reduce the volume of brain damage, restore neurobehavioral function long term and reserve myelinization. In a second paper by Pazos et al., published in Neurpharmacology in 2013, reporting results from our pre-clinical collaboration, post hypoxic-ischemic administration of CBD was shown, in a piglet model, to reduce necrotic and apoptotic cell death, recover brain activity, restore neurobehavioral function in the short term and enhance hypothermia protection.

Our NHIE clinical program

We held a pre-IND meeting with the FDA to discuss the development program for an intravenous CBD formulation (GWP42003) in the treatment of NHIE. In April 2015, we received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for CBD for the treatment of NHIE and in July 2015 we received fast track designation. In July 2015 we received Orphan Drug Designation from the EMA for CBD for the treatment of perinatal asphyxia, an alternate term that describes the same condition. A Phase 1 trial of intravenous GWP42003 in healthy volunteers is now complete.

Our Commercialized Product: Sativex ® for MS Spasticity

Sativex ® is an oromucosal spray of a formulated extract of the cannabis sativa plant that contains the principal cannabinoids delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in a 1:1 ratio as well as specific minor cannabinoids and other non-cannabinoid components (The product has been granted the U.S. Adopted Name, or USAN, of nabiximols). We developed Sativex to be administered as an oromucosal spray, whereby the active ingredients are absorbed in the lining of the mouth, either under the tongue or inside the cheek. At this time, we have received regulatory approval for Sativex in numerous countries outside the United States. During the time of our collaboration with Otsuka in the United States we opened an IND with the FDA for the MS spasticity indication, which was subsequently withdrawn.

2017 ECTRIMS data

In October 2017, new Sativex data was presented at the ECTRIMS Congress in Paris, France. These data, from a trial of Sativex as add-on therapy vs. further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) was a prospective, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled two-phase trial conducted in Europe.

57

In the trial period, phase A, eligible patients entered a 4-week, single-blind, add-on treatment period with Sativex. Patients up-titrated their Sativex sprays/day dosage until optimized symptom relief was achieved (max.12 sprays per day) as add-on therapy to optimized standard antispasticity treatment with oral baclofen and/or tizanidine and/or dantrolene (as mono- or combination therapy), according to approved labelling. Initial responders to Sativex were identified by a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) change in their spasticity score, defined as ≥20% improvement from baseline in the MS spasticity 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) score. Non-early responders were removed from the study. Initial responders to Sativex at 4 weeks entered the wash-out phase (1 to 4 weeks; without Sativex or placebo but with underlying antispasticity medications). Initial responders who returned to ≥80% of their baseline NRS score qualified for phase B of the study, and were randomized to receive Sativex (up-titrated to the optimum dose identified in phase A) or placebo as add-on therapy for 12 weeks. The characteristics of the patient population were comparable to those in previous clinical trials and observational studies of Sativex in resistant MS spasticity.

After 12 weeks of randomized treatment in early responders, the CID responder rate was significantly higher in favor of Sativex over placebo (77.4 vs 32.1%; p<0.0001), demonstrating a broad therapeutic gain despite allowing for dosage adjustments of underlying antispasticity medication. Overall, Sativex CID responders represented 43% of patients exposed to Sativex at the start of the trial period. This is similar to the 36% figure reported in a large placebo-controlled trial which did not have a wash-out period and did not allow adjustment of underlying antispasticity medication dosages.

Compared with placebo, Sativex also significantly improved key secondary endpoints: mean spasticity NRS (-3.5 vs -1.6; p<0.0001); mean pain NRS (-3.2 vs -1.8; p=0.0013); and mean modified Ashworth’s scale (-0.30 vs -0.06; p=0.0007). The MS EDSS scale, in which no changes were seen, is linked to overall MS evolution, and has been shown to have a low sensitivity to alterations in MS spasticity severity. Daily use of Sativex (7.3 sprays/day) was lower than that in a previous clinical trial, Novotna et al 2011(8.3 sprays/day), and closer to that in daily practice studies (mean 6.7-6.8 sprays/day). In all, 22.6% and 13.2% of patients treated with Sativex or placebo, respectively, reported TEAEs, which were mainly mild/moderate. There were no new safety concerns. Sativex as add-on therapy was shown to improve resistant MS spasticity providing clinically relevant changes. It was demonstrated to be a better alternative than readjusting first-line antispasticity medications and it was not associated with any relevant safety concerns.

Sativex in the U.S.

We are in late stage negotiations with Otsuka for the return of US development and commercialization rights to Sativex in the United States and expect these rights to be returned in the near future. In the event that we do so, we expect to evaluate the optimal route to achieve a NDA in the MS spasticity indication. We believe that this may require the conduct of an additional single pivotal trial. During 2018, we plan on consulting with the FDA on this development plan.

Our Strategic Partnerships

To support the development and commercialization of Sativex, we have entered into license and development agreements with the following major pharmaceutical companies: Otsuka in the United States; Almirall S.A., or Almirall, in Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) and Mexico; Bayer HealthCare AG, or Bayer, in the United Kingdom and Canada; Ipsen Biopharm Ltd, or Ipsen, in Latin America (excluding Mexico and the Islands of the Caribbean); and Neopharm Group, or Neopharm, in Israel. These agreements provide our collaborators with the sole right to commercialize Sativex in exclusive territories for all indications. In November 2016 we entered into a mutual termination agreement with Novartis, pursuant to which rights in Sativex in Australia and New Zealand, Asia (excluding Japan, China and Hong Kong), the Middle East (excluding Israel) and Africa will be returned to GW over an agreed transition period, and we have appointed a new distributor in Australia and New Zealand where Sativex is approved. From our incorporation through September 30, 2017, these agreements have yielded cash of £68.0 million in upfront fees and milestone payments. We are entitled to receive additional lump sum payments upon the achievement of certain regulatory and commercial milestones in the future, but are not relying on any of these milestones being achieved. Upon commercialization, we are also entitled to receive revenue from the supply of products as well as royalties on product sales. In addition, under the terms of our agreement with Otsuka, all pre-clinical and clinical costs associated with the development of Sativex in the United States to date have been fully funded by Otsuka.

58

Following the failure of the Sativex cancer pain trials, we are in late stage negotiations with Otsuka for the return of US development and commercialization rights to Sativex in the United States and expect these rights to be returned in the near future.

With the exception of Sativex, we retain global commercial rights to all of our other product pipeline candidates.

Our Proprietary Cannabinoid Product Platform

The cannabis plant is the unique source of more than 70 structurally-related, plant-derived cannabinoids. Although one cannabinoid, THC, is known to cause psychoactive effects associated with the use of illicit herbal cannabis, none of the other cannabinoids are known to share this property. In recent decades, there have been major scientific advances that have led to the discovery of new plant-derived cannabinoids and a cannabinoid receptor system in the human body, or endocannabinoid system. We are at the forefront of this new area of science, and we believe that our proprietary cannabinoid product platform uniquely positions us to discover and develop cannabinoids as new therapeutics. We are currently evaluating the potential for cannabinoids in the treatment of central nervous system, or CNS, disorders, including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia, cancer and cancer pain, type-2 diabetes, and neurodegenerative disease.

Our proprietary cannabinoid product platform consists of our:

•

continually evolving library of internally generated novel cannabis plant types that produce selected cannabinoids, or chemotypes. We can reproduce the selected chemotypes through propagation of plant cuttings, or clones, in order to ensure that all subsequent plant material is genetically uniform. We can also generate seeds of selected chemotypes for large scale production;

​

•

in-house extraction, processing methodologies and analytical techniques, which yield well-characterized and standardized chemotype extracts;

​

•

discovery of novel cannabinoid pharmacology through conducting in vitro and in vivo pharmacologic evaluation studies in validated disease models to determine the most promising potential therapeutic areas for each extract;

​

•

in-house formulation and manufacturing capabilities, supplemented by third party contractors;

​

•

global in-house development and regulatory expertise; and

​

•

intellectual property portfolio, which includes issued and/or pending claims directed to plants, plant extracts, extraction technology, pharmaceutical formulations, drug delivery and the therapeutic uses of cannabinoids, as well as plant variety rights, know-how and trade secrets.

​

We believe that the successful development and regulatory approval of Sativex for MS spasticity provide important validation of our proprietary cannabinoid product platform.

The prospect for cannabinoid therapeutics to be approved through the FDA approval pathway has been the subject of statements from the Obama White House, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Congress, the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, and the FDA. For several years, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy carried a statement called “Facts and Answers to the Frequently Asked Questions about Marijuana” on the White House website, noting that the FDA has recognized and approved the medicinal use of isolated components of the marijuana plant and related synthetic compounds, and it specifically referenced Sativex as a product that was in late-stage clinical trials with the FDA. The NIDA website currently states that the FDA has recognized and approved the medicinal use of isolated components of the marijuana plant and related synthetic compounds, and it specifically references Epidiolex as a product that is currently in late-stage clinical trials with the FDA. ONDCP refers readers to the website of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and in a document titled “Drug Facts: Is Marijuana Medicine?”, NIH states that Sativex treats muscle control problems caused by MS, but notes that it is not FDA-approved. NIH also states that Epidiolex, a CBD-based liquid drug to treat certain forms of childhood epilepsy, is being tested in clinical trials but is not yet FDA-approved. In its June 2012 report entitled “Reducing the U.S. Demand for Illegal Drugs,” the U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control expresses the view that the development of marijuana-based therapeutics through an approved

59

FDA process is the best route to explore and references Sativex as a promising product currently in the final phase of the FDA’s trials for approved use in the United States. In that report, the Senate Caucus urged the FDA to complete a careful review of Sativex in a timely manner. In written testimony given by Joseph Rannazzisi, then-Assistant Deputy Administrator of the DEA, before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control on the subject of Cannabidiol, June 24, 2015, Mr. Rannazzissi stated that the DEA supports research involving CBD and its potential capacity to treat multiple conditions, as well as expanded access programs for CBD, specifically citing Epidiolex. A presentation in March 2015 by Douglas C. Throckmorton, Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Review, FDA, referenced Epidiolex and Sativex as examples of drugs in clinical testing, and concluded that drug development, grounded in rigorous scientific research is essential to determining the appropriate uses of marijuana in the treatment of human disease, and that the FDA is committed to making this process as efficient as possible and looking for ways to speed the availability of new drugs from marijuana for the American public. Further, in his statement before the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate on “Researching the Potential Medical Benefits and Risks of Marijuana” on July 13, 2016, Douglas C. Throckmorton, Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, described how development programs for drugs derived from marijuana are eligible for certain FDA expedited review and development programs under appropriate circumstances, and some are being used to aid the development of drugs derived from marijuana, giving the examples of FDA’s grant of Fast Track designation to Sativex for the treatment of pain in patients with advanced cancer, who experience inadequate analgesia during optimized chronic opioid therapy, and Epidiolex, in the treatment of Dravet syndrome. He concluded that there is considerable public interest in developing new therapies from marijuana and its constituents, and FDA will continue to play its role in ensuring that any such new therapies are safe, effective, and manufactured to a high quality, applying the drug development paradigm that continues to provide new medicines that meet these standards for patients. He repeated these remarks in July 2017.

