RISK FACTORS

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. Before making an investment decision, you should consider carefully the following risk factors, as well as the other information set forth in this prospectus, including matters addressed in the section titled “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”. If any of these risks actually occur, it may materially harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. As a result, the market price of our securities could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additionally, the risks and uncertainties described in this prospectus, any prospectus supplement, any post-effective amendment or in any document incorporated by reference herein or therein are not the only risks and uncertainties that we face. We may face additional risks and uncertainties that are not presently known to us, or that we currently deem immaterial. The following discussions should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and the notes to the financial statements included therein.

Risks Related to our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We are currently a single commercial product company that is heavily dependent on the commercial success of ZTlido and we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to support our operations.

ZTlido is our only product approved for commercial sale and we are entirely dependent upon its sales to generate revenue. In February 2018, we obtained regulatory approval for ZTlido for the relief of neuropathic pain associated with PHN, which is a form of post-shingles nerve pain, and we began commercializing ZTlido in the United States in October 2018. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future prospects. We cannot assure that ZTlido will gain market acceptance among physicians, health care payors, patients and the medical community, which is critical to our commercial success. We have limited experience engaging in commercial activities and limited relationships with physicians, hospitals and payors. Market acceptance of ZTlido depends on a number of factors, including:

In order to successfully commercialize ZTlido, we will need to expand our marketing efforts to develop new relationships and expand existing relationships. Physicians may decide not to prescribe ZTlido for a variety of reasons, including changes in available offerings, adverse publicity, perceived safety issues, inadequate coverage or reimbursement for ZTlido or the utilization of products developed by other parties, all of which are circumstances outside of our control. Demand for ZTlido may not increase as quickly as we predict, and we may be unable to increase our revenue to the level that we currently expect. Even if we succeed in increasing market acceptance of ZTlido, maintaining and creating relationships with physicians, we may be unable to reach or sustain a level of profitability.

Our ability to effectively promote ZTlido will also depend on pricing and cost-effectiveness, including our ability to produce at a competitive price. In addition, our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of ZTlido may require significant resources, may be constrained by FDA rules and policies on product promotion and may never be successful.

9

We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception. We anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

We have a limited operating history. Prior to March 2019, our operations were conducted through Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Scilex Pharma”), which was formed in September 2012 and is now our wholly owned subsidiary. In March 2019, we effected a corporate reorganization and acquired Semnur Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Semnur”), which was formed in June 2013. Since our inception, we have focused on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, identifying potential non-opioid pain therapy candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates and establishing research and development and manufacturing collaborations. All of our revenue to date is attributable to sales of ZTlido, and we expect that sales of ZTlido will account for all of our revenue for at least the near term. Our relatively short operating history as a company makes any assessment of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to overcome such risks and difficulties successfully. Our ability to execute on our business model and generate revenues depends on a number of factors including our ability to:

If we cannot successfully execute any one of the foregoing, our business may not succeed or become profitable.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses, with net losses of $88.4 million, $47.5 million, and $178.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $352.6 million. For the foreseeable future, we expect to

10

continue to incur significant expenses related to the commercialization of ZTlido and GLOPERBA and the research and development of our product candidates, SP-102 (10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate viscous gel) (“SEMDEXA”), SP-103 (lidocaine topical system) 5.4% (“SP-103”), and SP-104 (4.5mg, low-dose naltrexone hydrochloride delayed-release capsules) (“SP-104”). We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially due to the completion of the pivotal Phase 3 trial for SEMDEXA, commencement of the Phase 2 clinical trial for SP-103 and multiple Phase 1 trials for SP-104. Consequently, we expect to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable.

We are subject to risks incidental to the development of new biopharmaceutical products, and we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations.

We may be required to make milestone payments to the former stockholders of Semnur in connection with our development and commercialization of SEMDEXA, which could adversely affect the overall profitability of SEMDEXA, if approved.

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger we entered into with Semnur, Sigma Merger Sub, Inc., our prior wholly owned subsidiary, Fortis Advisors LLC, solely as representative of the holders of Semnur equity, or the Semnur Equityholders, and Sorrento, for limited purposes, we are obligated to pay the Semnur Equityholders up to an aggregate of $280.0 million in contingent cash consideration based on the achievement of certain milestones. A $40.0 million payment will be due upon obtaining the first approval of a new drug application by the FDA (“NDA”) of any Semnur product, which includes SEMDEXA. Additional payments will be due upon the achievement of certain cumulative net sales of Semnur products, as follows:

These milestone obligations could impose substantial additional costs on us, divert resources from other aspects of our business, and adversely affect the overall profitability of SEMDEXA, if approved. We may need to obtain additional financing to satisfy these milestone payments, and cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us, or at all.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to significantly increase our spending to continue our commercialization efforts for ZTlido and GLOPERBA, advance development of our current product candidates and launch and commercialize any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We will also require additional capital to fund our other operating expenses and capital expenditures.

11

As of September 30, 2022, our cash and cash equivalents were approximately $2.5 million and we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $358.0 million. The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, some of which are outside of our control, including but not limited to:

Until we are able to generate significant revenue, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, government contracts or other strategic transactions. We cannot be sure that any additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. Furthermore, any additional equity or equity-related financing may be dilutive to our stockholders, and debt or equity financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants and significant interest costs. If we raise additional funds through collaborations or strategic alliances with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or technologies, or grant licenses on terms that

12

may not be favorable to us. If we are unsuccessful in our efforts to raise additional financing on acceptable terms, we may be required to significantly reduce or cease our operations.

Our recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows and substantial cumulative net losses raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

In Note 2 titled “Liquidity and Going Concern” of our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus, we disclose that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, which stated that substantial doubt existed about our ability to continue as a going concern. We have negative working capital and have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations and expect to continue incurring losses for the foreseeable future. Further, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $352.6 million as of December 31, 2021 and approximately $264.1 million as of December 31, 2020. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Our ability to become a profitable operating company is dependent upon our ability to generate revenue and obtain financing adequate to fulfill our development and commercialization activities, and achieving a level of revenue adequate to support our cost structure. We have plans to obtain additional resources to fund our currently planned operations and expenditures through additional debt and equity financing. Our plans are substantially dependent upon the success of future sales of ZTlido, which is still in the early stages of commercialization, and are dependent upon, among other things, the success of our marketing of ZTlido and our ability to secure additional payor contracts with terms that are consistent with our business plan. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, our financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. Future financial statements may disclose substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Any material weakness may cause us to fail to timely and accurately report our financial results or result in a material misstatement of our financial statements.

In connection with the audit of our consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, we identified control deficiencies in the design and operation of our internal control over financial reporting that constituted a material weakness. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the material weakness identified in our internal control over financial reporting related to ineffective control activities in the areas of revenue, debt, derivative liabilities, cash flows and leases caused by a lack of sufficient accounting resources. As a result of the material weakness, we hired additional accounting personnel and are implementing remediation measures including, but not limited to, performing a comprehensive assessment of accounting and finance resource requirements and hiring other personnel with sufficient accounting expertise at Sorrento to improve the operating effectiveness of our review controls and monitoring activities, and utilizing external accounting experts as appropriate. Any potential material misstatements were identified and corrected as audit adjustments in the applicable periods and are properly reflected in our financial statements included in this prospectus. We hired a new Chief Financial Officer in May 2022 at Legacy Scilex and she became Chief Financial Officer of the Company in connection with the closing of the Business Combination. In addition, we expect to hire additional personnel with accounting expertise and utilize external accounting experts.

13

In the future, in order to properly manage our internal control over financial reporting, we may need to take additional measures to further augment our finance resources, and we cannot be certain that the measures we have taken, and expect to take, to improve our internal controls will be sufficient to ensure that our internal controls will remain effective and eliminate the possibility that other material weaknesses or deficiencies may develop or be identified in the future. If we experience future material weaknesses or deficiencies in internal controls and we are unable to correct them in a timely manner, our ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information accurately and within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, will be adversely affected. Any such failure could negatively affect the market price and trading liquidity of our Common Stock, lead to delisting, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, subject us to civil and criminal investigations and penalties, and generally materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition.

If we identify future material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting or fail to meet the demands that will be placed upon us as a public company, including the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as, we may be unable to accurately report our financial results or report them within the timeframes required by law or stock exchange regulations. Failure to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could also potentially subject us to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. If additional material weaknesses exist or are discovered in the future, and we are unable to remediate any such material weakness, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

Risks Related to our Commercial Operations and Product Development

We obtain our commercial supply of ZTlido, clinical supply of our product candidates and certain of the raw materials used in our product candidates from sole or single source suppliers and manufacturers. In the event of a loss of one of these suppliers or manufacturers, or a failure by any such supplier or manufacturer to comply with FDA regulations, we may not be able to find an alternative source on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

We rely on a number of sole or single source suppliers and manufacturers, including:

Under the Product Development Agreement, dated as of May 11, 2011, by and among Scilex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (as successor to Stason Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Oishi Koseido Co., Ltd. (“Oishi”) and Itochu Chemical Frontier Corporation (“Itochu”) (as amended, the “Product Development Agreement”), and the Commercial Supply Agreement, dated as of February 16, 2017, by and among Scilex Pharma and Oishi and Itochu (as amended, the “Commercial Supply Agreement”), we license the rights to ZTlido from and rely exclusively on Oishi and Itochu for the manufacturing and supply of ZTlido and SP-103 (collectively, the “Products”). Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement under certain circumstances, including, among other things: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement and the breach is not curable or if the breach is curable and we fail to cure such material breach within 180 days after notice requesting to cure; (2) if, at any time during the term of the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement, the market conditions are such that (a) our total net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of ZTlido and SP-103 for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, or (b) the economic viability of ZTlido and SP-103 is affected significantly as evidenced by documentation and substantial information by any external circumstances deemed detrimental to all parties as agreed to by us, on the one hand, and Oishi and Itochu, on the other hand, and the parties are unable to resolve the concerns under the foregoing clauses (a) and (b) after 30 days of good-faith

14

discussion; and (3) in the event of our bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. As of the date of this prospectus, our net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 have not exceeded five percent of net sales. Accordingly, Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement. As of the date of this prospectus, neither Oishi nor Itochu has exercised its right of termination. If the Product Development Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement are terminated, we would lose access to the intellectual property and proprietary manufacturing process upon which ZTlido and SP-103 depend.

Under our exclusive Supply Agreement, dated December 17, 2015 (the “Genzyme Supply Agreement”), with Genzyme Corporation (“Genzyme”), we depend on Genzyme to fulfill our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate, one of the excipients for SEMDEXA. Genzyme has the right to terminate the Supply Agreement under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of written notice of such breach, (2) if our development of SEMDEXA is ceased or we do not file for regulatory approval for SEMDEXA by January 1, 2020, or (3) if Genzyme decides to discontinue manufacturing the product at its facility for economic or strategic reasons and provides us with 24 months’ notice. We did not file for regulatory approval for SEMDEXA by January 1, 2020 and we are only aware of a limited number of suppliers of the excipient. In accordance with the preceding clause (3), Genzyme has notified us of its intention to terminate the Genzyme Supply Agreement, effective as of May 31, 2024. Although we are currently in the process of identifying and certifying new suppliers to fulfill our clinical and commercial supply requirements for sodium hyaluronate we may not be able to find an alternative supplier of sodium hyaluronate on commercially reasonable terms.

Under our Master Services Agreement, dated January 27, 2017 (as amended, the “Lifecore Master Services Agreement”), with Lifecore Biomedical, LLC (“Lifecore”), we depend on Lifecore to manufacture clinical supplies of SEMDEXA. Lifecore has the right to terminate the Lifecore Master Services Agreement under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of written notice; (2) if we (a) become insolvent, (b) cease to function as a going concern, (c) become convicted of or plead guilty to a charge of violating any law relating to either party’s business, or (d) engage in any act which materially impairs goodwill associated with SEMDEXA or materially impairs the terminating party’s trademark or trade name; (3) if we fail to pay past due invoices upon 30 days’ written notice, or (4) if we reject or fail to respond to a major change proposed by Lifecore that does not change Semnur’s written and approved acceptance criteria in its product specifications. In the event that Lifecore decides to terminate the Lifecore Master Services Agreement, finding an alternative manufacturer may be difficult.

Under the Master Services Agreement (the “Tulex Master Services Agreement”) and statement of work with Tulex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Tulex”), we depend on Tulex to develop, test and manufacture clinical supplies of SP-104. Tulex has the right to terminate the Tulex Master Services Agreement under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement or a statement of work and fail to cure such breach within 15 days after receipt of notice of such breach (or such other time period expressly stated in the applicable statement of work) or (2) in the event of our insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership, or a failure to remove any insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation or receivership proceedings within ten days from the date of institution of such proceedings. In addition, we may terminate the agreement or any statement of work (a) without cause upon 30 days prior written notice to Tulex or (b) immediately upon written notice in the event Tulex is dissolved or undergoes a change in control. In the event that the Tulex Master Services Agreement or a statement of work is terminated, we may not be able to find an alternative manufacturer and supplier on commercially reasonable terms.

Additionally, the manufacturing facilities used by our third-party suppliers and manufacturers must continue to comply with FDA regulations and are subject to periodic announced or unannounced inspections. We have limited control over the ability of our third-party suppliers and manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If our third-party suppliers and manufacturers fail to comply with FDA regulations, the FDA may not authorize the manufacture of our products and product candidates at these facilities, and we may be unable to find alternative manufacturing facilities in a timely manner or at all. The

15

failure by such third parties to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, import detention, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls of our product, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions.

In addition, our product candidates may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities and other supplies. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Also, prior to the approval of our product candidates, we would need to identify a contract manufacturer that could produce our products at a commercial scale and that could successfully complete FDA pre-approval inspection and inspections by other health authorities. Agreements with such manufacturers or suppliers may not be available to us at the time we would need to have that capability and capacity.

If our commercial supply of ZTlido, clinical supply of our product candidates and certain of the raw materials used in our product candidates are disrupted or delayed, there can be no assurance that alternative sources can serve as adequate replacements or that supplies will be available on terms that are favorable to us, if at all. Any disruption in supply could affect the profitability of ZTlido and the development of SEMDEXA, SP-103 and SP-104.

We rely on a single third-party logistics distribution provider, Cardinal Health 105, which until recently had also been our only customer.