Our Strengths

We believe that we offer the following key distinguishing characteristics:

•

A late stage product, Epidiolex, in pediatric epilepsy for which we have generated positive Phase 3 data, have submitted an NDA to the FDA, and which we expect to launch in 2018 .   We have reported positive Phase 3 data for Epidiolex in both Dravet syndrome and LGS. Each of these conditions is a severe, infantile-onset, genetic, drug-resistant epilepsy syndrome for which we have secured Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA. We have submitted an NDA to the FDA and expect to commercialize this product in the United States in 2018. We also plan on seeking regulatory approval in Europe for Epidiolex and expect to commercialize the product in that market in 2019.

​

•

Additional indications for Epidiolex to expand epilepsy market opportunity .   We believe that there is potential for the development of Epidiolex in additional rare childhood-onset epilepsy indications. Physician reported data on patients receiving Epidiolex under physician-led INDs includes promising signals of clinical effect in patients with conditions other than Dravet syndrome and LGS. One of these additional indications is TSC, for which Phase 3 data is expected in 2018. Another is IS, and there are additional potential target indications under consideration for future development.

​

•

We retain global commercial rights to Epidiolex and believe it has significant market potential .   We are building a U.S. commercial organization led by Julian Gangolli as President, North America, who joined us in June 2015 having previously held the same position at Allergan. We have also recruited U.S. medical affairs, clinical trials and commercial staff, many of whom have strong epilepsy knowledge and experience. There is a significant unmet need within the field of epilepsy and we believe that U.S. physician awareness and enthusiasm for Epidiolex is high. We are also now building a commercial organization in Europe.

​

•

Commercialized product validates development and regulatory pathway .   We believe that the successful development and regulatory approval of Sativex in MS spasticity outside the United States provides important validation of our proprietary cannabinoid product platform. On this basis, we believe that we can develop a portfolio of additional cannabinoid therapeutics.

​

60

•

We are in late stage negotiations for the return of the rights to Sativex in the U.S. from our previous partner, Otsuka, and this represents a new wholly owned late stage asset .   We plan on pursuing a clinical program to obtain approval for this product from the FDA. Additional pipeline programs within epilepsy, autism, and pediatric neurology . We are in Phase 2 clinical development for an additional product candidate, GWP42006 (CBDV), in adult epilepsy patients. GWP42006 has also shown promising pre-clinical data within the field of ASDs and we expect to commence Phase 2 development in this therapeutic area in 2018. We have received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for CBDV for the treatment of Rett syndrome. In addition, we have received Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for CBD in the treatment of NHIE and have completed Phase 1 development of an intravenous CBD formulation in the treatment of NHIE.

​

•

A pipeline of additional cannabinoid orphan and non-orphan drug opportunities for which we retain global commercial rights .   We have successfully completed a Phase 1b/2a trial of another product, our combination of CBD and THC, to treat GBM, the data from which was presented at ASCO in 2017. We have successfully completed a Phase 2 trial in schizophrenia for our product candidate, GWP42003.

​

•

Opportunity for first-in-class treatments across a large number of therapeutic targets .   We are at the forefront of the commercialization of cannabinoid therapeutics using our proprietary product platform to identify, validate and develop innovative first-in-class therapeutics that are designed to meet significant unmet medical needs.

​

•

Strong competitive position in a highly specialized and regulated field .   We believe that we are uniquely positioned to benefit from the significant potential within the field of cannabinoid therapeutics in which we have developed a successful track record and expertise, as well as an intellectual property portfolio, during our 19 years of operations.

​

•

In-house manufacturing capabilities and expertise in controlled substances .   We operate under current GMP commercial manufacturing licenses in the United Kingdom, which give us the capability to supply our products to global markets. We have successfully exported cannabinoid commercial or research materials to over 30 countries and have substantial expertise in relevant international and national regulations in relation to the research, distribution and commercialization of cannabinoid therapeutics.

​

•

Highly experienced management team and network of leading scientists .   Several members of our leadership team have been in place for over ten years and we have recently hired a number of highly-experienced senior executives to augment our executive management team. We have a fully integrated in-house research and development organization, regulatory capabilities and commercial manufacturing expertise. We closely collaborate with a broad network of leading scientists in the cannabinoid field.

​

Our Business Strategy

Our goal is to capitalize on our leading position in the field of plant-derived cannabinoid therapeutics by pursuing the following strategies:

•

Secure regulatory approval and launch using our own commercial organization our lead product candidate Epidiolex in Dravet syndrome and LGS in the United States and around the world .   We have reported positive Phase 3 data in Dravet syndrome and LGS, and submitted an NDA to the FDA for which we expect a mid-2018 PDUFA date. We also expect to submit a regulatory application in Europe at the end of 2017, and also have future plans to submit applications elsewhere around the world. We are building U.S. and European commercial organizations in preparation for potential launch of Epidiolex.

​

•

Expand the market opportunity for Epidiolex within the field of epilepsy .   We have commenced Phase 3 clinical development of Epidiolex for TSC and clinical development of Epidiolex for IS. We are evaluating additional indications for Epidiolex within the field of epilepsy.

​

•

Develop additional product candidates within the field of epilepsy and pediatric neurology .   We have a second product candidate, GWP42006 (CBDV), for which a Phase 2 clinical trial in epilepsy is

​

61

underway with data expected in early 2018. We expect to commence an open-label study of GWP42006 in the first half of 2018 and expect to commence Phase 2 development of GWP42006 in the field of ASD, also in 2018. We also commenced a Phase 1 clinical trial in 2016 for an intravenous CBD formulation in the treatment of NHIE. In addition, following positive proof-of-concept data in a Phase 2 schizophrenia trial, we expect to conduct further research within the field of psychiatric disease in children. We retain global commercial rights to these programs.

•

Expand the market opportunity for Sativex .   We have recently launched Sativex in Australia and New Zealand, following the return of rights to this product by Novartis. If we recover the rights to Sativex in the United States, we plan on pursuing a clinical program to obtain approval for this product from the FDA.

​

•

Leverage our proprietary cannabinoid product platform to discover, develop and commercialize additional novel first-in-class cannabinoid products .   We believe our established platform, including our in-house development expertise, allows us to achieve candidate selection and proof-of-concept in an efficient manner.

​

•

Further strengthen our competitive position .   We will continue to develop our extensive international network of the most prominent scientists in the cannabinoid field and secure additional intellectual property rights.

​

Our Proprietary Cannabinoid Product Platform

We believe we have established a world-leading position in cannabinoid therapeutics through our proven proprietary cannabinoid product platform. Our platform consists of a continually evolving library of internally generated novel cannabis plant types that produce selected cannabinoids, discovery of novel cannabinoid pharmacology through our network of world leading scientists, an intellectual property portfolio, in-house formulation, processing and manufacturing capabilities, and development and regulatory expertise. We further believe that we are in a unique position to develop and manufacture plant-derived cannabinoid formulations worldwide at sufficient quality, uniformity, scale and sophistication for the purposes of pharmaceutical development and to meet international regulatory requirements.

Cannabinoid Science Overview

Although one cannabinoid, THC, is known to cause psychoactive effects associated with the use of illicit herbal cannabis, none of the other cannabinoids are known to share these properties. In recent decades, there have been major scientific advances that have led to the discovery of new plant-derived cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system. We are at the forefront of this new area of science and our research into a large number of these cannabinoids suggests that each has distinct pharmacological effects and potential therapeutic applications.

Our research to date has focused on the following plant-based cannabinoids:

Initial academic research in the field of cannabinoid science focused almost exclusively on THC. It has been widely published in scientific literature that THC has pain suppression, anti-spasmodic, anti-tremor, anti-inflammatory, appetite stimulant and anti-nausea properties. Our research and development, however, has focused primarily on exploring cannabinoids other than THC and identifying potential therapeutic

62

applications of these other cannabinoids. We have focused particularly on CBD, which has shown in pre-clinical testing conducted by us and supported by publications in scientific literature to have anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, anti-psychotic, anti-oxidant, neuroprotective and immunomodulatory effects. In addition, we believe CBD is not intoxicating as evidenced by its distinct pharmacology from THC as well as evidence from clinical trials. In particular, the intoxicating effects of THC result from its activity as a partial agonist at the CB1 receptor; CBD does not have this same pharmacologic activity. There is a significant body of scientific literature on the properties of CBD, which consistently describes CBD as a cannabinoid without psychotropic effects. Furthermore, according to publications in scientific literature, in particular pre-clinical research published by Zuardi, et al. in the Journal of Psychopharmacology 1982 and clinical research published by Karniol, et al. in the European Journal of Pharmacology 1974, research suggests that the presence of CBD may mitigate some of the side-effects of THC. We have also identified important pharmacological effects of other cannabinoids, such as the anti-convulsant effects of CBDV, anti-diabetic effects of THCV, anti-nausea effects of CBDA and anti-cancer effects of CBG.

There are at least two types of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, in the human endocannabinoid system. CB1 receptors are considered to be among the most widely expressed G protein-coupled receptors in the brain and are particularly abundant in areas of the brain concerned with movement and postural control, pain and sensory perception, memory, cognition, emotion, and autonomic and endocrine function. CB1 receptors are also found in peripheral tissues including peripheral nerves and non-neuronal tissues such as muscle, liver tissues and fat. CB2 receptors are expressed primarily in tissues in the immune system and are believed to mediate the immunological effects of cannabinoids. In addition, research suggests the endocannabinoid system interacts with other important neurotransmitter and neuromodulatory systems in the human body, including TRP channels, adenosine uptake and serotonin receptors. We believe that the far-reaching and diverse pharmacology of the numerous cannabinoids provides significant potential for development of cannabinoid therapeutics across many indications and disease areas.

Our Product Development Approach

Our approach to early product development of novel cannabinoids consists of the following stages:

Cannabinoid Chemotype Development.    Our research activities commence with the generation of novel and proprietary cannabinoid plant types that produce selected cannabinoids. Our plant geneticists breed unique and protected “chemotypes,” or plants characterized by their chemical content, such that we can precisely control the cannabinoid composition of a plant. We employ traditional and molecular methods of plant breeding, with no use of genetic modification. We select chemotypes on the basis of their cannabinoid profile, appropriate levels of concentration and botanical characteristics that enable commercial viability. We seek protection for chemotypes in the form of plant variety rights, which protect the plants and the material obtained therefrom in Europe. We use plant material for the sole purpose of ongoing processing into pharmaceutical formulations.

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Preparation.    After we generate the unique and protected chemotypes, we develop and characterize preparations from an extract of the chemotype. In addition to preparing whole plant extracts, we also modify the extract preparations by adding or removing certain components or purifying preparations to produce a purified cannabinoid. Each of these steps may give rise to patentable opportunities.

Pharmacologic Evaluation.    We then conduct in vitro and in vivo pharmacologic evaluation studies in validated disease models, testing the potential activity, safety and routes of drug metabolism of each cannabinoid preparation as well as combinations of preparations. These studies seek to identify the pharmacology of cannabinoid preparations and allow us to determine the potential therapeutic area in which they might have promise. We then conduct additional pharmacology, toxicology and pre-clinical development on promising preparations.

We conduct most of our pharmacologic evaluations in collaboration with cannabinoid scientists at academic institutions around the world. We enter into research collaboration agreements and other arrangements that enable us to benefit from the expertise of external scientists while retaining intellectual property rights that emerge from the study of our research materials.

63

Product Composition and Formulation Development.    In parallel with the later stages of pharmacological evaluation, we identify optimum extraction and processing methods for the most promising preparations and then develop clinical formulations from the plant extract and analytical methodologies to further study the formulations. We are able to develop formulations of potential product candidates that focus on one or more cannabinoids as key active constituents as well as formulations that focus on a single cannabinoid. Each of these steps may give rise to patentable opportunities.

With respect to complex extracts, our formulation approach is exemplified by Sativex, the first approved cannabinoid therapeutic based on whole plant extracts from the cannabis plant. The main active ingredients of Sativex, THC and CBD, are extracted from two proprietary chemotypes. In addition to THC and CBD, Sativex contains additional cannabinoid and non-cannabinoid plant components. In order to achieve a fully standardized formulation of these complex extracts, we employ a range of advanced analytical technologies to demonstrate batch-to-batch uniformity. We standardize the formulation across the extracts as a whole, not simply by reference to their key active components.

With respect to pure cannabinoid formulations, our approach is exemplified by Epidiolex. The active ingredient, CBD, is extracted from proprietary CBD containing chemotypes and then undergoes various processing steps to generate the isolated pure compound.

Clinical development.    Selected cannabinoid product candidates progress into clinical development. We have an in-house clinical operations team that has the proven capability to execute Phase 1, 2, 3 and 4 trials rapidly and cost-effectively. Since our inception, we have undertaken an extensive program of clinical trials in over 7,000 patients, including over 50 Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials and have undertaken post-market safety studies involving over 1,000 patients.

Advantages of Our Approach

We believe that our focus on the development of therapeutics from plant-derived cannabinoids offers the following important advantages:

•

Our approach is optimally suited to targeting a number of chronic conditions, especially involving the CNS. The inherent complexity of this system and the ability of one part of the system to compensate for abnormalities elsewhere in the system make the “single-target” approach to therapeutics unlikely to be successful.

​

•

Our platform enables us to evaluate the therapeutic potential of single cannabinoids as well as combinations of cannabinoids. As demonstrated with Sativex, this approach offers the prospect of developing a product that enhances the efficacy and safety features of one cannabinoid with complementary features of another cannabinoid while remaining defined as a single new medicinal entity by regulatory authorities.

​

•

The chemical complexity of our plant-based formulations provides additional hurdles for potential generic competitors who will be required to demonstrate essential similarity.

​

Sativex Collaboration Agreements

We have entered into six separate collaboration agreements for Sativex with major pharmaceutical companies. Each agreement provides the respective partner with exclusive rights in a defined geographic territory to commercialize Sativex in all indications, while we retain the exclusive right to manufacture and supply Sativex to such partner on commercial supply terms for the duration of the commercial life of the product. These agreements typically carry a 15 year initial term, with automatic renewal periods. Our partners have the right, under certain circumstances, to terminate their agreements with us, and three of our partners, Almirall, Otsuka and Novartis, have the right to terminate their agreements with us without cause. In November 2016 we entered into a mutual termination agreement with Novartis, pursuant to which rights in Sativex in Australia and New Zealand, Asia (excluding Japan, China and Hong Kong), the Middle East (excluding Israel) and Africa will be returned to GW over an agreed transition period. We are in late stage negotiations with Otsuka for the return of US development and commercialization rights to Sativex in the United States and expect these rights to be returned in the near future.

64

Each of our remaining collaboration agreements for Sativex incorporates different supply and royalty terms. With the exception of the Novartis agreement, described below, each of our supply agreements requires us to supply fully labeled Sativex vials at a price that is expressed as a percentage of a partner’s in-market net sales revenue. In some cases, part of this revenue is structured as a combination of product supply price plus a royalty, although both types of revenue are accounted for similarly. Sativex supply revenue is invoiced when product inventory is delivered to or collected by the marketing partner. Royalties will be received in arrears based upon quarterly in-market net sales declarations from partners.

The price charged for Sativex in the market is controlled by our marketing partners. However, our contracts do not anticipate us being obligated to supply Sativex at a loss. In such event, if the in-market supply price would cause us to supply Sativex at a loss we would have the right to renegotiate supply terms to prevent this.

Please see Note 3 to our audited consolidated financial statements included as part of this Annual Report for a breakdown of our revenue by geographic location.

Sativex in the United States

In 2007, we entered into a Sativex U.S. license agreement with Otsuka, the Japanese pharmaceutical company.

Under the terms of the Sativex U.S. license agreement, we granted Otsuka an exclusive license to develop and market Sativex in the United States. We are responsible for the manufacture and supply of Sativex to Otsuka. Both companies have jointly overseen all U.S. clinical development and regulatory activities for the first cancer pain indication.

The financial terms of this agreement include total milestone payments and license fees to us of up to $272.0 million, of which approximately $18.0 million relates to license fees, $54.0 million are linked to regulatory milestones, such as initiation of Phase 3 trials, submission of an NDA to the FDA and other regulatory approvals, and $200.0 million are linked to various commercial milestones, as well as revenue from the supply of products and royalties on product sales. Our combined supply price and royalty to Otsuka equates to a percentage in the mid-twenties of Otsuka’s in-market net sales revenue. Otsuka paid us the license fee of  $18.0 million upfront and has since paid an additional milestone payment of  $4.0 million upon commencing the first Phase 3 clinical trial in cancer pain.

Following the failure of the Sativex cancer pain trials, we are in late stage negotiations with Otsuka for the return of US development and commercialization rights to Sativex in the United States and expect these rights to be returned in the near future, and therefore do not expect to receive any further milestone payments.

Sativex in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa

Novartis Pharma AG.    In 2011, we entered into an exclusive agreement with Novartis to commercialize Sativex in Australia and New Zealand, Asia (excluding Japan, China and Hong Kong), the Middle East (excluding Israel) and Africa.

Under the terms of this agreement, Novartis had exclusive commercialization rights to Sativex in the above-mentioned territories and will act as the marketing authorization holder for Sativex. We will be responsible for the manufacture and supply of Sativex to Novartis.

The financial terms of the agreement included an upfront fee of  $5.0 million from Novartis.

In November 2016 we entered into a mutual termination agreement with Novartis, pursuant to which rights in Sativex in these territories. As this agreement has now been terminated we will not receive any further lump sum or other payments from Novartis. However, we have identified and appointed a third party to distribute Sativex in Australia and New Zealand, which are within the former Novartis territories.

Ipsen Biopharm Ltd.    In 2014, we entered into an exclusive agreement with Ipsen. Under the terms of this agreement, Ipsen will promote and distribute Sativex in Latin America (excluding Mexico and the Islands of the Caribbean).

65

Neopharm Group.    Under an agreement signed in 2010, Neopharm, an Israeli pharmaceutical company, holds exclusive commercial rights to Sativex in Israel. The financial terms of this agreement did not include a license fee and we are not entitled to any milestone payments. We will receive revenue from the supply of products to Neopharm, expected to equate to a percentage equal to forty to fifty per cent of Neopharm’s in-market net sales revenue.

Under the terms of this agreement, Neopharm acts as market authorization holder in the territory. We are responsible for commercial product supply to Neopharm for which we generate sales revenue.

Sativex in the European Union

Almirall S.A.    In 2005, we entered into an exclusive agreement with Almirall, an international pharmaceutical company with headquarters in Spain and 2016 total revenue of €859.3 million, to commercialize Sativex in the European Union (excluding the United Kingdom) and E.U. accession countries, as well as Switzerland, Norway and Turkey. In 2012, this agreement was amended to add Mexico to the licensed territory. In countries where Almirall has no direct presence at the time of product launch, we will jointly agree on the appointment of distribution partners. In such countries, we may elect to distribute the product ourselves.

Under the agreement, we are the marketing authorization holder for Sativex in all countries in the territory except where local regulations require a locally registered entity to assume this responsibility. In addition, we are responsible for commercial product supply to Almirall. The financial terms of the agreement included an upfront fee of £12.0 million. In addition, milestone payments are payable to us upon the successful completion of certain development activities, as well as on regulatory approvals and the achievement of specified sales targets. Since its initial execution in 2005, the agreement has been the subject of various amendments, two of which included the provision of new milestone payments. Since 2005, in total, we have received £20.9 million of milestone payments from Almirall. We have the potential to receive a further £17.0 million in future milestone payments in the event that the relevant milestones are achieved. Of such £17.0 million in potential future milestone payments, £4.0 million are linked to regulatory and clinical milestones and £13.0 million are linked to commercial milestones. We also receive revenue from the supply of Sativex, currently equating to a percentage in the low to mid-twenties of Almirall’s in-market net sales revenue. This percentage would increase to the mid-thirties if Sativex is approved for cancer pain in Europe, and will increase to the mid-thirties of net sales revenue from January 1, 2021.