We currently rely on Cardinal Health 105, LLC (“Cardinal Health 105”) as our third-party logistics distribution provider for ZTlido in the United States. Cardinal Health 105 also performs the following services on our behalf: customer service, credit checks, invoicing, chargebacks, distributor fee for service, government reporting, customer returns, accounts receivable, inventory control, product security (DSCSA serialization) inquiries and recall assistance. In the years ended December 31, 2019, 2020 and 2021, and in the first quarter of 2022, Cardinal Health 105 was our only customer and sales to Cardinal Health 105 represented all of our net revenue for such periods. Beginning on April 1, 2022, we began selling ZTlido directly to three large distributors, McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”), Cardinal Health 110, LLC (“Cardinal Health 110”) and AmerisourceBergen Corporation (“AmerisourceBergen”), as well as to numerous pharmacies. If we are unable to maintain a favorable relationship with Cardinal Health 105 (or with any of our other two distributors), we expect that our revenue would decline and our business would be harmed as a result. We may be unable to control the timing of the delivery of ZTlido to distributors, and any financial uncertainty or loss of key logistic employees of Cardinal Health 105, as our only third-party logistics provider, may negatively impact our sales.

As we continue to expand the commercialization of ZTlido, we expanded our direct distribution network to national and regional distributors and pharmacies in the second quarter of 2022. We currently hold wholesaler licenses and commenced selling directly to our main distributor customers as well as pharmacies. We discontinued our use of “title model” services provided by Cardinal Health 105, but expect that Cardinal Health 105 will continue to perform other third-party logistics services for us. Any disruption in the abovementioned distribution channel would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we fail to achieve certain milestones in our Product Development Agreement with Itochu and Oishi, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

Certain of our existing license and supply agreements impose various milestone and other obligations on us. For example, under our Product Development Agreement with Itochu and Oishi, if our total net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of ZTlido and SP-103 for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, Itochu and Oishi have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement if the parties are unable to resolve the concerns after 30 days of good-faith negotiation. As of the date of this prospectus, our net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 have not exceeded five percent of net sales. Accordingly, Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement. As of the date of this prospectus, neither Oishi nor Itochu has exercised its right of termination.

16

If we fail to achieve the milestones under the Product Development Agreement, we may lose our exclusivity rights or the counterparty may have the right to terminate the agreement, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and intend to rely on third parties to conduct all of our future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct any clinical trials. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as contract research organizations (“CROs”), to conduct GCP-compliant clinical trials of our product candidates properly and on time. While we have agreements governing their activities, we control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GCP-compliant clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount and timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with our investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For any violations of laws and regulations in the conduct of our preclinical studies and clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement actions that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution.

Many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. We face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and intellectual property protection and allow our potential competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology.

Further, any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If the third parties conducting our clinical trials do not adequately perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience significant business challenges, disruptions or failures, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval or successful commercialization in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable product candidate. Our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

We may in the future enter into collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, or strategic alliances with third-parties that may not result in the development of commercially viable products or the generation of significant future revenues.

Our business is substantially dependent upon the intellectual property licensed from Oishi and Itochu. In the ordinary course of our business, we may enter into collaborations, additional in-licensing arrangements (such as,

17

for example, the Romeg Agreement), joint ventures, or strategic alliances to develop proposed products and to pursue new markets.

Proposing, negotiating and implementing collaborations, in-licensing arrangements, joint ventures, strategic alliances or partnerships may be a lengthy and complex process. Other companies, including those with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales, technology or other business resources, may compete with us for these opportunities or arrangements. We may not identify, secure or complete any such transactions or arrangements in a timely manner, on a cost-effective basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, and may not realize the anticipated benefits of any such transactions or arrangements.

Additionally, with respect to current and future collaborations, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the transaction or arrangement, which could create the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions, and our collaborators may have economic or business interests or goals that are, or that may become, inconsistent with our business interests or goals. It is possible that conflicts may arise with our collaborators, such as conflicts concerning the achievement of performance milestones, or the interpretation of significant terms under any agreement, such as those related to financial obligations or the ownership or control of intellectual property developed during the collaboration. If any conflicts arise with our current or future collaborators, they may act in their self-interest, which may be adverse to our best interest, and they may breach their obligations to us. In addition, we have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our current collaborators or any future collaborators devote to our collaborators’ or our future products. Disputes between us and our collaborators may result in litigation or arbitration which would increase our expenses and divert the attention of our management. Further, these transactions and arrangements are contractual in nature and may be terminated or dissolved under the terms of the applicable agreements and, in such event, we may not continue to have rights to the products relating to such transaction or arrangement or may need to purchase such rights at a premium.

Delays in clinical trials could result in increased costs to us and delay our ability to obtain commercial approval and generate additional revenue.

Before obtaining marketing approval for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates for their intended indications. Clinical testing is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain as to outcome. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include:

18

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by a Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or by the FDA. Such authorities may impose such a suspension or termination due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, participants being exposed to unacceptable health risks, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Our product development costs will increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals. The FDA and other regulatory agencies may impose new or refined testing expectations based on experience and

19

increased knowledge over time. In addition, if we make manufacturing or other changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials, including our planned clinical trials of SP-103, SP-104 and SEMDEXA, will begin or continue as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. We may not have the necessary capabilities, including adequate staffing, to successfully manage the execution and completion of any clinical trials we initiate in a way that leads to our obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

We face potential business disruptions and related risks resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2, was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. The COVID-19 outbreak has grown into a global pandemic that has impacted countries throughout the world. Financial markets have been experiencing extreme fluctuations that may cause a contraction in available liquidity globally as important segments of the credit markets react to the development. The pandemic may lead to a decline in business and consumer confidence. The global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve. As a result, businesses have closed or limited operations and limits have been placed on travel. The extent to which COVID-19 may impact our business, clinical trials and sales of ZTlido will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease and variants, the duration of the outbreak, travel restrictions and social distancing in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.

We are monitoring the potential impact of the COVID-19 outbreak, and if COVID-19 or variants of concern continue to spread globally, including in the United States, we may experience disruptions that could severely impact the development of our product candidates, including:

20

Quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur, related to COVID-19 or other infectious diseases could impact personnel at third-party suppliers in the United States and other countries, or the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain. Any manufacturing supply interruption of materials could adversely affect our ability to conduct ongoing and future research and testing activities. For example, we obtain our commercial supply of ZTlido and our clinical supply of SP-103 exclusively from Oishi and Itochu in Japan. The COVID-19 pandemic may result in delays in the procurement and shipping of ZTlido, which may have an adverse impact on our operating results.

On September 24, 2021, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued written guidance to implement Executive Order 14042, which was signed by President Biden on September 9, 2021. A number of federal courts have issued orders enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order, including one on a nationwide basis. As a result, the government stated that it will take no action to enforce the requirements of the Executive Order at this time. As a federal contractor, we have mandated that all of our employees and, in addition, contractors that enter our U.S. buildings and certain other locations, be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to disability and religious exemptions, by December 8, 2021. Despite the government’s no-action position, we continue to comply with the Executive Order. We may experience workforce constraints due to shortages of vaccinated personnel, strains on the labor market, limitations on hiring new employees and difficulty retaining and securing employees who are vaccinated, all of which could negatively affect our business and operations.

The spread of COVID-19, which has caused a broad impact globally, may materially affect the Company economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, COVID-19 may be difficult to assess or predict, a widespread pandemic could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our business and the value of our Common Stock.

In addition, the continued spread of COVID-19 globally could materially and adversely impact our operations, including without limitation, our manufacturing and supply chain, sales and marketing efforts, sales of ZTlido, travel and employee health and availability, which may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Even if we complete the necessary clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates and the approval may be for a more narrow indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize our product candidates until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidates. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and we may not be able to obtain the required regulatory approvals. Even if our product candidates meet the safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA advisory committee, if convened, recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action or changes in regulatory authority policy or data requirements during the period of product development, clinical trials and the regulatory review process.

Even if we receive regulatory approval, the FDA may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”). The FDA may require labeling that includes precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use, or may grant approval subject to the performance of costly

21

post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Additionally, if the results of any clinical trials are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may:

We may find it difficult to enroll or maintain patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in any clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of any clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients and to complete required follow-up periods. If patients are unwilling to participate in our clinical trials due to negative publicity from adverse events, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, or for other reasons, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and potentially obtaining regulatory approval may be delayed. We may also experience delays if patients withdraw from a clinical trial or do not complete the required monitoring period. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or termination of clinical trials altogether.

Patient enrollment is affected by many factors, including:

22

The conditions for which we currently plan to evaluate our product candidates are common but the eligibility criteria of our clinical trials limit the pool of available trial participants. For example, we experienced a delay in the enrollment of our now completed SEMDEXA Phase 3 clinical trial in sciatica due to the selective eligibility criteria in place to reduce the placebo effect and the impacts of COVID-19, and may experience similar issues with enrollment of our other planned clinical trials.

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to it, because some patients who have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by a competitor. We may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial sites.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our product candidates are based on estimates and third-party sources. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability might be materially and adversely affected.

Periodically, we make estimates regarding the incidence and prevalence of target patient populations of our product candidates based on various third-party sources and internally generated analyses and use such estimates in making decisions regarding our product development strategy, including acquiring or in-licensing product candidates and determining indications on which to focus in preclinical studies or clinical trials.

These estimates may be inaccurate or based on imprecise data. For example, the total addressable market opportunities will depend on, among other things, acceptance by the medical community and patient access, drug pricing and reimbursement. The number of patients in the addressable markets may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our product candidates, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We face significant competition and our competitors may discover, develop or commercialize products faster or more successfully than us.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by intense competition and rapid technological advances. In addition, the competition in the pain management market, and other relevant markets, is intense.

ZTlido and our product candidate, SP-103, face and will likely face competition from prescription and generic topical lidocaine patches, including Lidoderm^® (a branded, prescription 5% lidocaine patch product) (“Lidoderm”) and generic lidocaine patches manufactured by Mylan N.V., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Teva”) and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Additionally, SP-103, if approved, will likely compete with various opioid pain medications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDs”), muscle relaxants, antidepressants and anticonvulsants particularly as we seek approval for the treatment of acute LBP.

SEMDEXA, if approved, has the potential to become the first FDA-approved epidural steroid product for the treatment of sciatica. While there are currently no FDA approved epidural steroid injections indicated for the treatment of sciatica, we are aware of certain non-steroid product candidates in development. SEMDEXA, if approved, also will compete with various opioid pain medications, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and surgical procedures. Procedures may include nerve blocks and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulations. We may also face indirect competition from the off-label and unapproved use of branded and generic injectable steroids.

23

While there are currently no formulations containing naltrexone in clinical development for the treatment of fibromyalgia, we are aware of certain non-opioid therapeutics currently in a late-stage phase 3 pipeline containing two 505(b)(2) development programs. Our product candidate, SP-104, will likely face direct competition from these candidates.

We expect that the market will become increasingly competitive in the future. Many of our competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, operate larger research and development programs and have substantially greater financial resources than we do, as well as significantly greater experience in developing product candidates and technologies, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of product candidates, formulating and manufacturing product candidates, and launching, marketing and selling product candidates.

Additional mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. As a result, these companies may obtain regulatory approval more rapidly than we are able to and may be more effective in selling and marketing their products as well. Smaller or early-stage companies or generic or biosimilar pharmaceutical manufacturers may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we are currently developing or that we may develop. If approved, our product candidates will face competition from commercially available drugs as well as drugs that are in the development pipelines of our competitors and later enter the market.

Established pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make our product candidates less competitive. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, receiving FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing medicines before we do, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The third-party payor coverage and reimbursement status of newly approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates, if approved, could decrease our ability to generate product revenue.

There is significant uncertainty related to the third-party coverage and reimbursement of existing and newly approved products. Market acceptance and sales of ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved, in domestic markets will depend significantly on the availability of coverage and adequacy of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid) and private payor healthcare and insurance programs. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement for ZTlido can differ significantly from payor to payor, and we may not be able to maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement in the future.

Further, obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to each third-party payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained or applied consistently. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. Additionally, coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities

24

outside of the United States. Assuming that coverage is obtained for a given product, the resulting reimbursement rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments or co-insurance that patients find unacceptably high. Patients, physicians, and other healthcare providers may be less likely to prescribe, dispense or use, as applicable, any approved product unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost.

The market for our products will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded product in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded product when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available.

In addition, even if we obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors carefully review and increasingly question the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, products. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that pharmaceutical companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices for products. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. If coverage and reimbursement of our product candidates are unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to achieve or sustain profitability. Furthermore, the requirements governing medical product pricing vary widely from country to country. In some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a prescription device must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Our product candidate SEMDEXA is expected to be a physician-administered injectable viscous gel and as such, separate reimbursement for the product itself may not be available. Instead, if SEMDEXA receives regulatory approval, the administering physician may be reimbursed only for providing the treatment or procedure in which SEMDEXA is used. To the extent separate coverage and reimbursement should become available for SEMDEXA, we anticipate that it will be sold to physicians on a “buy and bill” basis. Buy and bill products must be purchased by healthcare providers before they can be administered to patients. Healthcare providers subsequently must seek reimbursement for the product from the applicable third-party payor, such as Medicare or a health insurance company. Healthcare providers may be reluctant to administer our product candidates, if approved, because they would have to fund the purchase of the product and then seek reimbursement, which may be lower than their purchase price, or because they do not want the additional administrative burden required to obtain reimbursement for the product.

Further, the codes used by providers to bill for SEMDEXA, if approved, could also affect reimbursement. J-Codes are codes maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which are a component of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and are typically used to report injectable drugs that ordinarily cannot be self-administered. We do not have a specific J-Code for any of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved, we may apply for one but cannot guarantee that a J-Code will be granted. To the extent separate coverage or reimbursement is available for any product candidate, if approved, and a specific J-Code is not available, physicians would need to use a non-specific miscellaneous J-Code to bill third-party payors for these physician-administered drugs. Because miscellaneous J-Codes may be used for a wide variety of products, health plans may have more difficulties determining the actual product used and billed for the patient. These claims must often be submitted with additional information and manually processed, which can create delays in claims processing times as well as increasing the likelihood for claim denials and claim errors.