Bayer HealthCare AG.    In 2003, we entered into an agreement with Bayer whereby we granted Bayer an exclusive license to market Sativex in the United Kingdom. This agreement was amended later in 2003 to include Canada.

Under the agreement, we are the marketing authorization holder for Sativex in the United Kingdom and Canada. In addition, we are responsible for commercial product supply to Bayer.

The financial terms of the agreement included an upfront fee of £5.0 million. In addition, milestone payments are payable on the successful completion of certain development activities, as well as on regulatory approvals and the achievement of specified sales targets. Since its initial execution in 2003, the agreement has been the subject of various amendments, one of which included the provision of new milestone payments. In total, we have received £19.8 million in milestone payments from Bayer. We have the potential to receive a further £9.0 million in milestone payments in the event that the relevant milestones are achieved, all of which are related to future regulatory approvals. We also receive revenue from supply of Sativex, equating to a percentage in the mid-thirties to forty of Bayer’s in-market net sales revenue.

Intellectual Property and Technology Licenses

Our success depends in significant part on our ability to protect the proprietary nature of Sativex, Epidiolex, our other product candidates, technology and know-how, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others, and to defend challenges and oppositions from others and prevent others from infringing on our proprietary rights. We have sought, and plan to continue to seek, patent protection in the United States and other countries for our proprietary technologies. Our intellectual property portfolio at September 30, 2017, includes 73 patent families with issued and/or pending claims directed to plants, plant extracts, extraction technology, pharmaceutical formulations, drug delivery and the therapeutic uses of

66

cannabinoids, as well as plant variety rights, know-how and trade secrets. From these families, as of September 30, 2017, we own and/or license 269 pending patent applications worldwide. Within the United States, we have 38 issued patents with a further 47 pending patent applications under active prosecution. There are an additional 492 issued patents outside of the United States. Our policy is to seek patent protection for the technology, inventions and improvements that we consider important to the development of our business, but only in those cases where we believe that the costs of obtaining patent protection is justified by the commercial potential of the technology, and typically only in those jurisdictions that we believe present significant commercial opportunities.

We also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know-how and continuing innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position.

Our strategy is to seek and obtain patents related to Sativex across all major pharmaceutical markets around the world. In the United States, our patents and/or pending applications (if they were to issue) relating to Sativex would expire on various dates between 2021 and 2027, excluding possible patent term extensions. We have at least seven different patent families containing one or more pending and/or issued patents directed to the Sativex formulation, the extracts from which Sativex is composed, the extraction technique used to produce the extracts and the therapeutic use of Sativex.

Under the 2007 research collaboration agreement with Otsuka, which expired in June 2013, all intellectual property (including both patents and non-manufacturing related know-how) that was conceived by either Otsuka or us during the course of the collaboration is jointly owned by Otsuka and us, and is referred to as “collaboration IP.” Since no product/product candidate(s) were licensed by Otsuka at the end of the collaboration, we have an exclusive sub-licensable royalty-bearing license to use collaboration IP both outside and within the fields of CNS and oncology.

Under the surviving provisions of the collaboration agreement, we remain responsible for the filing, prosecution, maintenance and defense of any patents filed on the jointly owned collaboration IP, and Otsuka is responsible for all out-of-pocket expenses associated therewith. In the event Otsuka no longer wishes to reimburse us for our out-of-pocket costs associated with any of the jointly owned patents, Otsuka is required to assign its rights to the patents in question back to us. Otsuka has the first right to bring and control any action for infringement of any joint patent rights in the research field, and we have the right to join such action at our own expense. In the event Otsuka fails to bring such an action, we have the right to bring and control any such action at our own expense. Neither party shall have the right to settle any infringement litigation regarding the joint patent rights inside the research field without the prior written consent of the other party.

We have a portfolio of intellectual property relating to the use of CBD in epilepsy. This portfolio includes sixteen distinct patent families which are either granted or filed. Two of these patent families are collaboration IP derived from the now expired Otsuka research collaboration, and to which we have an exclusive sub-licensable royalty-bearing license. This portfolio includes patent families with claims directed to the use of CBD in the treatment of epilepsy seizure subtypes, particular childhood epilepsy syndromes and formulations. We anticipate filing additional patent applications claiming the use of Epidiolex in 2018 as new data is generated and will continue to prosecute our existing patent applications before the USPTO. We expect the USPTO to reach a determination on a number of the pending applications in the first half of 2018. Should the NDA for Epidiolex for the treatment of Dravet syndrome and/or LGS be approved, we do not intend to seek to list any of our currently-granted patents in the Electronic Orange Book . In addition other patent families have claims directed to related inventions such as extraction techniques, CBD extracts and highly purified CBD.

We have a portfolio of intellectual property relating to CBD in schizophrenia consisting of two distinct patent families which are either granted or pending, that are directed to the use of this product candidate. One of these patent families is collaboration IP derived from the now expired Otsuka research collaboration, and to which we have an exclusive sub-licensable royalty-bearing license. These patent families include claims to use of CBD alone or in combination with other cannabinoids/anti-psychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia as well as other families which provide protection for compositions, extraction techniques, CBD extracts and highly purified CBD. We anticipate additional patent applications being filed as new data is generated.

67

We have a portfolio of intellectual property relating to CBDV for use in various indications including epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder. This portfolio includes patent families which are either granted or pending that are directed to the use of this product candidate. One of these patent families is collaboration IP derived from the now expired Otsuka research collaboration, and to which we have an exclusive sub-licensable royalty-bearing license. These patent families include claims to use of CBDV alone or in combination with standard anti-epileptic drugs in the treatment of seizures, the use of CBDV in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders and associated conditions. Other families which provide protection for the use of CBDV in other therapeutic areas such as neuropathic pain, Alzheimer’s disease and Duchenne’s disease, CBDV compositions and CBDV extracts. We anticipate additional patent applications being filed as new data is generated.

We have a portfolio of intellectual property relating to CBD and THC for use in the treatment of glioma. This portfolio includes six distinct patent families which are either granted or filed, protecting the use of these product candidates in glioma. One of these patent families is collaboration IP derived from the now expired Otsuka research collaboration, and to which we have an exclusive sub-licensable royalty-bearing license. The latest expiry date of these families runs to June 2034. These patent families include claims to use of THC and CBD in various ratios either alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic drugs or radiotherapy in the treatment of glioma.

The term of individual patents depends upon the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we have filed, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, in granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for extension, which permits term restoration as compensation for the term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits an extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Extensions cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug are available in Europe and other non-U.S. jurisdictions; indeed Supplementary Protection Certificates have been applied for such that the European formulation patent for Sativex will be extended to 2025 in Europe. In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical product candidates receive FDA approval, we may apply for extensions on patents covering those products.

To protect our rights to any of our issued patents and proprietary information, we may need to litigate against infringing third parties, avail ourselves of the courts or participate in hearings to determine the scope and validity of those patents or other proprietary rights.

We also rely on trade secret protection for our confidential and proprietary information, and it is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us.

From time to time, in the normal course of our operations, we will be a party to litigation and other dispute matters and claims relating to intellectual property. A number of our recently issued European patents are currently the subject of opposition proceedings, which may result in claims in these patents being narrowed or cancelled such that the scope of the opposed patent may not be as broad, or the opposed patent may be revoked in its entirety. Our US patent claiming the use of CBD in the treatment of partial seizures is also subject of a petition for inter partes review by the Patents Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The petition has been instituted on two of the three grounds claimed and is now proceeding towards a hearing in March 2018. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and our view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. An unfavorable outcome to any legal matter, if material, could have a materially adverse effect on our operations or our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

68

Manufacturing

We are responsible for the manufacture and supply of our products for clinical trial and commercial purposes. We operate under GMP manufacturing licenses issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, in the United Kingdom and our facilities have been audited by the MHRA on a regular basis. We have personnel with extensive experience in production of botanical raw material, pharmaceutical production, quality control, quality assurance and supply chain.

For commercial Sativex production, the BRM is currently contracted to an external third party, although our staff are at the contract site to monitor activity and production quality on a weekly basis. All other steps in the commercial production process for Sativex are performed in-house. We routinely hold significant inventories of Sativex BRM and BDS, both of which have extended shelf lives that enable us to manufacture finished product on demand. We believe that these inventories are currently sufficient to enable us to continue to meet anticipated commercial demand for Sativex in the event of an interruption in our supply of BRM.

We are in the process of expanding and upgrading parts of our manufacturing facilities in order to meet future demand and FDA requirements. We finished construction of a new BDS production facility at our current site in May 2016. We are constructing an additional BDS production facility at our current site where we expect to install new, higher volume, BDS processing equipment. Construction work for this new facility commenced in October 2017 and we expect to complete the first phase of this construction in 2019, with a second phase of this completing in 2020. Longer term, depending on volume requirements, we anticipate the need to construct a new BDP facility.

For Epidiolex production, the BRM is currently contracted to the same external third party used for Sativex production plus an additional third party. In 2017 we expanded our growing capacity three fold and have successfully on boarded a new contract growing organization. Our intention is to maintain at least two contract growers and locations with long term agreements and the flexibility to increase or decrease BRM production in line with demand.

We have successfully exported cannabinoid commercial or research materials to over 30 countries and have the necessary in-house expertise to manage the import/export process worldwide. We have substantial expertise in, and experience with, relevant international and national regulations in relation to the research, distribution and commercialization of cannabinoid therapeutics. We have formed relationships with relevant international and national agencies in order to enable licensing of research sites, establishing appropriate product distribution channels and securing licensed storage, obtaining import/export licenses, and facilitating amendments to relevant legislation if required prior to commercialization.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our scientific knowledge, technology and development experience provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. A synthetic THC (dronabinol) oral capsule has been approved and distributed in the United States for anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS. Dronabinol and nabilone (a synthetic molecule similar to THC) capsules have been approved and distributed in the United States for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic treatments. We are also aware of exploratory research into the effects of THC formulations in other areas. We are aware of discovery research within the pharmaceutical industry into synthetic agonists and antagonists of CB1 and CB2 receptors. We are also aware of companies that supply synthetic cannabinoids and cannabis extracts to researchers for pre-clinical and clinical investigation. We are also aware of various companies that cultivate cannabis plants with a view to supplying herbal cannabis or non-pharmaceutical cannabis-based formulations to patients. These activities have not been approved by the FDA.