25

Because we have multiple programs and product candidates in our development pipeline and are pursuing a variety of target indications and treatment approaches, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on development opportunities or product candidates that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Apart from our FDA-approved product, ZTlido, we currently have several product candidates that are at various stages of development. We have limited financial and management resources. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with potential target indications or product candidates that later prove to have greater commercial potential than our current and planned development programs and product candidates.

We strive to progress product candidates that can address unmet or underserved medical needs and favor those candidates with large market opportunities. However, our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial product candidates or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and other future product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable future product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may be required to relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such future product candidates.

Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses or acquisitions of product candidates or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting and acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or license of a successful product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment.

Drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, and can take many years to complete, in part because it is subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may not agree with the proposed analysis plans or trial design for the clinical trials of our product candidates. They may also not agree with the scope of our proposed investigational plan. In addition, the outcome of our clinical trials is risky and uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. It is not uncommon for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to suffer significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Our future clinical trial results may not be successful.

This product candidate development risk is heightened by any changes in the planned clinical trials compared to the completed clinical trials. As product candidates are developed through preclinical to early and late stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is customary that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing and methods of administration, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. While these types of changes are common and are intended to optimize the product candidates for late stage clinical trials, approval and commercialization, such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve their intended objectives.

A Phase 3 trial was completed for SEMDEXA for the treatment of sciatica, a Phase 2 trial commenced in the second quarter of 2022 for SP-103, and multiple Phase 1 trials were initiated in the first quarter of 2022 for

26

SP-104. We may not have the necessary capabilities, including adequate staffing, to successfully manage the execution and completion of such clinical trials in a way that leads to our obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all. Our clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and, in the future, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials and preclinical studies in addition to those we have planned.

In March 2022, we announced final results from our Phase 3 trial for SEMDEXA, which results reflect achievement of primary and secondary endpoints, and we intend to use the results to support an NDA submission seeking approval for the treatment of sciatica. However, the FDA may disagree with our assumptions and require us to conduct an additional Phase 3 trial before submitting an NDA. Our failure to adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates would prevent receipt of regulatory clearance or approval and, ultimately, the commercialization of that product or indication for use.

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

From time to time, we may publish interim “top-line” or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data. Preliminary or interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or interim data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials or clinical trial sites for the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial procedures and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. Data disclosures must be carefully managed to conform to limitations on preapproval promotion and laws related to clinical trial registration and posting of results. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and stockholders may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular drug, product, product candidate or our business. If the “top-line” data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive non-clinical studies, pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use.

27

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization.

We cannot be certain that our current clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for support of a marketing approval, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for a product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential.

Even if we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates in the United States, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize any of them in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and efficacy.

Approval by the FDA in the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. However, the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. In cases where data from United States clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the foreign countries, the standards for clinical trials and approval may be different.

Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and increased costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any product we develop will be impeded.

Our business may suffer reputational harm due to failures of our product candidates.

The failure of any of our product candidates could have a lasting negative impact on our reputation, which could, in turn, impact our ability to successfully enter into future licensing arrangements or other transactions with potential counterparties, raise future capital or attract key personnel to join us. As a result, our business and prospects would be materially harmed and our results of operations and financial condition would likely suffer materially.

28

ZTlido and GLOPERBA may have undesirable properties that could result in significant negative consequences, and our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval.

As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and adverse events associated with ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates. In the event that ZTlido or GLOPERBA is identified to have undesirable side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could occur. Regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of the product or seize the product. Restrictions may be imposed on the manufacturing or marketing of ZTlido or GLOPERBA or any component thereof, including the imposition of a REMS plan that may require creation of a Medication Guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients, as well as elements to assure safe use of the product, such as a patient registry and training and certification of prescribers. Any of these events could damage our reputation and prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of ZTlido or GLOPERBA.

In the clinical trials we conduct with our product candidates, patients may experience changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, discomforts or a fatal outcome. Often, it is not possible to determine whether the product candidate being studied caused or was associated with these conditions. In addition, it is possible that as we test our clinical products in larger, longer and more extensive clinical programs, or as use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were observed in earlier clinical trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous clinical trials, will be reported by subjects. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in large-scale, Phase 3 clinical trial.

In the event that our product candidates reveal an unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects, the clinical trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates, for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates are complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience delays in satisfying regulatory authorities or manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs, limit the supply of our product candidates, or otherwise harm our business.

We currently depend on contract manufacturers to conduct the manufacturing and supply activities for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates. Manufacturing these product candidates require facilities specifically designed for and validated for this purpose and sophisticated quality assurance and quality control procedures are necessary. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

If contaminations are discovered in our supply of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We may not be successful in securing additional sources at all or on a timely basis, which could materially harm our development timelines. Any delay or interruption in the supply of clinical trial supplies could delay the completion of clinical trials, increase the costs associated with maintaining clinical trial programs and, depending upon the period of delay, require us to begin new clinical trials at additional expense or terminate clinical trials completely.

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical trials or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility,

29

stability issues, compliance with cGMP, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay clinical trials or product launches, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, our manufacturers may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our complex manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our manufacturing process or facilities could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biotechnology companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our manufacturing process could restrict our ability to meet potential future market demand for products, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Business and Operations

If we are unable to retain our key executives, it may delay our development efforts and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our industry has experienced a high rate of turnover of management personnel in recent years. If we are not able to attract, retain and motivate key executives to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our overall business strategy. In particular, we are highly dependent upon our executive officers, including Jaisim Shah, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Henry Ji, Ph.D., our Executive Chairperson, and Elizabeth Czerepak, our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Business Officer. The loss of services of these executive officers could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical trials and the successful commercialization of ZTlido and GLOPERBA. We do not carry “key person” insurance on any of our executive officers or other employees.

Competition for key executives in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals field is intense, due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. Many of the pharmaceutical companies against which we compete for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles and a longer history in the industry than we do. They may also provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to qualified candidates than what we have to offer. In addition, we may experience employee turnover as a result of the ongoing “great resignation” occurring throughout the U.S. economy, which has impacted job market dynamics. New hires require training and take time before they achieve full productivity. New employees may not become as productive as we expect, and we may be unable to hire or retain sufficient numbers of qualified individuals. Moreover, we conduct our operations in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region that is home to many other biopharmaceutical companies as well as many academic and research institutions, resulting in fierce competition for qualified personnel. As such, we could have difficulty attracting and retaining experienced executives and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our recruitment and retention efforts.

We may need to increase the size of our company and may not effectively manage our growth.

As of September 30, 2022, we had approximately 85 full-time employees. We may need to continue to expand our managerial, operational, sales and marketing, finance and other resources in order to manage our operations, clinical trials, research and development activities, regulatory filings, manufacturing and supply activities, and any marketing and commercialization activities, including co-promotion activities. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

30

Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth, if any, which may cause a significant strain on our management, and our operational, financial and other resources. Our ability to manage our growth effectively will require us to implement and improve our operational, financial and management systems and to expand, train, manage and motivate our employees. These demands may require the hiring of additional management personnel and the development of additional expertise by management. Any increase in resources devoted to research and product development without a corresponding increase in our operational, financial and management systems could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our insurance policies are expensive and protect us only from some business risks, which leaves us exposed to significant uninsured liabilities.

Although we endeavor to obtain appropriate insurance coverage for insurable risks that we identify, we do not carry insurance for all categories of risk that our business may encounter.

Insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. We have observed rapidly changing conditions in the insurance markets relating to nearly all areas of traditional corporate insurance. Such conditions have resulted in higher premium costs, higher policy deductibles and lower coverage limits. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost, or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. While we maintain property, casualty and general liability coverage, we do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage and our insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended.

We do not know if we will be able to maintain existing insurance with adequate levels of coverage. Any significant uninsured liability may require us to pay substantial amounts, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

Manufacturing and marketing of ZTlido and clinical testing of our product candidates may expose us to individual product liability claims, class action lawsuits or actions, and other individual or mass tort claims. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. In addition, physicians may misuse our products with their patients if they are not adequately trained, potentially leading to injury and increased risk of product liability. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of risks inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates, if approved. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

31

Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of any products we develop. We currently carry product liability insurance covering use in our clinical trials in the amount of $10.0 million in the aggregate. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses.

Any disruption in our research and development facilities could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our principal executive offices are in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Our facilities may be affected by natural or man-made disasters. Earthquakes are of particular significance since our facilities are located in an earthquake-prone area. We are also vulnerable to damage from other types of disasters, including power loss, attacks from extremist organizations, fires, floods and similar events. If our facilities are affected by a natural or man-made disaster, we may be forced to curtail our operations and/or rely on third-parties to perform some or all of our research and development activities. Although we believe we possess adequate insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business from casualties, such insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In the future, we may choose to expand our operations in either our existing facilities or in new facilities. If we expand our worldwide manufacturing locations, there can be no assurance that this expansion will occur without implementation difficulties, or at all.

We may seek to grow our business through acquisitions and may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, and acquisitions can be costly and dilutive.

Our success depends on our ability to continually enhance and broaden our product offerings in response to changing customer demands, competitive pressures, technologies and market pressures. Accordingly, from time to time we may expand our business and intellectual property portfolio through the acquisition of new businesses and technologies. We cannot assure that we will achieve anticipated benefits from any acquisition to justify the transaction.

Competition within our industry for acquisitions of businesses, technologies and assets may become intense. Even if we are able to identify an acquisition that we would like to consummate, we may not be able to complete

32

the acquisition on commercially reasonable terms or the target may be acquired by another company. We may enter into negotiations for acquisitions that are not ultimately consummated. Those negotiations could result in diversion of management time and significant out-of-pocket costs.

The success of any acquisition depends on, among other things, our ability to combine our business with an acquired business in a manner that does not materially disrupt existing relationships and that allows us to achieve development and operational synergies. If we are unable to achieve these objectives, the anticipated benefits of an acquisition may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. In particular, if we undertake such a transaction, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses or acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expenses. As a result, an acquisition may not be accretive to our stock value or development pipeline in the near or long term.

We expect to incur higher development and regulatory costs, and additional costs integrating the operations and personnel of any companies we acquire, which cannot be estimated accurately at this time. If the total costs of the integration of our companies and advancement of acquired product candidates and technologies exceed the anticipated benefits of the acquisition, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

International components of our business expose us to business, legal, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States.

We currently collaborate with international manufacturing partners and may potentially expand our business internationally in the future. The purchase and shipment of components from international sources subjects us to U.S. and foreign governmental trade, import and export, and customs regulations and laws.

Compliance with these regulations and laws is costly and exposes us to penalties for non-compliance. Other laws and regulations that can significantly impact us include various anti-bribery laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), as well as export controls laws. Any failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory obligations could impact us in a variety of ways that include, but are not limited to, significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, including imprisonment of individuals, fines and penalties, denial of export privileges, seizure of shipments, restrictions on certain business activities and exclusion or debarment from government contracting.

Conducting business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

33

Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our research, product candidates, investigational medicines and the diseases our product candidates and investigational medicines are being developed to treat. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of non-compliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical study or to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we may fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our product candidates. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. Furthermore, our employees, affiliates and/or business partners may use social media for their personal use, and their activities on social media or in other forums could result in adverse publicity for us. Any negative publicity as a result of social media posts, whether or not such claims are accurate, could adversely impact us. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions, or incur other harm to our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our CROs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cybersecurity attacks or hacking, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs or a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, suffer loss or harm to our intellectual property rights and the further research, development and commercial efforts of ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved, could be delayed. If we are held liable for a claim against which we are not insured or for damages exceeding the limits of our insurance coverage, whether arising out of cybersecurity matters, or from some other matter, that claim could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Further, a cybersecurity attack, data breach or privacy violation that leads to disclosure or modification of, or prevents access to, patient information, including personally identifiable information or protected health information, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect personal data,

34

resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue. Our ability to effectively manage and maintain our internal business information, and to ship products to customers and invoice them on a timely basis, depends significantly on our enterprise resource planning system and other information systems. Portions of our information technology systems may experience interruptions, delays or cessations of service or produce errors in connection with ongoing systems implementation work. Cybersecurity attacks in particular are evolving and include, but are not limited to, threats, malicious software, ransom ware, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in systems, misappropriation of confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data. If we are unable to prevent such cybersecurity attacks, data security breaches or privacy violations or implement satisfactory remedial measures, our operations could be disrupted, and we may suffer loss of reputation, governmental investigations, claims or litigation that may not be covered by insurance, financial loss and other regulatory penalties because of lost or misappropriated information, including sensitive patient data. In addition, these breaches and other inappropriate access can be difficult to detect, and any delay in identifying them may lead to increased harm of the type described above.

Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As widely reported, global credit and financial markets have experienced volatility and disruptions in the past several years and especially in 2020 and 2021 due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. For example, an overall decrease in or loss of insurance coverage among individuals in the United States as a result of unemployment, underemployment or the repeal of certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “ACA”), may decrease the demand for healthcare services and pharmaceuticals. If fewer patients seek medical care because they do not have insurance coverage, we may experience difficulties in any eventual commercialization of our product candidates and our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be adversely affected.

There can be no assurances that further deterioration in credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, volatile business environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and price of our Common Stock, and could require us to delay or abandon clinical development plans.

Our ability to effectively monitor and respond to the rapid and ongoing developments and expectations relating to the environmental, social and governance matters, including related social expectations and concerns, may impose unexpected costs or results in reputational or other harm that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

There is an increasing focus from certain investors, employees, regulators, listing exchanges and other stakeholders concerning corporate responsibility and sustainability matters, specifically related to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors. Some investors and investor advocacy groups may use these factors to guide investment strategies and, in some cases, investors may choose not to invest in us if they believe our policies relating to corporate responsibility are inadequate. Third-party providers of corporate responsibility ratings and reports on companies have increased to meet growing investor demand for measurement of corporate responsibility performance, and a variety of organizations currently measure the performance of companies on such ESG topics, and the results of these assessments are widely publicized. Investors, particularly institutional investors, use these ratings to benchmark companies against their peers, and major institutional investors have publicly emphasized the importance of ESG measures to their investment decisions. Topics taken into account in such assessments include, among others, companies’ efforts and impacts on climate change and human rights,

35

ethics and compliance with law, diversity and the role of companies’ board of directors in supervising various sustainability issues. In light of investors’ increased focus on ESG matters, if we are perceived as lagging with respect to ESG initiatives, these investors may engage with us to improve ESG disclosures or performance and may also make voting decisions, or take other actions, to hold us and our Board accountable.