69

In both MS spasticity and cancer pain, Sativex aims to treat patients who do not respond adequately to standard care. In MS spasticity, such treatments include baclofen and tizanidine, and in cancer pain such treatments include morphine and other opioids. In cancer pain, the principal focus of ongoing clinical research by our potential competitors is in the development of alternative formulations of opioids.

With respect to CBD, a number of non-approved and non-standardized “artisanal” CBD preparations derived from crude herbal cannabis have been made available in limited quantities by producers of  “medical marijuana” in the United States. In addition, certain pharmaceutical companies that currently manufacture synthetic THC are likely to have the capability to manufacture synthetic CBD and may already be doing so. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. has publicly stated its intention to develop CBD in Dravet syndrome, LGS, glioma and potentially other orphan indications. Zogenix, Inc. is developing low dose fenfluramine in Dravet syndrome, for which it has reported positive results in a Phase 3 trial. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is developing a topical formulation of CBD, which it has stated that it intends to purse in the fields of osteoarthritis and Fragile X syndrome.

We have never endorsed or supported the idea of distributing or legalizing crude herbal cannabis, or preparations derived from crude herbal cannabis, for medical use and do not believe prescription cannabinoids are the same, and therefore competitive, with crude herbal cannabis. We have consistently maintained that only a cannabinoid medication, one that is standardized in composition, formulation and dose, administered by means of an appropriate delivery system, and tested in properly controlled pre-clinical and clinical studies, can meet the standards of regulatory authorities around the world, including those of the FDA. We have also repeatedly stressed that these regulatory processes provide important protections for patients, and we believe that any cannabinoid medication must be subjected to, and satisfy, such rigorous scrutiny.

The prospect for cannabinoid therapeutics to be approved through the FDA approval pathway has been the subject of statements from the Obama White House, NIDA, Congress and the DEA. For several years, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy carried a statement called “Facts and Answers to the Frequently Asked Questions about Marijuana” on the White House website, noting that the FDA has recognized and approved the medicinal use of isolated components of the marijuana plant and related synthetic compounds, and it specifically referenced Sativex as a product in late-stage clinical trials with the FDA. The NIDA website currently states that the FDA has recognized and approved the medicinal use of isolated components of the marijuana plant and related synthetic compounds, and it specifically references Epidiolex as a product that is currently in late-stage clinical trials with the FDA. ONDCP refers readers to the website of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and in a document titled “Drug Facts: Is Marijuana Medicine?”, NIH states that Sativex treats muscle control problems caused by MS, but notes that it is not FDA-approved. NIH also states that Epidiolex, a CBD-based liquid drug to treat certain forms of childhood epilepsy, is being tested in clinical trials but is not yet FDA-approved. In its June 2012 report titled “Reducing the U.S. Demand for Illegal Drugs,” the U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control expresses the view that the development of marijuana-based therapeutics through an approved FDA process is the best route to explore and references Sativex as a promising product currently in the final phase of the FDA’s trials for approved use in the United States. In that report, the Senate Caucus urged the FDA to complete a careful review of Sativex in a timely manner. In written testimony given by Joseph Rannazzisi, then-Assistant Deputy Administrator of the DEA, before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control on the subject of Cannabidiol, June 24, 2015, Mr. Rannazzissi stated that the DEA supports research involving CBD and its potential capacity to treat multiple conditions, as well as expanded access programs for CBD, specifically citing Epidiolex.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

FDA Approval Process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDC Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable

70

U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as imposition of clinical holds, FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development in the United States typically involves pre-clinical laboratory and animal tests and the submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence. For commercial approval, the sponsor must submit adequate tests by all methods reasonably applicable to show that the drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended or suggested in the proposed labeling. The sponsor must also submit substantial evidence, generally consisting of adequate, well-controlled clinical trials to establish that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended or suggested in the proposed labeling. In certain cases, FDA may determine that a drug is effective based on one clinical study plus confirmatory evidence. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including the FDA’s good laboratory practices regulations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) regulations implementing the Animal Welfare Act. The results of pre-clinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long term pre-clinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has not imposed a clinical hold on the IND or otherwise commented or questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations, (ii) in compliance with GCP an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors, and (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The trial protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB, for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In general in Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, 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 the additional information about clinical 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 drug. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. FDA may, however, determine that a drug is

71

effective based on one clinical study plus confirmatory evidence. Only a small percentage of investigational drugs complete all three phases and obtain marketing approval. In some cases, FDA may require post-market studies, known as Phase 4 studies, to be conducted as a condition of approval in order to gather additional information on the drug’s effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use. Depending on the risks posed by the drugs, other post-market requirements may be imposed.

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 of the product may begin in the United States. The NDA must include the results of all pre-clinical, 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. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, for Fiscal Year 2018 $2,421,495, and the manufacturer and/or sponsor under an approved NDA are also subject to annual program fees, for Fiscal Year 2018 $304,162.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. Under the statute and implementing regulations, FDA has 180 days (the initial review cycle) from the date of filing to issue either an approval letter or a complete response letter, unless the review period is adjusted by mutual agreement between FDA and the applicant or as a result of the applicant submitting a major amendment. In practice, the performance goals established pursuant to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have effectively extended the initial review cycle beyond 180 days. FDA’s current performance goals call for FDA to complete review of 90 percent of standard (non-priority) NDAs within 10 months of receipt and within six months for priority NDAs, but two additional months are added to standard and priority NDAs for a new molecular entity (NME).

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee, which is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it 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 is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current GMP is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. 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 90 per cent of resubmissions within two or six months depending on the type of information included.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing 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, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public website maintained by the

72

U.S. National Institutes of Health. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigator, and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration. Under a new rule, effective January 18, 2017, sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of these trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed for up to two years if the sponsor certifies that it is seeking approval of an unapproved product or that it will file an application for approval of a new indication for an approved product within one year. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the design and progress of our development programs.

Fast Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

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. Under the Fast Track Program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Under the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, FDA may approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, will allow FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. Unless otherwise informed by the FDA, for an accelerated approval product an applicant must submit to the FDA for consideration during the preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements, intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval. After 120 days following marketing approval, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the applicant must submit promotional materials at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination of the labeling or initial publication of the advertisement

In addition to other benefits such as the ability to use surrogate endpoints and engage in more frequent interactions with FDA, FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track drug’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by FDA if FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

The Hatch-Waxman Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active

73

ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing 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, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are considered to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug, 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 in accordance with state law.

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 accepted for filing 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.

The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which time the FDA cannot receive any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application seeking approval of a drug that references a version of the NCE drug. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, are associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that includes the change.

An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification and thus no ANDA or 505(b)(2) application may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period.

For a botanical drug, FDA may determine that the active moiety is one or more of the principal components or the complex mixture as a whole. This determination would affect the utility of any 5-year exclusivity as well as the ability of any potential generic competitor to demonstrate that it is the same drug as the original botanical drug.

Five-year and three-year exclusivities do not preclude FDA approval of a 505(b)(1) application for a duplicate version of the drug during the period of exclusivity, provided that the 505(b)(1) applicant conducts or obtains a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase — the time between IND submission and NDA submission — and all of the review phase — the time between NDA submission

74

and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years.

For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the PTO must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition — generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S (or affects more than 200,000 in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the U.S. a drug for such disease or condition will recovered from sales in the U.S. of such drug). Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The first NDA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular active ingredient to treat a particular disease with FDA orphan drug designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the U.S. for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. If FDA designates an orphan drug based on a finding of clinical superiority, FDA must provide a written notification to the sponsor that states the basis for orphan designation, including “any plausible hypothesis” relied upon by the FDA. The FDA must also publish a summary of its clinical superiority findings upon granting orphan drug exclusivity based on clinical superiority. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee.

Special Protocol Assessment

A company may reach an agreement with the FDA under the Special Protocol Assessment, or SPA, process as to the required design and size of clinical trials intended to form the primary basis of an efficacy claim. According to its performance goals, the FDA is supposed to evaluate the protocol within 45 days of the request to assess whether the proposed trial is adequate, and that evaluation may result in discussions and a request for additional information. An SPA request must be made before the proposed trial begins, and all open issues must be resolved before the trial begins. If a written agreement is reached, it will be documented and made part of the administrative record. Under the FDC Act and FDA guidance implementing the statutory requirement, an SPA is generally binding upon the FDA except in limited circumstances, such as if the FDA identifies a substantial scientific issue essential to determining safety or efficacy after the study begins, public health concerns emerge that were unrecognized at the time of the protocol assessment, the sponsor and FDA agree to the change in writing, or if the study sponsor fails to follow the protocol that was agreed upon with the FDA.

Advertising and Promotion

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs.

Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA

75

approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement 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 NDAs.

Adverse Event Reporting and GMP Compliance

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, require under a REMS special communications regarding the safety of the drug or heightened surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality-control, drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to GMP, after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with GMP. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with GMP. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

Pediatric Exclusivity and Pediatric Use

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six-month period of exclusivity attached to any other exclusivity listed with FDA — patent or non-patent — for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for pediatric exclusivity include a determination by the FDA that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population; a written request by the FDA for pediatric studies; and agreement by the applicant to perform the requested studies and the submission to the FDA, completion of the studies in accordance with the written request, and the acceptance by the FDA, of the reports of the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective, unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver from the FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric studies for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data need to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. Under PREA, the FDA must send a non-compliance letter requesting a response with 45 days to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Voucher Program

Rare pediatric disease designation is granted to drugs and biologics intended to treat orphan diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States, primarily age 18 years or younger. Under FDA’s Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher program, a sponsor that receives approval for an NDA or BLA for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible to receive a voucher for a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. The priority review voucher may be used by the sponsor or sold or transferred. The voucher relates to only the timing and action of application review and does not guarantee approval of the application.

An original marketing application can qualify for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher by meeting the following criteria: (1) it is an NDA or BLA for the prevention or treatment of a rare pediatric disease, contains no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of the active ingredient) that has been previously approved in any other application, and is eligible for priority review; (2) it relies on clinical data

76

derived from studies examining a pediatric population and dosages of the drug intended for that population; and (3) it does not seek approval for an adult indication in the original rare pediatric disease product application. Voucher requests must be filed in the original marketing application to FDA and should include a copy of a “rare pediatric disease” designation letter, if previously issued. FDA may not award any vouchers after September 30, 2020, unless the original marketing application is for a drug that, not later than September 30, 2020, is designated a drug for a rare pediatric disease, and is, not later than September 30, 2022, approved by FDA.

FDA may revoke any voucher if the product for which the voucher was awarded is not marketed in the United States within a one-year period beginning on the drug approval date. The sponsor of the drug product must submit a report to FDA within five years of original marketing application approval. This report must include information with respect to each of the first four years after approval of the product, including: (1) the estimated population in the United States suffering from the rare pediatric disease, (2) the estimated demand in the United States for the product, and (3) the actual amount of product distributed in the United States.

Controlled Substances

The federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, or CSA, and its implementing regulations establish a “closed system” of regulations for controlled substances. The CSA imposes registration, security, recordkeeping and reporting, storage, manufacturing, distribution, importation and other requirements under the oversight of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA. The DEA is the federal agency responsible for regulating controlled substances, and requires those individuals or entities that manufacture, import, export, distribute, research, or dispense controlled substances to comply with the regulatory requirements in order to prevent the diversion of controlled substances to illicit channels of commerce.

The DEA categorizes controlled substances into one of five schedules — Schedule I, II, III, IV or V — with varying qualifications for listing in each schedule. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision. They may be used only in federally approved research programs and may not be marketed or sold for dispensing to patients in the United States. Pharmaceutical products having a currently accepted medical use that are otherwise approved for marketing may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V substances, with Schedule II substances presenting the highest potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence, and Schedule V substances presenting the lowest relative potential for abuse and dependence. The regulatory requirements are more restrictive for Schedule II substances than Schedule III substances. For example, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist in most situations and cannot be refilled.

Following NDA approval of a drug containing a Schedule I controlled substance, that substance must be rescheduled as a Schedule II, III, IV or V substance before it can be marketed. On November 17, 2015, H.R. 639, Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act, passed through both houses of Congress and on November 25, 2015 the Bill was signed into law. The new law removes uncertainty associated with timing of the DEA rescheduling process after NDA approval. Specifically, it requires DEA to issue an “interim final rule,” pursuant to which a manufacturer may market its product no later than 90 days after the later of: (1) the date on which DEA receives from FDA the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation; or (2) the date on which DEA receives from FDA notification that FDA has approved the drug. The new law also preserves the period of orphan marketing exclusivity for the full seven years such that this period only begins with the approval of the NDA or DEA scheduling, whichever is later. This contrasts with the previous situation whereby the orphan “clock” began to tick upon FDA approval, even though the product could not be marketed until DEA scheduling was complete.

Facilities that manufacture, distribute, import or export any controlled substance must register annually with the DEA. The DEA registration is specific to the particular location, activity(ies) and controlled substance schedule(s). For example, separate registrations are required for importation and manufacturing activities, and each registration authorizes which schedules of controlled substances the registrant may handle. However, certain coincident activities are permitted without obtaining a separate DEA registration, such as distribution of controlled substances by the manufacturer that produces them.

77

The DEA inspects all manufacturing facilities to review security, recordkeeping, reporting and handling prior to issuing a controlled substance registration. The specific security requirements vary by the type of business activity and the schedule and quantity of controlled substances handled. The most stringent requirements apply to manufacturers of Schedule I and Schedule II substances. Required security measures commonly include background checks on employees and physical control of controlled substances through storage in approved vaults, safes and cages, and through use of alarm systems and surveillance cameras. An application for a manufacturing registration as a bulk manufacturer (not a dosage form manufacturer or a repacker/relabeler) for a Schedule I or II substance must be published in the Federal Register, and is open for 60 days to permit interested persons to submit comments, objections or requests for a hearing. A copy of the notice of the Federal Register publication is simultaneously forwarded by DEA to all those registered, or applicants for registration, as bulk manufacturers of that substance. Once registered, manufacturing facilities must maintain records documenting the manufacture, receipt and distribution of all controlled substances. Manufacturers must submit periodic reports to the DEA of the distribution of Schedule I and II controlled substances, Schedule III narcotic substances, and other designated substances. Registrants must also report any controlled substance thefts or significant losses, and must obtain authorization to destroy or dispose of controlled substances. As with applications for registration as a bulk manufacturer, an application for an importer registration for a Schedule I or II substance must also be published in the Federal Register, which remains open for 30 days for comments. Imports of Schedule I and II controlled substances for commercial purposes are generally restricted to substances not already available from domestic supplier or where there is not adequate competition among domestic suppliers. In addition to an importer or exporter registration, importers and exporters must obtain a permit for every import or export of a Schedule I and II substance or Schedule III, IV and V narcotic, and submit import or export declarations for Schedule III, IV and V non-narcotics. In some cases, Schedule III non-narcotic substances may be subject to the import/export permit requirement, if necessary to ensure that the United States complies with its obligations under international drug control treaties.

For drugs manufactured in the United States, the DEA establishes annually an aggregate quota for the amount of substances within Schedules I and II that may be manufactured or produced in the United States based on the DEA’s estimate of the quantity needed to meet legitimate medical, scientific, research and industrial needs. This limited aggregate amount of cannabis that the DEA allows to be produced in the United States each year is allocated among individual companies, which, in turn, must annually apply to the DEA for individual manufacturing and procurement quotas. The quotas apply equally to the manufacturing of the active pharmaceutical ingredient and production of dosage forms. The DEA may adjust aggregate production quotas a few times per year, and individual manufacturing or procurement quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments for individual companies.

The states also maintain separate controlled substance laws and regulations, including licensing, recordkeeping, security, distribution, and dispensing requirements. State Authorities, including Boards of Pharmacy, regulate use of controlled substances in each state. Failure to maintain compliance with applicable requirements, particularly as manifested in the loss or diversion of controlled substances, can result in enforcement action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial condition. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal prosecution.

Europe/Rest of World Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are and will be subject, either directly or through our distribution partners, to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products, if approved.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in non-U.S. countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries.

In the E.U., medicinal products are subject to extensive pre- and post-marketing regulation by regulatory authorities at both the E.U. and national levels. Additional rules also apply at the national level

78

to the manufacture, import, export, storage, distribution and sale of controlled substances. In many E.U. member states the regulatory authority responsible for medicinal products is also responsible for controlled substances. Responsibility is, however, split in some member states, such as the UK. Generally, any company manufacturing or distributing a medicinal product containing a controlled substance in the E.U. will need to hold a controlled substances licence from the competent national authority and will be subject to specific record-keeping and security obligations. Separate import or export certificates are required for each shipment into or out of the member state.

Clinical Trials and Marketing Approval

Certain countries outside of the United States have a process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to the competent national health authority and to independent ethics committees in each country in which a company intends to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements and a company has received favorable ethics committee approval, clinical trial development may proceed in that country.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country, even though there is already some degree of legal harmonization in the European Union member states resulting from the national implementation of underlying E.U. legislation. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on GCP and other applicable regulatory requirements.

To obtain regulatory approval to place a drug on the market in the E.U., we must submit a marketing authorization application. This application is similar to the NDA in the United States, with the exception of, among other things, country-specific document requirements. All application procedures require an application in the common technical document, or CTD, format, which includes the submission of detailed information about the manufacturing and quality of the product, and non-clinical and clinical trial information. Drugs can be authorized in the European Union by using (i) the centralized authorization procedure, (ii) the mutual recognition procedure, (iii) the decentralized procedure or (iv) national authorization procedures. The initial Sativex approvals were a consequence of an application under the De-Centralized Procedure, or DCP, to the E.U. member states of the United Kingdom and Spain.

The European Commission created the centralized procedure for the approval of human drugs to facilitate marketing authorizations that are valid throughout the European Union and, by extension (after national implementing decisions) in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which, together with the E.U. member states, comprise the European Economic Area, or EEA. Applicants file marketing authorization applications with the EMA, where they are reviewed by a relevant scientific committee, in most cases the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP. The EMA forwards CHMP opinions to the European Commission, which uses them as the basis for deciding whether to grant a marketing authorization. This procedure results in a single marketing authorization granted by the European Commission that is valid across the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for human drugs that are: (i) derived from biotechnology processes, such as genetic engineering, (ii) contain a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases, (iii) officially designated “orphan drugs” (drugs used for rare human diseases) and (iv) advanced-therapy medicines, such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines. The centralized procedure may at the voluntary request of the applicant also be used for human drugs which do not fall within the above mentioned categories if the CHMP agrees that the human drug (a) contains a new active substance not yet approved on 20 November 2005); (b) constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or (c) authorization under the centralized procedure is in the interests of patients at the E.U. level.

Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the EMA is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP), with adoption of the actual marketing authorization by the European Commission thereafter.

79

Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest from the point of view of therapeutic innovation, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease to be treated; the absence of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach, and anticipation of exceptional high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the evaluation for the opinion of the CHMP is completed within 150 days and the opinion issued thereafter.

For those medicinal products for which the centralized procedure is not available, the applicant must submit marketing authorization applications to the national medicines regulators through one of three procedures: (i) the mutual recognition procedure (which must be used if the product has already been authorized in at least one other E.U. member state, and in which the E.U. member states are required to grant an authorization recognizing the existing authorization in the other E.U. member state, unless they identify a serious risk to public health), (ii) the decentralized procedure (in which applications are submitted simultaneously in two or more E.U. member states) or (iii) national authorization procedures (which results in a marketing authorization in a single E.U. member state).

Mutual Recognition Procedure

The mutual recognition procedure, or MRP, for the approval of human drugs is an alternative approach to facilitate individual national marketing authorizations within the European Union. Basically, the MRP may be applied for all human drugs for which the centralized procedure is not obligatory. The MRP is applicable to the majority of conventional medicinal products, must be used if the product has already been authorized in one or more member states. Since the first approvals for Sativex were national approvals in the United Kingdom and Spain (following a DCP), the only route open to us for additional marketing authorizations in the European Union was the MRP.