In addition, there are rapid and ongoing developments and changing expectations relating to ESG matters, and the criteria by which our corporate responsibility practices are assessed may change, which could result in greater expectations of us and cause us to undertake costly initiatives to satisfy such new criteria. If we elect not to or are unable to adequately recognize and respond to such developments and governmental, societal, investor and consumer expectations relating to such ESG matters, we may miss corporate opportunities, become subject to additional scrutiny or incur unexpected costs. We may face risk of litigation or reputational damage in the event that our corporate responsibility procedures or standards do not meet the standards set by various constituencies.

We may also face reputational damage if we are unable to achieve an acceptable ESG or sustainability rating from third-party rating services. A low ESG or sustainability rating by a third-party rating service could also result in the exclusion of our Common Stock from consideration by certain investors who may elect to invest with our competitors instead. Ongoing focus on corporate responsibility matters by investors and other parties as described above may impose additional costs or expose us to new risks. Any failure or perceived failure by us in this regard could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and on our business, financial condition or results of operations, including the sustainability of our business over time, and could cause the market value of our Common Stock to decline.

Further, our emphasis on ESG issues may not maximize short-term financial results and may yield financial results that conflict with the market’s expectations. We may in the future make business decisions that may reduce our short-term financial results if we believe that the decisions are consistent with our ESG goals, which we believe will improve our financial results over the long-term. These decisions may not be consistent with the short-term expectations of our stockholders and may not produce the long-term benefits that we expect, in which case our business, financial condition and results of operations could be harmed.

Risks Related to Scilex’s Intellectual Property

We are substantially dependent on the intellectual property we in-license from Oishi and Itochu, and if we lose the right to license such intellectual property or if the Product Development Agreement is terminated for any reason, our ability to commercialize ZTlido and develop and commercialize SP-103 would be harmed.

Our business is substantially dependent upon the intellectual property licensed from Oishi and Itochu. Pursuant to the Product Development Agreement, we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide license (except with respect to Japan) under current and future intellectual property rights relating to ZTlido and SP-103 lidocaine tape products and the lidocaine in such products, including, among other things: (1) any patent applications, continuation applications, any issued or issuing patents, as well as any foreign patent applications, (2) all know-how, work product, trade secrets, invents, data, processes, techniques, procedures, compositions, devices, methods, formulas, protocols and information, whether patentable or not, (3) copyrightable works, copyrights and applications, registrations and renewals, (4) logos, trademarks, service marks, and all applications and registrations relating thereto, (5) other proprietary rights, (6) abbreviated new drug applications or other applications to market, and (7) any regulatory exclusivities or supplemental protection certificates. Our ability to commercialize ZTlido and develop SP-103 depends on the effectiveness and continuation of the Product Development Agreement. If we lose the right to license the intellectual property rights granted by the Product Development Agreement, our ability to develop ZTlido and SP-103 as well as new product candidates based on the licensed intellectual property would be harmed.

The Product Development Agreement imposes various development, regulatory and/or commercial diligence obligations, payments and other obligations. Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product

36

Development Agreement under certain circumstances, including, among other things: (1) if we are in material breach of the agreement and the breach is not curable or if the breach is curable and we fail to cure such material breach within 180 days after notice requesting to cure; (2) if, at any time during the term of the Product Development Agreement, the market conditions are such that (a) our total net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 are equal to or less than five percent of our net sales of ZTlido and SP-103 for a period of four or more consecutive quarters, or (b) the economic viability of ZTlido and SP-103 is affected significantly as evidenced by documentation and substantial information by any external circumstances deemed detrimental to all parties as agreed to by us, on the one hand, and Oishi and Itochu, on the other hand, and the parties are unable to resolve the concerns under the foregoing clauses (a) and (b) after 30 days of good-faith discussion; and (3) in the event of our bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. As of the date of this prospectus, Scilex’s net profits for ZTlido and SP-103 have not exceeded five percent of net sales. Accordingly, Oishi and Itochu have the right to terminate the Product Development Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement. As of the date of this prospectus, neither Oishi nor Itochu has exercised its right of termination. If the Product Development Agreement is terminated for certain reasons, such as our material breach of the agreement, our bankruptcy, or lack of economic viability, we will be required to transfer all licensed intellectual property rights, including those relating to ZTlido and SP-103, to Oishi and Itochu or their designee, at our own cost and expense. The loss of such licenses could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We recently entered into the Romeg Agreement for the in-licensing of certain intellectual property rights from Romeg with respect to the commercialization of GLOPERBA, and if we lose the right to license such intellectual property or if the Romeg Agreement is terminated for any reason, our ability to commercialize GLOPERBA would be harmed.

We recently entered into the Romeg Agreement for the in-licensing of certain intellectual property rights from Romeg with respect to the commercialization of GLOPERBA. Pursuant to the Romeg Agreement, we have been granted (1) the right to manufacture, promote, market, distribute and sell pharmaceutical products comprising liquid formulations of colchicine for the prophylactic treatment of gout in adult humans in the United States and (2) an exclusive, transferable license to use the trademark “GLOPERBA.” Under the Romeg Agreement, among other things, Romeg granted us (1) a transferable license, with the right to sublicense, under the patents and know-how specified therein to (a) commercialize the pharmaceutical product comprising liquid formulations of colchicine for the prophylactic treatment of gout in adult humans (the “Initial Licensed Product”) in the United States (including its territories) (the “Territory”), (b) develop other products comprising the Initial Licensed Product as an active pharmaceutical ingredient (together with the Initial Licensed Product, the “Licensed Products”) and commercialize any such products and (c) manufacture Licensed Products anywhere in the world, solely for commercialization in the Territory; and (2) an exclusive, transferable license, with right to sublicense, to use the trademark “GLOPERBA” and logos, designs, translations, and modifications thereof in connection with the commercialization of the Initial Licensed Product solely in the Territory. The license to know-how is exclusive for purposes of developing and commercializing Licensed Products in the Territory during the royalty term, but is otherwise non-exclusive. The license to patents is exclusive for purposes of developing and commercializing Licensed Products in the Territory until July 1, 2027 and, thereafter, is co-exclusive with Granules Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the royalty term for such purposes. The royalty term begins on the date of the agreement and ends on the later of (i) expiration of the last to expire of the patents that covers the manufacture or commercialization of the Licensed Products in the Territory or (ii) the tenth anniversary of the date of the Romeg Agreement. Our ability to commercialize GLOPERBA and develop Licensed Products depends on the effectiveness and continuation of the Romeg Agreement. If we lose the right to license the intellectual property rights granted by the Romeg Agreement, our ability to develop GLOPERBA as well as new product candidates based on the licensed intellectual property would be harmed.

The Romeg Agreement imposes various development, regulatory and/or commercial diligence obligations, payments and other obligations. Romeg has the right to terminate the Romeg Agreement under certain circumstances, including, among other things: (a) in the event we are in material breach of the Romeg Agreement, unless we have cured any such breach within 60 days after any notice thereof was provided; (b) upon

37

notice to us, if we fail to timely pay any milestone payment, percentage royalties or minimum quarterly royalties or fail to timely deliver the requisite quarterly report, which termination will be effective 30 days after the date of such notice, unless we have made such payment in full or delivered such quarterly report within such 30 day period; (c) immediately, if we challenge the licensed patents under any court action or proceeding or before any patent office or assist any third party to conduct any of these activities; (d) by written notice to us if sales of Licensed Products do not commence or continue within specified periods agreed to by the parties; or (e) in the event of our bankruptcy or assignment for the benefit of creditors. If the Romeg Agreement is terminated for certain reasons, such as our material breach of the agreement, our bankruptcy, or our failure to timely pay milestone payments, we will be required upon Romeg’s request to transfer all licensed intellectual property rights, including those relating to the GLOPERBA and the Licensed Products, to Romeg or their designee, within thirty days after the termination of the Romeg Agreement at a price to be agreed upon by the parties. The loss of such licenses could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Potential disputes over intellectual property rights that we have licensed may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms.

Licensing of intellectual property rights is of high importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property rights subject to a license agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property rights that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. We may enter into additional licenses in the future and if we fail to comply with obligations under those agreements, we could suffer adverse consequences.

Furthermore, if our licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates, if approved. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we license prevent or impair our ability to maintain other licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to maintain patent protection for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection, and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates. Our success

38

depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States, for GLOPERBA, and in the United States and other countries with respect to ZTlido and our product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing and/or in-licensing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our development programs and product candidates. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.

The patents and patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that protect ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application, or be used to invalidate a patent. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.

The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our potential future collaborators will be successful in protecting our product candidates by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

39

The patent prosecution process is also expensive and time-consuming, and we and our licensors may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we and our licensors will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

If the patent applications we hold or in-license with respect to our development programs and product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, it could dissuade other companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability to commercialize ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates. Any such outcome could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to product components and processes and brands for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Presently we have intellectual property rights, through licenses from third parties related to ZTlido, SP-103, and GLOPERBA. Because our programs for ZTlido, GLOPERBA, SP-103 and SP-104 may require the use of additional proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. It may also be commercially advantageous to use trademarks held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license proprietary rights related to any compositions, formulations, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as being necessary for our product candidates. Even if we are able to obtain a license to such proprietary rights, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology.

Where we obtain licenses from or collaborate with third parties, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent and trademark applications, or to maintain the patents covering technology that we license from third parties and associated trademark registrations, or such activities, if controlled by us, may require the input of such third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors and collaborators to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents, trademarks and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents and trademarks, or any patents and trademark registrations that may issue from such applications. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, including making royalty and milestone payments, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license, or expiration of licensed patents or patent applications, or loss of trademark rights, could have a material adverse impact on our business. Our business would suffer if any such licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to enforce licensed patents or trademarks against infringing third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms. Furthermore, if any licenses terminate, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties may gain the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to ours. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the

40

amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in products that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize products, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability.

The licensing and acquisition of third-party proprietary rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party proprietary rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. We may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the third-party may offer, on an exclusive basis, their proprietary rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us, either on reasonable terms, or at all. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment, or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize our products, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

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

We may be subject to claims that former employees (including former employees of our licensors), collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our product candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. Litigation may be necessary to resolve these and other claims challenging inventorship and/or ownership. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Claims that we infringe, misappropriate, or violate the intellectual property rights of third parties may give rise to costly and lengthy litigation, and we could be prevented from selling products, forced to pay damages, and defend against litigation.

Third parties may assert patent or other intellectual property infringement or misappropriation claims against us or our strategic partners, licensors or licensees with respect to ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates. If ZTlido, GLOPERBA or any of our product candidates, methods, processes and other technologies are alleged to infringe on or be improperly based on the proprietary rights of other parties, we could face adverse consequences.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. We cannot assure that any of our current or future product candidates will not infringe existing or future patents. We may not be aware of patents that have already issued that a third party might assert are infringed by one of our current or future product candidates.

41

There may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing, there may be currently pending third-party patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates or our technologies may infringe, or which such third parties claim are infringed by the use of our technologies. Parties making claims against us for infringement or misappropriation of their intellectual property rights may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, could involve substantial expenses and could be a substantial diversion of our valuable management and employee resources from our business.

If we collaborate with third parties in the development of technology in the future, our collaborators may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to litigation or potential liability. Further, collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. In the future, we may agree to indemnify our commercial collaborators against certain intellectual property infringement claims brought by third parties. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time-consuming and could:

If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do either. Proving invalidity is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, which may not be available, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court. Patent litigation is costly and time-consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, if we do not obtain a license, develop or obtain non-infringing technology, fail to defend an infringement action successfully or have infringed patents declared invalid, we may incur substantial monetary damages, encounter significant delays in bringing our product candidates to market and be precluded from manufacturing or selling our product candidates.

We cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our pending applications, or that we were the first to invent the technology, because:

42

Furthermore, the scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products. Further, we may incorrectly determine that our technologies, products, or product candidates are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or internationally that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products or product candidates.

Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours, and others may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates and future approved products or impair our competitive position. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to ours, we may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the PTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful if, unbeknownst to us, the other party had independently arrived at the same or similar invention prior to our own invention, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such inventions. Other countries have similar laws that permit secrecy of patent applications, and may be entitled to priority over our applications in such jurisdictions.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

Even if we were to prevail, any litigation or administrative proceeding could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. Furthermore, as a result of a patent infringement suit brought against us or our strategic partners or licensees, we or our strategic partners or licensees may be forced to stop or delay developing, manufacturing or selling technologies, product candidates or potential products that are claimed to infringe a third party’s intellectual property unless that party grants us or our strategic partners’ or licensees’ rights to use its intellectual property. Ultimately, we may be unable to develop some of our product candidates or may have to discontinue development of a product candidate or cease some of our business operations as a result of patent infringement claims, which could severely harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

43

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

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and key personnel. For example, on June 22, 2022, we filed a complaint against Aveva Drug Delivery Systems, Inc., Apotex Corp. and Apotex, Inc. (together, “Aveva”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging infringement of certain Orange Book patents covering ZTlido. See the section titled “Business — Legal Proceedings” for additional information regarding such proceedings. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of such patents is upheld, the court will construe the patent’s claims narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks.

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments.

Moreover, there can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Even if we ultimately prevail in such claims, the monetary cost of such litigation and the diversion of the attention of our management and scientific personnel could outweigh any benefit we receive as a result of the proceedings.

Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude that even if a third party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our stockholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious action or solution. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If our intellectual property rights are invalidated or circumvented, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Our long-term success depends on our ability to continually discover, develop and commercialize innovative new pharmaceutical products. Without strong intellectual property protection, we would be unable to generate the returns necessary to support the enormous investments in research and development and capital as well as other expenditures required to bring new product candidates to the market and for commercialization.

Intellectual property protection varies throughout the world and is subject to change over time. In the United States, for small molecule drug products, such as ZTlido and GLOPERBA, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides

44

generic companies powerful incentives to seek to invalidate our pharmaceutical patents. As a result, we expect that our U.S. patents on major pharmaceutical products will be routinely challenged, and there can be no assurance that our patents will be upheld. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a distraction to management and other employees. We face generic manufacturer challenges to our patents outside the United States as well. In addition, competitors or other third parties may claim that our activities infringe patents or other intellectual property rights held by them. If successful, such claims could result in our being unable to market a product in a particular territory or being required to pay damages for past infringement or royalties on future sales.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We have registered trademarks with the PTO for the mark “ZTlido,” “SCILEX” and “RESPONSIBLE BY DESIGN,” and we have filed trademark applications for the marks “SEMNUR PHARMACEUTICALS” and “SEMDEXA” in the United States. We also have trademark registrations for ZTlido in the UK and Greece, we have a pending trademark application for ZTlido in China and we are appealing a decision refusing to register a trademark application for ZTlido in China. In China, we detected a third-party trademark registration for ZTlido and filed an invalidation proceeding — Invalidation of TM Registration No. 36299669 “ZTlido” in Class 5 in the name of 秦皇島恆駿商貿有限公司 (Qinhuangdao Hengjun Trading Co., Ltd.) (the “China ZTlido Trademark Invalidation Proceeding”). The China ZTlido Trademark Invalidation Proceeding is pending. Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, diluted, tarnished, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement, dilution or tarnishment claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

As is the case with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries involve both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the America Invents Act (the “AIA”), which was passed in September 2011, resulted in significant changes to the U.S. patent system. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. Under a “first-to-file” system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to a patent on the invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. A third party that files a patent application in the PTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application and diligent in filing patent applications, but circumstances could prevent us from promptly filing patent applications on our inventions.

45

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the PTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in PTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a PTO proceeding sufficient for the PTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action.

Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the PTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. It is not clear what, if any, impact the AIA will have on the operation of our business. However, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our or our licensors’ issued patents.

We may become involved in opposition, interference, derivation, inter partes review or other proceedings challenging our or our licensors’ patent rights, and the outcome of any proceedings are highly uncertain. An adverse determination in any such proceeding could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our owned or in-licensed patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations, and there are other open questions under patent law that courts have yet to decisively address. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the PTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways and could weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, the Biden administration recently indicated its support for a proposal at the World Trade Organization to waive patent rights with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. Any waiver of our patent or other intellectual property protection by the U.S. and other foreign governments could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the European patent system is relatively stringent in the type of amendments that are allowed during prosecution, but, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws has also increased in recent years. Complying with these laws and regulations could limit our ability to obtain new patents in the future that may be important for our business.

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

The PTO and various foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions to maintain patent applications and issued patents. For example, periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the PTO and other foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The PTO and various foreign national or international patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of patent rights include, but are not limited to, failure to timely file national and regional stage patent applications based on our international patent application, failure to respond to official actions within

46

prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees, and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or any of our licensors fail to maintain the patents or patent applications covering ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, our competitors may be able to enter the market, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Confidentiality agreements with employees may not adequately prevent disclosure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information and may not adequately protect our intellectual property, which could limit our ability to compete.

To help protect our proprietary know-how and our inventions for which patents may be unobtainable or difficult to obtain, or prior to seeking patent protection, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements. To this end, we require all our employees to enter into agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information. We also typically obtain agreements from these parties that provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property.

However, current or former employees may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. The need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our competitive position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Enforcing a claim that a third party obtained illegally, and is using, trade secrets and/or confidential know-how is expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable, and the enforceability of confidentiality agreements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If any of our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information is disclosed, the value of our trade secrets, know-how and other proprietary rights would be significantly impaired and our business and competitive position would suffer. Moreover, our third-party licensing partners may retain rights in some of our proprietary or joint trade secrets, know-how, patented inventions or other proprietary information, including rights to sublicense and rights of publication, which may adversely impact our ability to obtain patents and protect trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information.

We may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Certain of our employees, consultants or advisors are currently, or were previously, employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors, as well as our academic partners. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. We may also be subject to claims that patents and applications that we may file to protect inventions of our employees or consultants are rightfully owned by their former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. An inability to incorporate such technologies or features would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and may prevent us from successfully commercializing ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved. Moreover, any such

47

litigation or the threat of such litigation may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent contractors. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Moreover, even when we obtain agreements assigning intellectual property to us, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. In addition, individuals executing agreements with us may have preexisting or competing obligations to a third party.

Our position as a relatively small company may cause us to be at a significant disadvantage in defending our intellectual property rights and in defending against infringement claims by third parties.

Litigation relating to the ownership and use of intellectual property is expensive, and our position as a relatively small company in an industry dominated by very large companies may cause us to be at a significant disadvantage in defending our intellectual property rights and in defending against claims that ZTlido, GLOPERBA or any of our product candidates infringes or misappropriates third-party intellectual property rights. However, we may seek to use various post-grant administrative proceedings, including new procedures created under the AIA, to invalidate potentially overly-broad third-party rights. Even if we can defend our position, the cost of doing so may adversely affect our ability to grow, generate revenue or become profitable. In the course of the ongoing litigation or any future additional litigation to which we may be subject, we may not be able to protect our intellectual property at a reasonable cost, or at all. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain, and in some cases could include judgments against us that require us to pay damages, enjoin us from certain activities or otherwise affect our legal, contractual or intellectual property rights, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our drug discovery and development efforts.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including PTO administrative proceedings, such as inter partes reviews, and reexamination proceedings before the PTO or oppositions and revocations and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others.

Despite safe harbor provisions, third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents, of which we are currently unaware, with claims to materials, formulations, methods of doing research, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending unpublished patent applications which may later result in issued patents that ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that the use of our technologies infringes these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or any of our product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such

48

product candidate unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable.

Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtain a license, limit our uses, or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further commercialize ZTlido and GLOPERBA, or develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, cease marketing ZTlido or GLOPERBA, or developing our product candidates, limit our uses, pay royalties or redesign our infringing product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates, if approved. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further commercialize ZTlido or GLOPERBA, or develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, other pharmaceutical companies including our competitors or potential competitors. We may become subject to claims that we, our employees or a consultant inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely affect our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team and other employees.

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

The requirements for patentability and the patent enforcement differ in many countries. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on ZTlido and all of our product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement in some countries is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with ZTlido and our

49

product candidates, if approved, in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and related sanctions could significantly devalue our Ukrainian and Russian, patent applications. Recent Russian decrees may significantly limit our ability to enforce Russian patents. We cannot predict when or how this situation will change.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals and methods of treatment of the human body, 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, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

In addition, many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. Furthermore, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents and limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

We rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary technologies, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors, and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors, to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using commonly accepted physical and technological security measures. Despite these efforts, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and these agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, in 2010, the FDA, as part of its Transparency Initiative, recommended steps that the FDA could take to increase transparency, including with respect to making additional information publicly available on a routine basis, which may include information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

In addition, such security measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee, consultant, customer or third party with authorized access. Our security measures may not prevent an employee, consultant or customer from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and any recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Monitoring unauthorized uses and

50

disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products that we consider proprietary. Competitors and other third parties could attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Even though we use commonly accepted security measures, the criteria for protection of trade secrets can vary among different jurisdictions. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, trade secrets will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

Our reliance on third parties may require us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Because we rely on third parties to help manufacture and supply our products and product candidates, and we expect to collaborate with third parties on the continuing development of future product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We also expect to conduct research and development programs that may require us to share trade secrets under the terms of our partnerships or agreements with CROs. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into agreements containing confidentiality and use restrictions and obligations, including, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements, confidentiality agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, contractors, service providers and consultants prior to disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

51

Intellectual property rights and regulatory exclusivity rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our product candidates and proprietary technologies and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. For example:

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, for example with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or requests for patent term adjustments. If we or our partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors, whether current or future, fail to establish, maintain or protect such patents and other intellectual property rights, such rights may be reduced or eliminated. If our partners, collaborators, licensees or licensors, are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised. If there are material defects in the form, preparation, prosecution or enforcement of our patents or patent applications, such patents may be invalid and/or unenforceable, and such applications may never result in valid, enforceable patents. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been and will continue to be the subject of litigation and new legislation. Publications in scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our own patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result of these and other factors, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in

52

patents being issued that protect ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection. If these changes were to occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenue.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the PTO or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. The costs of defending our patents or enforcing our proprietary rights in post-issuance administrative proceedings and litigation can be substantial and the outcome can be uncertain. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and potentially licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates. Generally, patents are granted a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed non-provisional filing date. In certain instances, patent term can be adjusted and increased to recapture a portion of delay incurred by the PTO in examining the patent application. The scope of patent protection may also be limited. Without patent protection for our current or future product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of such products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Risks Related to Government Regulations

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

The time required to obtain approval from the FDA is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. For example, we believe that the data from our Phase 3 CLEAR trial will be sufficient to support a 505(b)(2) NDA submission for SEMDEXA. However, the FDA may disagree and may require us to conduct additional clinical studies before we are able to submit the NDA, even though we believe the data from the CLEAR trial are adequate. Our future success depends on our ability to develop, receive regulatory approval for, and introduce new products or product enhancements that will be accepted by the market in a timely manner.

The FDA can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

53

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our product candidates, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Other than an NDA submitted for ZTlido in the United States, which was approved by the FDA in February 2018, we have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if our clinical trials are successful. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be substantially harmed.

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

For our product candidates SEMDEXA, SP-103 and SP-104, we may seek FDA approval through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. The Hatch-Waxman Act added Section 505(b)(2) to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”). Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from trials that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2) allows an NDA we submit to the FDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved compounds, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. If the FDA does not agree that the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway is acceptable as we anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval.

54

Even if FDA accepts our plan to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure that our product candidates will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent and market exclusivity rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation against us and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer depending on the outcome of any litigation. Further, a manufacturer of an approved product may file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. FDA imposes strict requirements on such petitions in part to dissuade companies from improperly using these petitions to delay approval of competing drug products. Nonetheless, if successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to accelerated product development or earlier approval.

Any approved product candidate will be subject to ongoing and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such products.

Even after a product is approved, we will remain subject to ongoing FDA and other regulatory requirements governing the manufacturing, testing, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, advertising, promotion, import, export, record-keeping and reporting of safety and other post-market information. The holder of an approved NDA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and, among other things, any failure of a distributed product to meet the specifications in the NDA. The holder of an approved NDA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws. In addition, the FDA may impose significant restrictions on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed.

These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. The future discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated type, severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. We may not be able to regain compliance, or we may only be able to regain compliance after a lengthy delay, significant expense, lost revenues and damage to our reputation.

55

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change, and additional laws or government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or sustain profitability. Changes in law or government regulations may also alter the competitive landscape, potentially to our disadvantage.

Certain manufacturers in the market in which we compete distribute certain products without completing the FDA approval process. For example, we believe certain lidocaine topical patches, plaster or poultice products marketed over-the-counter (“OTC”) and without FDA approval, require approval and compete inappropriately with ZTlido. In December 2018, we filed a citizen’s petition asking the FDA to clarify its requirements and take enforcement action against such products. The FDA has not responded with a decision or action. The FDA has generally held the position that requests for enforcement action via citizen petition are not allowed, which may reduce the likelihood of the FDA taking action explicitly in response to our December 2018 petition. Furthermore, we believe the labeling and marketing of certain OTC lidocaine patches products are false and deceptive, which could cause significant damages to our business and a diminution of goodwill in our intellectual property. In February 2021, we filed a complaint against such manufacturers to seek an award of damages and the entry of injective relief enjoining further dissemination of such false and deceptive advertisement. In addition, on March 7, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was signed into law, which included statutory provisions reforming FDA’s mechanisms for regulating OTC drugs. Under the CARES Act, the FDA considers a drug to be generally recognized as safe and effective (“GRASE”) if it meets certain requirements, including items such as the active ingredient, indication for use, dosage, route of administration, and labeling set forth in the OTC monograph and related rulemakings. Historically, the FDA was required to establish, revise, and amend an OTC monograph by notice-and-comment rulemaking, which was lengthy and resource-intensive. The CARES Act replaces the rulemaking process with a final administrative order process. Administrative orders may be initiated by the FDA or at the request of a drug manufacturer or any other person. After a period for public comment on the administrative order, the FDA is able to issue a final administrative order, rather than a regulation, permitting the drug to be marketed over the counter. As this process is much more streamlined and less burdensome, this may benefit the manufacturers of lidocaine topical patches to obtain GRASE status from the FDA and thereby legally market these products over-the-counter and compete with ZTlido.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the current U.S. administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, recent U.S. administrations have taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions, including the Executive Orders, will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be negatively affected.

A fast track product designation, breakthrough therapy designation or other designation to facilitate product candidate development may not lead to faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

A product sponsor may apply for fast track designation from the FDA if a product is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for this condition. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this

56

designation. We have received fast track designation for SEMDEXA for the treatment of sciatica and SP-103 for the treatment of acute LBP. Even though SEMDEXA and SP-103 have received fast track designation, we may not experience a faster process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. A fast track designation does not expedite clinical trials, or mean that regulatory requirements are less stringent or provide assurance of ultimate marketing approval by the FDA. Instead, fast track designation provides opportunities for frequent interactions with FDA review staff, as well as eligibility for priority review, if relevant criteria are met, and rolling review of individual sections of an NDA submitted to the FDA as they become finalized. The FDA may rescind the fast track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. The FDA may also withdraw any fast track designation at any time.

We have applied for breakthrough therapy designation and expect to seek priority review for SEMDEXA for the treatment of sciatica. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in potentially less efficacious control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe a product candidate meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to provide such designation. In any event, the receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if SEMDEXA qualifies as a breakthrough therapy for sciatica, the FDA may later decide that SEMDEXA no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

If approved, our products candidates regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The ACA includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (the “PHSA”) for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, a section 351(k) application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for the competing product submitted under section 351(a) of the PHSA containing the competing sponsor’s own pre-clinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s biological product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

Whether approval of a biological product qualifies for reference product exclusivity turns on whether FDA consider the approval a “first licensure”. Not every licensure of a biological product is considered a “first licensure” that gives rise to its own exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our product candidates in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval

57

for biosimilars referencing our product candidates, our product candidates may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

Changes in funding for the FDA could hinder its ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other regulatory authorities may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, on July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to resume certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. Increased cases associated with a COVID-19 variant led the FDA to again pause inspections, although the FDA announced in February 2022 that it would resume routine domestic surveillance inspections and that it would proceed with certain foreign surveillance inspections where country conditions permit. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

We and our collaborators are subject to federal, state and foreign data protection laws and regulations which address privacy and data security. In the United States, such laws may include, but are not limited to, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including the U.S. federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protection laws, including Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information.