The characteristic of the MRP is that the procedure builds on an already-existing marketing authorization in a member state of the E.U. that is used as a reference in order to obtain marketing authorizations in other E.U. member states. In the MRP, a marketing authorization for a drug already exists in one or more member states of the E.U. and subsequently marketing authorization applications are made in other European Union member states by referring to the initial marketing authorization. The member state in which the marketing authorization was first granted will then act as the reference member state. The member states where the marketing authorization is subsequently applied for act as concerned member states. The concerned member states are required to grant an authorization recognizing the existing authorization in the reference member state, unless they identify a serious risk to public health.

The MRP is based on the principle of the mutual recognition by European Union member states of their respective national marketing authorizations. Based on a marketing authorization in the reference member state, the applicant may apply for marketing authorizations in other member states. In such case, the reference member state shall update its existing assessment report about the drug in 90 days. After the assessment is completed, copies of the report are sent to all member states, together with the approved summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. The concerned member states then have 90 days to recognize the decision of the reference member state and the summary of product characteristics, labeling and package leaflet. National marketing authorizations shall be granted within 30 days after acknowledgement of the agreement.

Should any Member State refuse to recognize the marketing authorization by the reference member state, on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the issue will be referred to a coordination group. Within a timeframe of 60 days, member states shall, within the coordination group, make all efforts to reach a consensus. If this fails, the procedure is submitted to an EMA scientific committee for arbitration. The opinion of this EMA Committee is then forwarded to the Commission, for the start of the decision making process. As in the centralized procedure, this process entails consulting various European Commission Directorates General and the Standing Committee on Human Medicinal Products. Since the initial approvals of Sativex in the United Kingdom and Spain, there have been three “waves” of additional approvals under three separate MRPs. Each of these procedures have been completed without any referral, and therefore without any delay.

80

Data Exclusivity

In the E.U., marketing authorization applications for generic medicinal products do not need to include the results of pre-clinical and clinical trials, but instead can refer to the data included in the marketing authorization of a reference product for which regulatory data exclusivity has expired. If a marketing authorization is granted for a medicinal product containing a new active substance, that product benefits from eight years of data exclusivity, during which generic marketing authorization applications referring to the data of that product may not be accepted by the regulatory authorities, and a further two years of market exclusivity, during which such generic products may not be placed on the market. The two-year period may be extended to three years if during the first eight years a new therapeutic indication with significant clinical benefit over existing therapies is approved.

Orphan Medicinal Products

The EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, may recommend orphan medicinal product designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the E.U. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the product in the E.U. would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product. The COMP may only recommend orphan medicinal product designation when the product in question offers a significant clinical benefit over existing approved products for the relevant indication. Following a positive opinion by the COMP, the European Commission adopts a decision granting orphan status. The COMP will reassess orphan status in parallel with EMA review of a marketing authorization application and orphan status may be withdrawn at that stage if it no longer fulfills the orphan criteria (for instance because in the meantime a new product was approved for the indication and no convincing data are available to demonstrate a significant benefit over that product). Orphan medicinal product designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and 10 years of market exclusivity is granted following marketing authorization. During this period, the competent authorities may not accept or approve any similar medicinal product, unless it offers a significant clinical benefit. This period may be reduced to 6 years if the orphan medicinal product designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Pediatric Development

In the E.U., companies developing a new medicinal product must agree a Paediatric Investigation Plan (“PIP”) with the EMA and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP unless a waiver applies, for example because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults. The marketing authorization application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. Products that are granted a marketing authorization on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six-month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if the product is covered by it qualifies for one at the time of approval). This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension of clinical trials, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

In addition, most countries are parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, which governs international trade and domestic control of narcotic substances, including cannabis extracts. Countries may interpret and implement their treaty obligations in a way that creates a legal obstacle to our obtaining marketing approval for Sativex and our other products in those countries. These countries may not be willing or able to amend or otherwise modify their laws and regulations to permit Sativex or our other products to be marketed, or achieving such amendments to the laws and regulations may take a prolonged period of time. In that case, we would be unable to market our products in those countries in the near future or perhaps at all.

81

Reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products in the United States will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payers, such as government health programs, and commercial insurance and managed health care organizations. These third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services. Additionally, the containment of health care costs has become a priority of federal and state governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, utilization management and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payers do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, imposed requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries and included a major expansion of the prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities which provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D is available through both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payers.

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This law provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. This research is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures must be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payers, it is not clear how such a result could be avoided and what if any effect the research will have on the sales of our product candidates, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payer to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician usage of the product candidate and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the ACA) enacted in March 2010. The ACA was enacted with the goal of expanding coverage for the uninsured while at the same time containing overall health care costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, the ACA expanded and increased industry rebates for drugs covered under Medicaid programs and made changes to the coverage requirements under the Medicare D program. We still cannot fully predict the impact of the ACA on pharmaceutical companies as many of the ACA reforms require the promulgation of detailed regulations implementing the statutory provisions which has not yet been completed, and the Centers for Medicare &

82

Medicaid Services has publicly announced that it is analyzing the ACA regulations and policies that have been issued to determine if changes should be made. In addition, although the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of most of the ACA, some states have stated their intentions to not implement certain sections of the ACA and some members of Congress are still working to repeal the ACA. These challenges add to the uncertainty of the changes enacted as part of ACA. In addition, the current legal challenges to the ACA, as well as Congressional efforts to repeal the ACA, add to the uncertainty of the legislative changes enacted as part of the ACA.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, some E.U. jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. Such differences in national pricing regimes may create price differentials between E.U. member states. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States. In the E.U., the downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription medicines, has become intense. As a result, barriers to entry of new products are becoming increasingly high and patients are unlikely to use a drug product that is not reimbursed by their government.

Other Health Care Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the Department of Justice, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the False Claims Act, the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and similar state laws, each as amended. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, or VHCA, each as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule, additional laws and requirements apply. Under the VHCA, drug companies are required to offer certain drugs at a reduced price to a number of federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense, the Public Health Service and certain private Public Health Service-designated entities in order to participate in other federal funding programs including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition discounted prices must be offered for certain U.S. Department of Defense purchases for its TRICARE program via a rebate system. Participation under the VHCA requires submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, as well as the entry into government procurement contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state, even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales and marketing, activities or register their sales representatives. Other legislation has been enacted in certain states prohibiting certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs

An investigational drug may be eligible for clinical use outside the context of a manufacturer-sponsored clinical trial of the drug. “Expanded access” refers to the use of an investigational drug where the primary

83

purpose is to diagnose, monitor, or treat a patient’s disease or condition rather than to collect information about the safety or effectiveness of a drug. Expanded access INDs are typically sponsored by individual physicians to treat patients who fall into one of three FDA-recognized categories of expanded access: expanded access for individual patients, including for emergency use; expanded access for intermediate-size patient populations; and expanded access for large patient populations under a treatment IND or treatment protocol. For all types of expanded access, FDA must determine prior to authorizing expanded access that: (1) the patient or patients to be treated have a serious or life threatening disease or condition and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy; (2) the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of use and that the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context of the disease or condition to be treated; and (3) granting the expanded access will not interfere with the initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical studies in support of the drug’s approval. In addition, the sponsor of an expanded access IND must submit IND safety reports and, in the cases of protocols continuing for one year or longer, annual reports to the FDA. Expanded access programs are not intended to yield information relevant to evaluating a drug’s effectiveness for regulatory purposes.

A manufacturer or distributor of an investigational drug for the diagnosis, monitoring or treatment of a serious disease or condition must make available its policy for evaluating and responding to requests for individual patient access to the investigational drug. A manufacturer or distributor must make its expanded access policy publicly available on: (1) the date of initiation of a Phase 2 or 3 study with respect to the investigational drug, or (2) if such date is applicable and earlier, 15 days after the drug receives a designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product or regenerative advanced therapy. The policy must be made public and readily available, such as by posting on the Internet, and may be generally applicable to all of the manufacturer’s or distributor’s investigational drugs. Posting a policy does not guarantee access to an investigational drug by any individual patient, and the manufacturer or distributor may revise the policy at any time.

Legal Proceedings and Related Matters

From time to time, we may be party to litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business. We do not have any pending litigation that, separately or in the aggregate, would, in the opinion of management, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

84

D.   Property, Plant and Equipment

All of our property is leased. We believe that our office, research and manufacturing facilities are sufficient to meet our current needs. We are not aware of any environmental issues that may affect our utilization of our property.

Further details of our Property, Plant and Equipment are given in Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements set out on page F- 29 .

Item 4A.   Unresolved Staff Comments.

There are no written comments from the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission which remain unresolved before the end of the fiscal year to which the annual report relates.

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with “Selected Financial Data,” and our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. We present our consolidated financial statements in pounds sterling and in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB, and as adopted by the European Union, or E.U.

The statements in this discussion regarding industry outlook, our expectations regarding our future performance, liquidity and capital resources and other non-historical statements are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the risks and uncertainties described in “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements” in this Annual Report. Our actual results may differ materially from those contained in or implied by any forward-looking statements.

Solely for the convenience of the reader, unless otherwise indicated, all pound sterling amounts as at and for the year ended September 30, 2017 have been translated into U.S. dollars at the rate at September 30, 2017, of £0.7486 to $1.00. These translations should not be considered representations that any such amounts have been, could have been or could be converted into U.S. dollars at that or any other exchange rate as at that or any other date.

85

Development and approval milestone fees

Development and approval milestones represent amounts received from our commercial partners, the receipt of which is dependent upon the achievement of certain clinical, regulatory or commercial milestones. We recognize development and approval milestone fees as revenue based on the percentage of completion method on the assumption that all stages will be completed successfully, but with cumulative revenue recognized limited to non-refundable amounts already received or reasonably certain to be received.

Research and development fees

Research and development fees represent amounts chargeable to our development partners relating to the conduct of our joint research plans. Revenue from development partner-funded contract research and development agreements is recognized as research and development services are rendered. Where services are in-progress at period end, we recognize revenue proportionately, in line with the percentage of completion of the service. Where such in-progress services include the conduct of clinical trials, we recognize revenue in line with the stage of completion of each trial so that revenue is recognized in line with the expenditures.

Royalties

Royalty revenue arises from our contractual entitlement to receive a fixed percentage of our commercial partner’s in-market net product sales revenue. Royalty revenue is recognized on an accrual basis in accordance with the substance of the relevant agreement provided that it is probable that the economic benefits will flow to us and the amount of revenue can be measured reliably.

Costs of sales

Costs of sales principally includes the cost of materials, direct labor, depreciation of manufacturing assets and overhead associated with our manufacturing facilities.

Research and development expenditure

Expenses on research and development activities are recognized as an expense in the period in which the expense is incurred.

An internally generated intangible asset arising from our development activities is recognized only when an asset is created that can be identified, it is probable that the asset created will generate future economic benefits and the development cost of the asset can be measured reliably.

We have determined that regulatory approval is the earliest point at which the probable threshold for the creation of an internally generated intangible asset can be achieved. All research and development expenditure incurred prior to achieving regulatory approval is therefore expensed as incurred.

GW-funded research and development expenditure

GW-funded research and development expenditure consists of costs associated with our research activities. These costs include costs of conducting our pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, payroll costs associated with employing our team of research and development staff, share-based payment expenses, property costs associated with leasing laboratory and office space to accommodate our research teams, costs of growing botanical raw material, costs of consumables used in the conduct of our in-house research programs, payments for research work conducted by sub-contractors and sponsorship of work by our network of academic collaborative research scientists, costs associated with safety studies and costs associated with the development of further Epidiolex, Sativex or our other pipeline product data.

Development partner-funded research and development expenditure

Development partner-funded research and development expenditure represent costs incurred by us in conducting the joint research plans under our collaborations. These costs include (i) costs incurred under our Phase 3 cancer pain program and other Sativex related U.S. market development activities that are

87

chargeable to Otsuka under the terms of the 2007 Sativex U.S. development license and (ii) costs that we incur in providing support to the regulatory and research activities of our other Sativex development partners, which are recoverable under the terms of our agreements.

Sales, general and administrative expenses

Sales, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and benefits related to our executive, finance, commercial, business development and support functions. Other sales, general and administrative expenses include costs associated with managing our commercial activities and the costs of compliance with the day-to-day requirements of being a listed public company in the United States, including insurance, general administration overhead, legal and professional fees, audit fees and fees for taxation services.

We expect that sales, general and administrative expenses will increase in the future as we expand our operating activities and continue to build our commercial team in preparation for commercialization of Epidiolex.

Net foreign exchange gains/losses

Net foreign exchange gains/losses consist primarily of gains or losses recorded on our foreign currency cash and cash equivalents translated to Pounds Sterling at the balance sheet date.

Interest expense and other income

Interest expense consists primarily of interest expense incurred on two finance leases, which will expire in 2027 and 2031, respectively.

Other income consists primarily of interest earned by investing our cash reserves in short-term interest-bearing deposit accounts.

Taxation

As a U.K. resident trading company, we are predominantly subject to U.K. corporate taxation. Our tax recognized represents the sum of the tax currently payable or recoverable, and deferred tax. Deferred tax liabilities are generally recognized for all taxable temporary differences and deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is probable that taxable profits will be available against which deductible temporary differences can be utilized.

As a company that carries out extensive research and development activities, until September 30, 2017 we benefited from the U.K. research and development tax credit regime for small and medium sized companies, whereby our principal research subsidiary company, GW Research Limited, was able to surrender a portion of trading losses that arise from its research and development activities for a refundable credit of up to 33.35% of eligible research and development expenditures. Qualifying expenditures largely comprise employment costs for research staff, consumables and certain internal overhead costs incurred as part of research projects. Subcontracted research expenditures are eligible for a cash rebate of up to approximately 21.68%. The majority of our pipeline research, clinical trials management and the Epidiolex and Sativex chemistry and manufacturing controls development activities, all of which are being carried out by GW Research Limited, are eligible for inclusion within these tax credit claims. However, due to the increase in the size of our employee workforce in the U.K. and our annual turnover we are now subject to the U.K. research and development tax credit regime for large companies. Starting with the financial year ending September 30, 2018, GW Research Ltd is still able to surrender a portion of available losses that arise from research and development activity for a refundable credit, but the rate of tax relief on the eligible research and development expenditure is significantly reduced.

We may also benefit from the U.K.’s “patent box” regime in the future. This would allow certain profits attributable to revenues from patented products to be taxed at a rate of 10%. As we have many different patents covering our products, we expect that future upfront fees, milestone fees, product revenues and

88

royalties could be taxed at this favorably low tax rate. When taken in combination with the enhanced relief available on our research and development expenditure, this could result in a long-term low rate of corporation tax. As such, we consider that the U.K. is a favorable location for us to continue to conduct our business for the long-term.

Our U.S. subsidiary, Greenwich Biosciences, Inc., is currently profitable and incurs a U.S. tax liability on taxable profits earned in the United States.

Critical Judgments in Applying our Accounting Policies

In the application of our accounting policies, we are required to make judgments, estimates and assumptions about the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. The estimates and associated assumptions are based on historical experience and other factors that are considered to be relevant. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

Our estimates and assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognized in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period or in the period of the revisions and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods.

The following are our critical judgments, except those involving estimation uncertainty, that we have made in the process of applying our accounting policies and that have the most significant effect on the amounts recognized in our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Revenue recognition

We recognize revenue from product sales, license fees, collaboration fees, technical access fees, development and approval milestone fees, research and development fees and royalties. Agreements with our commercial partners generally include a non-refundable upfront fee (attributed to separately identifiable components including license fees, collaboration fees and technical access fees), milestone payments (the receipt of which is dependent upon the achievement of certain clinical, regulatory or commercial milestones), and royalties on product sales of licensed products if and when such product sales occur and revenue from the supply of products to our commercial partners. For these agreements, we are required to apply judgment in the allocation of total agreement consideration to the separately identifiable components on a reliable basis that reasonably reflects the selling prices that might be expected to be achieved in stand-alone transactions.

Product revenue received is based on a contractually agreed percentage of our commercial partner’s in-market net sales revenue. The commercial partner’s in-market net sales revenue is the price per vial charged to end customers, less set defined deductible overheads incurred in distributing the product. In developing estimates, we use monthly unit sales and in-market sales data received from commercial partners during the course of the year. For certain markets, where negotiations are ongoing with local reimbursement authorities, an estimated in-market sales price is used, which requires the application of judgement in assessing whether an estimated in-market sales price is reliably measurable. In our assessment, we consider, inter alia, identical products sold in similar markets and whether the agreed prices for those identical products support the estimated in-market sales price. In the event that we consider there to be significant uncertainty with regards to the in-market sales price to be charged by the commercial partner as a result of, as an example, ongoing pricing negotiations with local health authorities, such that it is not possible to reliably measure the amount of revenue that will flow to us, we would not recognize revenue until that uncertainty has been resolved.

We apply the percentage of completion revenue recognition method to certain classes of revenue. The application of this approach requires our judgment with regards to the total costs incurred and total estimated costs expected to be incurred over the length of the agreement.

Key Sources of Estimation Uncertainty

The key assumptions concerning the future, and other key sources of estimation uncertainty at the balance sheet date, that have a significant risk of causing a material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next year are discussed below.

89

Deferred taxation

Our policy is to recognize deferred tax assets only to the extent that it is probable that future taxable profits, feasible tax-planning strategies and deferred tax liabilities will be available against which the deferred tax assets can be utilized. At September 30, 2017, we have accumulated tax losses of £204.1 million and other deductible temporary differences of £17.8 million, which are available to offset against future profits. If the value of these losses and other deductible temporary differences were recognized within the Group’s balance sheet at September 30, 2017, the Group would be carrying a deferred tax asset of £37.7 million compared to £23.2 million at September 30, 2016. Due to cumulative losses in recent years and uncertainties with respect to achieving certain future milestones, our ability to rely on estimated future taxable profits for purposes of recognizing deferred tax assets is limited to short term profit projections of Greenwich Biosciences, Inc., our U.S. subsidiary. We recognized a deferred tax asset of £6.3 million on our balance sheet at September 30, 2017, compared to £3.9 million at September 30, 2016.

Research and Development Tax Credit

The Group’s research and development tax credit claim is complex and requires management to interpret and apply UK research and development tax legislation to the Group’s specific circumstances and requires the use of certain assumptions in estimating the portion of current year research costs that are eligible for the claim.

Segments

We operate through three reportable segments, Commercial, Sativex Research and Development and Pipeline Research and Development.

Commercial.    The Commercial segment distributes and sells the Group’s commercial products. Currently Sativex is promoted through strategic collaborations with major pharmaceutical companies for the currently approved indication of spasticity due to MS. The commercial segment will include revenues from the direct marketing of other future approved commercial products. The Group has licensing agreements for the commercialization of Sativex with Almirall S.A. in Europe (excluding the United Kingdom) and Mexico, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Otsuka”) in the U.S., Bayer HealthCare AG in the United Kingdom and Canada, Neopharm Group in Israel and Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. in Latin America (excluding Mexico and the Islands of the Caribbean). Commercial segment revenues include product sales, royalties, license, collaboration, and technical access fees, and development and approval milestone fees.

Sativex Research and Development.    The Sativex Research and Development (“Sativex R&D”) segment seeks to maximize the potential of Sativex through the development of new indications. The focus during the period for this segment was the Phase 3 clinical development program of Sativex for use in the treatment of cancer pain. Sativex R&D segment revenues consist of research and development fees charged to Sativex licensees.

Pipeline Research and Development.    The Pipeline Research and Development (“Pipeline R&D”) segment seeks to develop cannabinoid medications other than Sativex across a range of therapeutic areas using our proprietary cannabinoid technology platform. The Group’s product pipeline includes Epidiolex ® , in development as a treatment for Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, Tuberous Sclerosis and Infantile Spasms, as well as other product candidates in Phase 1 and 2 clinical development for glioma, adult epilepsy and schizophrenia. Pipeline R&D segment revenues consist of research and development fees charged to Otsuka under the terms of our pipeline research collaboration agreement.

90

Cost of sales

Cost of sales for the year ended September 30, 2017 of £3.5 million represents an increase of £0.8 million compared to the £2.7 million recorded in the year ended September 30, 2016. This increase primarily reflects the growth in the volume of Sativex inventory shipped to commercial partners in the year ended September 30, 2017.

Research and development expenditure

The following table summarizes our research and development expenditure for the years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, together with the changes to those items.