Although we are not subject to HIPAA, as we are neither a Covered Entity nor Business Associate (as defined in HIPAA), we may have access to very sensitive data regarding patients who participate, or whose tissue samples or other biospecimens are used, in our clinical trials. The maintenance of this data imposes upon us administrative and financial burdens, and litigation risks. In addition, we may obtain health information from

58

third parties, including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data that are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA and other privacy and data security and consumer protection laws. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-Covered Entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA, and subject to other civil and/or criminal penalties if we obtain, use, or disclose information in a manner not permitted by other privacy and data security and consumer protection laws. Our ability to use or disclose information may be limited by the scope of an authorization signed by clinical trial subjects or the terms of the contract that we enter into with providers or other data sources.

Furthermore, states are constantly adopting new laws or amending existing laws relating to the data privacy and security and consumer protection, requiring attention to frequently changing regulatory requirements. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which creates new individual privacy rights for California consumers and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosure to consumers about such companies’ data collection, use and sharing practices, provide such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales or transfers of personal information, and provide consumers with a private right of action in connection with certain types of incidents. The CCPA has been amended several times, and will be significantly updated from the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), a ballot initiative that passed in November 2020 and which will go into effect on January 1, 2023. The CPRA introduced significant amendments to the CCPA and also created a new state agency vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA, the California Privacy Protection Agency (the “CPPA”). New implementing regulations are expected to be introduced by the CPPA. Virginia also recently enacted a CCPA/CPRA-like law, the Virginia Consumer Data Privacy Act (the “VDCPA”), to provide its residents with similar rights, and Colorado, Connecticut and Utah have passed similar laws. New legislation enacted in various other states will continue to shape the data privacy environment nationally. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to confidential, sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. The effects on our business of the CCPA, CPRA, VDCPA and other similar state laws and general consumer protection authorities are potentially significant, and may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies and to incur substantial costs and expenses in an effort to comply. Privacy laws and regulations are constantly evolving and there are a number of legislative proposals at both the state and federal level that could impose new obligations or limitations in areas affecting our business.

The Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) also sets expectations for failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure, or failing to provide a level of security commensurate to promises made to individual about the security of their personal information (such as in a privacy notice) may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”). The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. With respect to privacy, the FTC also sets expectations that companies honor the privacy promises made to individuals about how the company handles consumers’ personal information. Any failure to honor promises, such as the statements made in a privacy policy or on a website, may also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act. While we do not intend to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the FTC has the power to enforce promises as it interprets them, and events that we cannot fully control, such as data breaches, may be result in FTC enforcement. Enforcement by the FTC under the FTC Act can result in civil penalties or enforcement actions.

International data protection laws, including Regulation 2016/679, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), may also apply to health-related and other personal information obtained outside of the United States. The GDPR imposes several data protection requirements in the European Union, as well as imposes potential fines for noncompliant companies of up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of annual global

59

revenue. The regulation imposes numerous requirements for the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal information, including more stringent requirements relating to consent and the information that must be shared with data subjects about how their personal information is used, the obligation to notify regulators and affected individuals of personal data breaches, extensive new internal privacy governance obligations and obligations to honor expanded rights of individuals in relation to their personal information, including the right to access, correct and delete their data. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. The GDPR increased our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual European Union countries. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, often referred to as Brexit, has led and could also lead to legislative and regulatory changes and may increase our compliance costs. As of January 1, 2021 and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the United Kingdom and the European Union, data processing in the United Kingdom is governed by a United Kingdom version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision for the United Kingdom, allowing for the relatively free exchange of personal information between the European Union and the United Kingdom, however, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the United Kingdom no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection. Other jurisdictions outside the European Union are similarly introducing or enhancing privacy and data security laws, rules and regulations.

Compliance with U.S. and international data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, increase our compliance costs, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. We cannot guarantee that we are, or will be, in compliance with all applicable international regulations as they are enforced now or as they evolve. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and third-parties with whom we contract must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

Our research and development activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and manufacturers and suppliers with whom we may contract are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. We cannot guarantee that the safety procedures utilized by third-party manufacturers and suppliers with whom we may contract will comply with the standards prescribed by laws and regulations or will eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. We may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance.

60

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud, illegal activity or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by employees could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to comply with the laws and regulations of the FDA, EU Member States, EMA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, EMA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state health-care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, comply with laws and regulations, including, but not limited to the FCPA and internal policies restricting payments to government agencies and representatives, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or FDA debarment 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, financial condition and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions and serious harm to our reputation.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, false claims laws, transparency and disclosure, or sunshine, laws, government price reporting, and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical sites and clinical investigators, consultants, customers, patient organizations and third-party payors may subject us to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with clinical study investigators and research subjects, as well as our current and future sales, marketing, patient assistance and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to physician payment transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

61

62

In addition, any future research and development of our product candidates outside the United States, and any future sales of our product or product candidates once commercialized outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Efforts to ensure that our business practices and arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to, without limitation, civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates, if approved, or if we are found to have improperly engaged in pre-approval promotion prior to the approval of such product candidates, we may become subject to significant liability. Such enforcement has become more common in the industry. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, such as ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates for our proposed indications, physicians may nevertheless use our product for their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, if the physicians believe in their professional medical judgment it could be used in such manner. However, if we are found to have promoted our product for any off-label uses, the federal government could levy civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, and seek fines against us. The FDA, Department of Justice or other regulatory authorities could also request that we enter into a consent decree or a corporate integrity agreement, or seek a permanent injunction against us under which specified promotional conduct is monitored, changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of ZTlido, GLOPERBA or our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Healthcare reform measures could hinder or prevent our product candidates’ commercial success.

There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to health care systems in the United States and abroad that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. The United States government and other governments have shown significant interest in pursuing healthcare reform. For example, in 2010, the ACA was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed

63

by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. Healthcare reform measures like the ACA may adversely impact the pricing of healthcare products and services in the United States or internationally and the amount of reimbursement available from governmental agencies or other third-party payors.

Since its enactment, there have been ongoing efforts to modify the ACA and its implementing regulations. For example, tax legislation enacted at the end of 2017 includes provisions that, effective January 1, 2019, eliminated the tax penalty for individuals who do not maintain sufficient health insurance coverage, or the so-called “individual mandate.” It is unclear how healthcare reform measures enacted by Congress or implemented by the Biden administration or efforts, if any, to modify the ACA or its implementing regulations, or portions thereof, will impact our business. Litigation and legislation over the ACA and other healthcare reform measures are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. Further, additional legislative changes to and regulatory changes under or related to the ACA remain possible.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of, on average, 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020, through May 31, 2022, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The law provides for 1% Medicare sequestration in the second quarter of 2022 and allows the full 2% sequestration thereafter until 2030. To offset the temporary suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2030, the sequestration will be 2.25% for the first half of the year, and 3% in the second half of the year. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, as addressed further in the risk factor below titled “If we fail to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs once our products come to market, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions, and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects.” While any proposed measures may require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Biden administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal health care programs and commercial payers will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved, or additional pricing pressures.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and

64

publication of discounts and list prices. These or other reforms could reduce the ultimate demand for ZTlido, GLOPERBA and our product candidates, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, ZTlido may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

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

Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by manufacturers, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts. Such interpretation can change and evolve over time. In the case of Medicaid pricing data, if a manufacturer becomes aware that its reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, the manufacturer is obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and could result in an overage or underage in rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which a manufacturer is required to offer its products under the 340B program.

A failure to comply with reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and other governmental programs could negatively affect financial results. CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective on April 1, 2016, to implement the changes under the ACA to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The final regulation has increased and will continue to increase costs and the complexity of compliance, has been and will continue to be time-consuming to implement, and could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, particularly if CMS challenges the approach a manufacturer has taken in the implementation of the final regulation. Other regulations and coverage expansion by various governmental agencies relating to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program may have a similar impact.

Manufacturers have obligations to report the average sales price for certain of drugs to the Medicare program as a part of the agreement to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. For calendar quarters beginning January 1, 2022, manufacturers are required to report the average sales price for certain drugs under the Medicare program regardless of whether they participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. Statutory or regulatory changes or CMS guidance could affect the average sales price calculations for products and the resulting Medicare payment rate, and could negatively affect results of operations. Starting in 2023, manufacturers must pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologics, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages, for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of 10% of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. Manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount. Congress further could enact a Medicare Part B inflation rebate, under which manufacturers would owe additional rebates if the average sales price of a drug were to increase faster than the pace of inflation.

Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities, which became effective on January 1, 2019. Implementation of this regulation has affected manufacturer obligations and potential liability under the 340B program. Manufacturers are also required to report the 340B ceiling prices for covered outpatient drugs to HRSA, which then publishes

65

them to 340B covered entities. Any charge by HRSA that a manufacturer has violated the requirements of the program or the regulation could negatively affect financial results. Moreover, under a final regulation effective January 13, 2021, HRSA newly established an administrative dispute resolution (“ADR”) process for claims by covered entities that a manufacturer has engaged in overcharging, and by manufacturers that a covered entity violated the prohibitions against diversion or duplicate discounts. Such claims are to be resolved through an ADR panel of government officials rendering a decision that can be appealed to a federal court. An ADR proceeding could subject a manufacturer to onerous procedural requirements and could result in additional liability. Further, any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price and the Medicaid rebate amount under the ACA or otherwise could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively affect results of operations.

Civil monetary penalties can be applied if a manufacturer (i) is found to have knowingly submitted any false price or product information to the government, (ii) is found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of its average sales price, (iii) fails to submit the required price data on a timely basis, or (iv) is found to have knowingly and intentionally charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. CMS could also decide to terminate the Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement, or HRSA, or to terminate the 340B program participation agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs.

In addition, manufacturers are required to provide to CMS a 70% discount on brand name prescription drugs utilized by Medicare Part D beneficiaries when those beneficiaries are in the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit design. Congress could enact legislation that sunsets this discount program and replaces it with a new manufacturer discount program. Under either program, civil monetary penalties could be applied if a manufacturer fails to provide these discounts in the amount of 125 percent of the discount that was due. Furthermore, Congress could enact a Medicare Part D inflation rebate, under which manufacturers would owe additional rebates if the average manufacturer price of a drug were to increase faster than the pace of inflation.

Congress could also enact additional changes that affect our overall rebate liability and the information we report to the government as part of price reporting calculations. In addition, Congress could enact a drug price negotiation program under which the prices for certain high Medicare spend single source drugs would be capped by reference to the non-federal average manufacturer price. This or any other legislative change could impact the market conditions for our products. We expect continued scrutiny on government price reporting and pricing more generally from Congress, agencies, and other bodies and are seeing an increase in state interest in price reporting, transparency and other policies to address drug pricing concerns.

Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with price reporting or contract-based requirements under the VA Federal Supply Schedule and/or Tricare programs can subject a manufacturer to civil monetary penalties. These programs and contract-based obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements. If a manufacturer overcharges the government in connection with its arrangements with Federal Supply Schedule or Tricare, the manufacturer may be required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and/or response to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

We will need to obtain prior FDA authorization for any proposed product brand names, and any failure or delay associated with such approval may adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Any brand names we intend to use for our product candidates will require authorization from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the PTO. The FDA typically

66

conducts a review of proposed product brand names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a product brand name if it believes the name inappropriately implies medical claims. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product brand names, we may be required to adopt an alternative brand name for our product candidates. If we adopt an alternative brand name, we would lose the benefit of our existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product brand name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. We may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner, or at all, which would limit our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

We are subject to 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, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations are subject to certain anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we conduct business, including performing clinical trials. The FCPA and other anti-corruption 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, our commercial partners and our affiliates operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a risk of potential FCPA violations and we participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions could potentially subject us to liability under the 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.

There can be no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA or other legal requirements, such as trade control laws. Any investigation of potential violations of the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or trade control laws by U.S., European Union or other authorities could have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, should we be found not to be in compliance with the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or trade control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, as well as the accompanying legal expenses, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and liquidity, as well as on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Relationship with Sorrento

Certain of our directors and officers may have actual or potential conflicts of interest because of their positions with Sorrento.

Mr. Jaisim Shah, Dr. Henry Ji, Mr. Dorman Followwill, Ms. Laura J. Hamill, Dr. Tien-Li Lee, Mr. David Lemus and Mr. Tommy Thompson serve on our Board. Mr. Jaisim Shah and Dr. Henry Ji, who are our executive officers, are also members of the board of directors of Sorrento (and in the case of Dr. Henry Ji, the positions of President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the board of directors of Sorrento).

While our Board has determined that Mr. Dorman Followwill, Ms. Laura J. Hamill, Dr. Tien-Li Lee, Mr. David Lemus and Mr. Tommy Thompson are “independent directors” within the meaning of applicable regulatory and stock exchange requirements in the United States, both Mr. David Lemus and Mr. Dorman Followwill have served, and continue to serve, as directors of Sorrento (and in the case of Mr. Dorman Followwill, the Lead Independent Director of Sorrento) and Tommy Thompson has served, and continues to serve, as special consultant to the Chief Executive Officer of Sorrento, Dr. Henry Ji. Further, Dr. Tien-Li Lee is the founder, the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Aardvark, which has been involved in an asset

67

purchase transaction with Sorrento in connection with Sorrento’s acquisition of Aardvark’s delayed burst release low dose naltrexone formulation asset and intellectual property rights. As part of Sorrento’s investment in Aardvark relating to such asset purchase transaction, Sorrento paid cash for shares of Aardvark’s Series B Preferred Stock, resulting in Sorrento holding approximately 8% of Aardvark’s ownership interest as of December 31, 2021. Also as part of such investment, Dr. Henry Ji joined the board of directors of Aardvark in May 2021. Sorrento and Aardvark may enter into more commercial arrangements in the future.

In addition, such directors and officers may own shares of Sorrento common stock, options to purchase shares of Sorrento common stock or other Sorrento equity awards. These individuals’ holdings of Sorrento common stock, options to purchase shares of Sorrento common stock or other equity awards of Sorrento may be significant for some of these persons compared to these persons’ total assets. Their position at Sorrento and the ownership of any Sorrento equity or equity awards creates, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when these directors and officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for Sorrento than the decisions have for us. For example, potential conflicts of interest could arise in connection with the resolution of any dispute that may arise between Sorrento and us regarding the terms of the agreements governing the transition services and the relationship thereafter between the companies. Potential conflicts of interest may also arise if we enter into commercial arrangements with Sorrento in the future. As a result of these actual or apparent conflicts, we may be precluded from pursuing certain growth initiatives.

Sorrento currently performs or supports many of our important corporate functions. Our financial statements may not necessarily be indicative of the conditions that would have existed or our results of operations if we had been operated as an unaffiliated company of Sorrento, and we will incur incremental costs as a stand-alone public company.

We will need to replicate or replace certain functions, systems and infrastructure to which we will no longer have the same access after the Business Combination. We may also need to make investments or hire additional employees to operate without the same access to Sorrento’s existing operational and administrative infrastructure. These initiatives may be costly to implement. Due to the scope and complexity of the underlying projects relative to these efforts, the amount of total costs could be materially higher than our estimate, and the timing of the incurrence of these costs is subject to change.

Sorrento currently performs or supports many important corporate functions for our company. Our financial statements reflect charges for these services on an allocation basis. As a result, our historical financial statements may not be reflective of conditions that would have existed or what our results of operations would have been had we been a stand-alone public company and no longer a majority-owned subsidiary of Sorrento. Pursuant to agreements we expect to enter into with Sorrento, we expect that Sorrento will continue to provide us with some of the services related to these functions on a transitional basis in exchange for agreed-upon fees, and we expect to incur other costs to replace the services and resources that will not be provided by Sorrento. We will also incur additional costs as a stand-alone public company. As a stand-alone public company, our total costs related to certain support functions may differ from the costs that were historically allocated to us from Sorrento. In addition, in the future, we expect to incur internal costs to implement certain new systems, including infrastructure and an enterprise resource planning system, while our legacy systems are currently being fully supported by Sorrento.

We may not be able to replace these services or enter into appropriate third-party agreements on terms and conditions, including costs, comparable to those that we will receive from Sorrento under our agreements with Sorrento. Additionally, after the agreements terminate, we may be unable to sustain the services at the same levels or obtain the same benefits as when we were receiving such services and benefits from Sorrento. When we begin to operate these functions separately, if we do not have our own adequate systems and business functions in place, or are unable to obtain them from other providers, we may not be able to operate our business effectively or at comparable costs, and our profitability may decline. In addition, we have historically received informal support from Sorrento, which may not be addressed in our agreements with Sorrento. The level of this informal support will diminish or cease following the Business Combination.

68

We are controlled by Sorrento, whose interests may differ from those of our public shareholders.

As of the date of this prospectus, Sorrento controls approximately 96.8% of our voting power, which means that, based on its percentage voting power, Sorrento controls the vote of all matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders. This control will enable Sorrento to control the election of the members of our Board and all other corporate decisions. In particular, for so long as Sorrento continues to own a majority of our Common Stock, Sorrento will be able to cause or prevent a change of control of the Company or a change in the composition of our Board and could preclude any unsolicited acquisition of the Company.

Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement and the Certificate of Incorporation, Sorrento has certain rights, and the ability to take certain actions, that are not otherwise available to all of our stockholders. For example, the Registration Rights Agreement provides Sorrento the right, subject to certain conditions, to demand that we file a registration statement or request that their shares of our Common Stock be covered by a registration statement that we are otherwise filing. See the section titled “Description of Our Securities — Registration Rights” for additional information regarding these rights. We have filed the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part in order to satisfy these obligations. In addition, until such time as Sorrento first ceases to own greater than 50% of the outstanding voting power of our Common Stock, the Certificate of Incorporation effectively provides Sorrento with the ability to fill vacancies on our Board, remove directors (with or without cause), call a special meeting of our stockholders, amend the Certificate of Incorporation (subject to approval of our Board) and amend the Bylaws. The directors so elected will have the authority, subject to the terms of our indebtedness and applicable rules and regulations, to issue additional stock, implement stock repurchase programs, declare dividends and make other decisions. See the section titled “Description of Our Securities — Anti-Takeover Matters in our Governing Documents and Under Delaware Law” for additional information regarding Sorrento’s ability to take such actions.

Even when Sorrento ceases to control a majority of the total voting power of Scilex, for so long as Sorrento continues to own a significant percentage of our Common Stock and for so long as the Sorrento Group owns any shares of Series A Preferred Stock, Sorrento will still be able to significantly influence the composition of our Board and the approval of actions requiring stockholder approval. Accordingly, for such period of time, Sorrento will have significant influence with respect to our management, business plans and policies. Because of the significant ownership position held by Sorrento, our classified board structure and the rights granted to Sorrento under the Stockholder Agreement, new investors may not be able to effect a change in our business or management. The concentration of ownership and availability of the foregoing rights could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares of common stock as part of a sale of the Company and ultimately might affect the market price of our Common Stock. See the risk factor below titled “Sorrento, as the holder of Series A Preferred Stock, will have rights, preferences and privileges that are not held by, and are preferential to, the rights of holders of our Common Stock.”

Furthermore, the interests of Sorrento may not be aligned with those of our other stockholders and this could lead to actions that may not be in the best interests of our other stockholders. For example, Sorrento may have different tax positions or strategic plans for the Company, which could influence its decisions regarding whether and when we should dispose of assets or incur new or refinance existing indebtedness. Additionally, Sorrento’s significant ownership in the Company may discourage someone from making a significant equity investment in the Company, or could discourage transactions involving a change in control.

In addition, Sorrento and its affiliates engage in a broad spectrum of activities, including investments in our industry generally. In the ordinary course of their business activities, Sorrento and its affiliates may engage in activities where their interests conflict with our interests or those of our other stockholders, such as investing in or advising businesses that directly or indirectly compete with certain portions of our business or those businesses that are suppliers or customers of ours. The Certificate of Incorporation provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, none of Sorrento and its affiliates and any person or entity who, while a stockholder, director, officer or agent of us or any of our affiliates, is a director, officer, principal, partner, member, manager,

69

employee, agent and/or other representative of Sorrento and its affiliates (each an “Identified Person”) will have any duty to refrain from (i) engaging in a corporate opportunity in the same or similar business activities or lines of business in which we or our affiliates are engaged or that are deemed to be competing with us or any of our affiliates or (ii) otherwise investing in or providing services to any person that competes with us or our affiliates engaging, directly or indirectly, in the same or similar business activities or lines of business in which we operate. In addition, to the fullest extent permitted by law, no Identified Person will have any obligation to offer us or our subsidiaries or affiliates the right to participate in any corporate opportunity in the same or similar business activities or lines of business in which we or our affiliates are engaged or that are deemed to be competing with us or any of our affiliates. This means that Sorrento may pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business and, as a result, those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. In addition, Sorrento may have an interest in pursuing acquisitions, divestitures and other transactions that, in its judgment, could enhance its investment, even though such transactions might involve risks to our stockholders or may not prove beneficial.

In addition, although Sorrento has previously announced that its board of directors has authorized Sorrento to explore and consider a potential dividend to Sorrento stockholders of shares of our Common Stock that are currently held by Sorrento, there can be no assurance that Sorrento’s exploration and consideration of any dividend of any shares of our Common Stock will ultimately result in any such dividend. Furthermore, any declaration, as well as the potential timing, of any such dividend is subject to the satisfaction of a number of conditions, including an evaluation and consideration of the potential legal and tax consequences of any such dividend to Sorrento and its stockholders, submission of required filings, receipt of any approvals or consents determined to be required and other conditions that may be deemed to be applicable. Even if Sorrento were to make a dividend to Sorrento stockholders of shares of our Common Stock that are currently held by Sorrento, Sorrento would still hold shares of our Series A Preferred Stock, which shares have the rights, preferences and privileges described below, and Sorrento would still have significant rights that are not otherwise available to holders of our Common Stock.

Sorrento, as the holder of Series A Preferred Stock, has rights, preferences and privileges that are not held by, and are preferential to, the rights of holders of our Common Stock.

The Series A Preferred Stock is issued only to Sorrento and is not convertible into shares of our Common Stock. The holders of Series A Preferred Stock have rights, preferences and privileges that are senior, or in addition, to the rights, preferences and privileges of the holders of our Common Stock, including the right to receive, in the event of a change of control, liquidation dissolution or winding up of the Company, a preference amount out of the assets available for distribution to stockholders before any distribution can be made to holders of our Common Stock. The preference amount is $10.00 per share (subject to adjustment as set forth in the Certificate of Designations). If our Board declares or pays a dividend on our Common Stock, the holders of Series A Preferred Stock will participate, on a deemed as-converted-to-common stock basis, in such dividend with the holders of our Common Stock.

The holders of Series A Preferred Stock will have certain voting rights over our corporate actions (including, among others, any change to the shares of Series A Preferred Stock into cash or other property, the issuance of equity securities that rank on a parity with or senior to Series A Preferred Stock with respect to dividend rights or rights upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company and the amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation in a manner that adversely affects the holders of shares of Series A Preferred Stock.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stockholder Agreement, from and after the Effective Time, and for so long as the Sorrento Group beneficially owns any shares of Series A Preferred Stock, among other things, (i) Sorrento shall have the right, but not the obligation, to designate each director to be nominated, elected or appointed to our Board (each, a “Stockholder Designee” and collectively, the “Stockholder Designees”), regardless of whether such Stockholder Designee is to be elected to our Board at a meeting of stockholders called for the purpose of electing directors (or by consent in lieu of meeting) or appointed by our Board in order to fill any vacancy

70

created by the departure of any director or increase in the authorized number of members of our Board, or the size of our Board and (ii) we are required to take all actions reasonably necessary, and not otherwise prohibited by applicable law, to cause each Stockholder Designee to be so nominated, elected or appointed to our Board as more fully described in the Stockholder Agreement. Sorrento shall also have the right to designate a replacement director for any Stockholder Designee that has been removed from our Board and the right to appoint a representative of Sorrento to attend all meetings of the committees of our Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties have agreed to ensure that our Board complies with all applicable requirements of the stock exchange, including independence requirements.

The Stockholder Agreement also provides that we are prohibited from taking certain actions without the consent of Sorrento. Such actions include, among other things, amendments to the Certificate of Designations, increases or decreases in the size of our Board, the incurrence of certain amounts of indebtedness and the payment of dividends on our Common Stock.

For more information on the terms of Series A Preferred Stock, see the section titled “Description of Our Securities — Series A Preferred Stock” and the section titled “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions — Certain Relationships of Vickers — Stockholder Agreement with Sorrento.”

We are subject to recently enacted state laws in California that require gender and diversity quotas for boards of directors of public companies headquartered in California.

In September 2018, California enacted Senator Bill 826 (“SB 826”), which generally requires public companies with principal executive offices in California to have at least two female directors on its board of directors if the company has at least five directors, and at least three female directors on its board of directors if the company has at least six directors. SB 826 has been challenged in legal proceedings and on May 13, 2022, the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles entered an order striking down SB 826, holding that the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. The California Secretary of State has appealed the order and such appeal is currently pending. On September 16, 2022, the appellate court ruled to temporarily stay enforcement of the trial court’s order, which prevented the California Secretary of State from collecting diversity data on corporate disclosure forms pursuant to SB 826, pending a further order of the appellate court. To the extent that this ruling of the appellate court permits the Secretary of State of California to collect and report diversity data, we may be required to comply with additional disclosure requirements. However, ultimate enforceability of SB 826 remains uncertain.

Additionally, on September 30, 2020, California enacted Assembly Bill 979 (“AB 979”), which generally requires public companies with principal executive offices in California to include specified numbers of directors from “underrepresented communities”. A director from an “underrepresented community” means a director who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. By December 31, 2021, each public company with principal executive offices in California was required to have at least one director from an underrepresented community. By December 31, 2022, a public company with more than four but fewer than nine directors will be required to have a minimum of two directors from underrepresented communities, and a public company with nine or more directors will need to have a minimum of three directors from underrepresented communities. On April 1, 2022, the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles entered an order striking down AB 979, holding that the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. On June 6, 2022, a notice of appeal was filed. On September 16, 2022, the appellate court ruled to temporarily stay enforcement of the trial court’s order, which prevented the California Secretary of State from collecting diversity data on corporate disclosure forms pursuant to AB 979, pending a further order of the appellate court. To the extent that this ruling of the appellate court permits the Secretary of State of California to collect and report diversity data, we may be required to comply with additional disclosure requirements. Litigation regarding AB 979 will continue.

71

We cannot assure that we can recruit, attract and/or retain qualified members of our Board and meet gender and diversity quotas under Nasdaq Listing Rules or any California law that may become applicable to the Company, which may expose us to financial penalties and adversely affect our reputation.

Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock

If our operations and performance do not meet the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the market price of our securities may decline.

Any of the factors listed below could have a negative impact on your investment in our securities, and our securities may trade at prices significantly below the price you paid for them. In such circumstances, the trading price of our securities may not recover and may experience a further decline.

Factors affecting the trading price of our securities may include:

72

Further, the equity markets in general have recently experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. Continued market fluctuations could result in extreme volatility in the price of our Common Stock, which could cause a decline in the value of our Common Stock. Price volatility of our Common Stock might worsen if the trading volume of our Common Stock is low. In the past, stockholders have initiated class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies following periods of volatility in the market prices of these companies’ stock. Such litigation, if instituted against the Company, could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in these “Risk Factors”, could have a dramatic and material adverse impact on the market price of our Common Stock.

Legacy Scilex has not paid cash dividends in the past and we do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any return on investment may be limited to the capital appreciation, if any, of our Common Stock.

Legacy Scilex has not paid cash dividends on its common stock and we do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our Common Stock in the foreseeable future. Should we decide in the future to do so, as a holding company, our ability to pay dividends on our capital stock and meet other obligations depends upon the receipt of dividends or other payments from our operating subsidiaries, including Legacy Scilex. In addition, our ability to pay dividends may be limited by covenants in future outstanding indebtedness that we or our subsidiaries may incur. Since we do not intend to pay dividends, a stockholder’s ability to receive a return on such stockholder’s investment will depend on any future appreciation in the market value of our Common Stock. There is no guarantee that our Common Stock will appreciate or even maintain the price at which our stockholders have purchased it.

Future sales, or the perception of future sales, of a substantial number of shares of our Common Stock and Warrants may cause the price of our Common Stock and Warrants to decline.

If our existing securityholders sell, or indicate an intention to sell, substantial amounts of our Common Stock or Warrants, the trading price of our Common Stock or Warrants could decline and it could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. Unless otherwise waived by the Company

73

and the applicable parties to the Registration Rights Agreement, Sorrento and certain directors and equityholders of Vickers, including the Sponsors, are subject to lock-up provisions that restrict their ability to transfer certain of their shares of our Common Stock, Warrants or any security convertible into or exercisable or exchanged for our Common Stock until 180 days from the Effective Time, subject to certain exceptions.

As restrictions on resale end, the market prices of shares of our Common Stock and Warrants could drop significantly if the holders of these shares or Warrants sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to raise additional funds through future offerings of our shares of Common Stock or other securities.

The securities being offered in this prospectus represent a substantial percentage of our outstanding Common Stock. The Selling Securityholders purchased the securities covered by this prospectus at different prices, some significantly below the current trading price of such securities, and some Selling Securityholders received such securities without any consideration, and may therefore make substantial profits upon resales.

The Selling Securityholders can sell, under this prospectus, (A) up to 145,200,264 shares of Common Stock representing approximately 98.9% of the shares of our Common Stock outstanding as of December 12, 2022 (of which 140,217,207 shares are held by Sorrento representing approximately 95.5% of the shares of our Common Stock outstanding as of December 12, 2022), in each case, assuming the exercise of all outstanding Warrants for which underlying shares are registered for resale hereunder, which consists of: (i) up to 3,983,057 shares of Common Stock held by the Sponsors, comprised of 3,450,000 shares that were issued on November 9, 2022 upon conversion of the same number of our former ordinary shares (initially acquired by the Sponsors prior to the IPO of units of Vickers Vantage Corp. I at a purchase price of $0.007 per ordinary share) in connection with the Domestication and Business Combination and 533,057 shares that were also issued on November 9, 2022 upon the contribution of certain indebtedness by the Sponsors at a contribution value of $10.00 per share, in connection with the Business Combination pursuant to the Vickers Debt Agreement; (ii) up to 135,726,590 shares of Common Stock issued to Sorrento on November 10, 2022 in connection with the Business Combination at an equity consideration value of $10.00 per share; (iii) up to 4,104,000 Private Warrant Shares issuable upon the exercise of the Private Warrants at an exercise price of $11.50 per Share; and (iv) up to 1,386,617 Public Warrant Shares issuable to Sorrento upon the exercise of the Public Warrants held by Sorrento at an exercise price of $11.50 per share; and (B) up to 4,104,000 Private Warrants (which were originally issued at a price of $0.75 per Private Warrant, of which 3,104,000 were transferred from the Sponsors to Sorrento at no cost in connection with the Business Combination) and 1,386,617 Public Warrants (which were acquired by Sorrento in open-market purchases at a weighted average price of $0.3078 per Public Warrant) described in this prospectus. The Selling Securityholders, including Sorrento, will be able to sell all of such shares and any Warrants registered for resale hereunder for so long as the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part is available for use.

The sale of all the securities being offered in this prospectus could result in a significant decline in the public trading price of our securities. Even if the current trading price of our Common Stock is at or significantly below the price at which the units were issued in Vickers’s IPO, the Selling Securityholders may have an incentive to sell because they will still profit on sales due to the lower price at which they purchased their shares compared to the public securityholders. The public securityholders may not experience a similar rate of return on the securities they purchased due to differences in the purchase prices and the current trading price. For example, based on the closing price of our Common Stock of $3.92 and of our Warrants of $0.35 per Warrant, in each case on December 12, 2022, (i) the Sponsors may experience a potential profit $3.913 per share of our Common Stock based on the Sponsor’s initial purchase price of $0.007 per share, and (ii) Sorrento may experience a potential profit of up to (A) $0.35 per Private Warrant given Sorrento acquired its Private Warrants from the Sponsors at no cost and (B) $0.04 per Public Warrant based on Sorrento’s weighted average purchase price of approximately $0.3078 per Public Warrant. Depending on the price, the public securityholders may have paid significantly more than the Selling Securityholders for any shares or warrants they may have purchased in the open market based on variable market prices and therefore may not be able to experience the same positive rates of return on securities they purchase.

74

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly, and possibly annual, fluctuations. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

If our quarterly or annual operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our Common Stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly or annual fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our Common Stock to fluctuate substantially.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse opinion regarding our stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our Common Stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about the Company or our business. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by securities and industry analysts. Since we became public through a merger, securities analysts of major brokerage firms may not provide coverage of the Company since there is no incentive to brokerage firms to recommend the purchase of our Common Stock. If no or few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of the Company, the trading price for our stock would be negatively impacted. In the event we obtain securities or industry analyst coverage, if any of the analysts who cover it issues an adverse opinion regarding the Company, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of the Company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to ZTlido or our product candidates.

We may issue additional equity securities to fund future expansion and pursuant to equity incentive or employee benefit plans. We may also issue additional equity for other purposes. These securities may have the same rights as our Common Stock or, alternatively, may have dividend, liquidation or other preferences to our Common Stock. The issuance of additional equity securities, including pursuant to the Yorkville Purchase Agreement described elsewhere in this prospectus, will dilute the holdings of existing stockholders and may reduce the share price of our Common Stock.

Pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan, which became effective on November 9, 2022, we are authorized to grant equity awards to our employees, directors and consultants. In addition, pursuant to the ESPP, which became effective on November 9, 2022, we are authorized to sell shares to our employees. A total of 14,622,712 and 1,462,271 shares of our Common Stock have been reserved for future issuance under the Equity Incentive Plan and the ESPP, respectively. In addition, the Equity Incentive Plan and ESPP provide for annual automatic increases in the number of shares reserved thereunder, in each case, beginning on January 1, 2023. As a result of such annual increases, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause the price of our Common Stock to fall.

75

Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement entered into in connection with the Business Combination, certain stockholders of Vickers and Legacy Scilex can each demand that we register their registrable securities under certain circumstances and will each also have piggyback registration rights for these securities. In addition, we are required to file and maintain an effective registration statement under the Securities Act covering such securities and certain of our other securities. We have filed the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part in order to satisfy the foregoing obligations. The registration of these securities will permit the public sale of such securities, subject to certain contractual restrictions imposed by the Registration Rights Agreement and the Merger Agreement. The presence of these additional shares of our Common Stock trading in the public market may have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

If we raise additional funds through collaboration, licensing or other similar arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to ZTlido or our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to the Company. If adequate funds are not available, our ability to achieve profitability or to respond to competitive pressures would be significantly limited and we may be required to delay, significantly curtail or eliminate the development of our product candidates.

Our principal stockholders, directors and executive officers will own a significant percentage of our capital stock, and have significant influence over our management.

Our directors, executive officers, holders of 5% or more of our capital stock and their respective beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 97% of our outstanding voting stock. This concentration of voting power may make it less likely that any other holder of our Common Stock will be able to affect the way we are managed and could delay or prevent an acquisition of the Company on terms that other stockholders may desire. This could prevent transactions in which stockholders might otherwise recover a premium for their shares over current market prices. See “Risk Factors — We are controlled by Sorrento, whose interests may differ from those of our public shareholders” above for additional information regarding Sorrento’s influence and control in the Company. See “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” for information regarding the ownership of our outstanding Common Stock by our directors, executive officers, and current beneficial owners of 5% or more of our voting securities and their respective affiliates.

Our ability to use our net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards may be subject to limitation.

Generally, a change of more than 50% in the ownership of a company’s stock, by value, over a three-year period constitutes an ownership change for U.S. federal income tax purposes. An ownership change may limit our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards attributable to the period prior to the change. We have experienced a corporate reorganization in the past, some ownership changes as a result of the Business Combination and/or some subsequent changes in the future in our stock ownership (some of which shifts are outside our control). As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards to offset U.S. federal taxable income may become subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability for the Company.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”), as amended by the CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and the rules governing net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards. Under the TCJA, as modified by the CARES Act, limits a taxpayer’s ability to utilize NOL carryforwards to 80% of taxable income (as calculated before taking the NOLs, and certain other tax attributes, into account) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020. In addition, NOLs arising in tax years ending after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2021 may be carried back to each of the five taxable years preceding the tax year of such loss, but NOLs arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020 and before January 1, 2026 may not be carried back. NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 can be carried forward indefinitely. NOLs generated in tax years beginning before January 1, 2021 will not be subject to the taxable income limitation, and NOLs generated in tax years ending before January 1, 2018 will continue to have a two-year carryback and 20-year carryforward period. Deferred tax assets for NOLs will need to be measured at the applicable tax rate in effect

76

when the NOL is expected to be utilized. The changes in the carryforward/carryback periods, as well as the new limitation on use of NOLs may significantly impact our ability to utilize our NOLs to offset taxable income in the future.

If our estimates or judgments relating to our critical accounting policies are based on assumptions that change or prove to be incorrect, our operating results could fall below our publicly announced guidance or the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the market price of our Common Stock.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our combined consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses that are not readily apparent from other sources. If our assumptions change or if actual circumstances differ from our assumptions, our operating results may be adversely affected and could fall below our publicly announced guidance or the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the market price of our Common Stock.

Anti-takeover provisions in the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our Company, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

The Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws and the DGCL contains provisions that could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire the Company, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders. Among other things, these provisions include:

Section 203 of the DGCL generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any interested stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which

77

the stockholder became an interested stockholder. We have expressly elected not to be governed by Section 203 of the DGCL until the occurrence of a Sorrento Trigger Event. At that time, such election shall be automatically withdrawn and we will thereafter be governed by Section 203 of the DGCL, except that the restrictions on business combinations of Section 203 of the DGCL will not apply to Sorrento or its current or future Affiliates (as defined in the Certificate of Incorporation) regardless of its percentage ownership of our Common Stock. These provisions could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of the Company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for our stockholders to elect directors of their choosing and cause us to take other corporate actions they desire, including actions that our stockholders may deem advantageous. In addition, because our Board is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace current members of our management team.

These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in the Certificate of Incorporation, the Bylaws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirors to obtain control of the Board or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving the Company. The existence of these provisions could negatively affect the price of our Common Stock and limit opportunities for a stockholder to realize value in a corporate transaction. For information regarding these and other provisions, see the section titled “Description of Our Securities.” In addition, if prospective takeovers are not consummated for any reason, we may experience negative reactions from the financial markets, including negative impacts on the price of our Common Stock.

The Certificate of Incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders and the federal district courts of the United States as the exclusive forum for litigation arising under the Securities Act, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with the Company.

Pursuant to the Certificate of Incorporation, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if and only if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any state court located within the State of Delaware or, if and only if all such state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) and any appellate court therefrom, will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers, employees or stockholders to us or our stockholders; (iii) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our current or former directors, officers, employees or stockholders arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, the Certificate of Incorporation or the Bylaws; (iv) any claim or cause of action seeking to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of the Certificate of Incorporation or the Bylaws; (v) any action or proceeding asserting a claim against us or any of our current or former directors, officers, employees or stockholders as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and (vi) any action asserting an “internal corporate claim,” as that term is defined in Section 115 of the DGCL; provided that, for the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing forum selection provision will not apply to claims arising under the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

The Certificate of Incorporation also provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. The Certificate of Incorporation further provides that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our Common Stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation described above. See the section titled “Description of Our Securities — Anti-Takeover Measures in our Governing Documents and Under Delaware Law — Exclusive Forum.”

The forum selection provisions in the Certificate of Incorporation may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against our directors and officers. The enforceability of similar choice of forum provisions in other

78

companies’ certificates of incorporation has been challenged in legal proceedings and there is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such provisions. In addition, investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. If the enforceability of our forum selection provisions were to be challenged, it may incur additional costs associated with resolving such challenge. While we currently have no basis to expect any such challenge would be successful, if a court were to find its forum selection provisions to be inapplicable or unenforceable with respect to one or more of these specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with having to litigate in other jurisdictions, which could result in a diversion of the time and resources of our employees, management and board of directors, and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are an emerging growth company, and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our Common Stock less attractive to investors.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in its periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding nonbinding advisory stockholder votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict if investors will find our Common Stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our Common Stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the closing of the IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which requires the market value of our Common Stock that is held by non-affiliates to equal or exceed $700 million as of the last business day of the second fiscal quarter of such year, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. As a result, changes in rules of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles or their interpretation, the adoption of new guidance or the application of existing guidance to changes in our business could significantly affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are a controlled company within the meaning of the Nasdaq Listing Rules and, as a result, will qualify for, and may rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. Our stockholders may not have the same protection afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such governance requirements.

Sorrento controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding shares of Common Stock. As a result, we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of Nasdaq. Under these corporate governance standards, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements. For example, controlled companies, within one year of the date of the listing of their common stock:

79

While we do not presently intend to rely on these exemptions, we may opt to utilize these exemptions in the future as long as we remain a controlled company. Accordingly, our stockholders may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

If we cease to be a “controlled company” in the future, we will be required to comply with the Nasdaq listing standards, which may require replacing a number of our directors and will require development of certain other governance-related policies and practices. These and any other actions necessary to achieve compliance with such rules may increase our legal and administrative costs, will make some activities more difficult, time-consuming and costly and may also place additional strain on our personnel, systems and resources.

We will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will devote substantial time to related compliance initiatives.

We incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that Legacy Scilex did not incur as a private company, and these expenses may increase even more after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), as well as rules and regulations adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC and Nasdaq. Our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, we expect these rules and regulations to substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costly, which will increase our operating expenses. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for the Company to obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain sufficient coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on the Board, our board committees or as executive officers. Advocacy efforts by stockholders and third parties may also prompt additional changes in governance and reporting requirements, which could further increase costs.

In addition, we expect that we will need to implement an enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system. An ERP system is intended to combine and streamline the management of our financial, accounting, human resources, sales and marketing and other functions, enabling it to manage operations and track performance more effectively. However, an ERP system would likely require us to complete many processes and procedures for the effective use of the system or to run our business using the system, which may result in substantial costs. Any disruptions or difficulties in implementing or using an ERP system could adversely affect our controls and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, including our ability to forecast or make sales and collect our receivables. Moreover, such disruption or difficulties could result in unanticipated costs and diversion of management attention.

As a public company, we are required to incur additional costs and obligations in order to comply with SEC rules that implement Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Under these rules, we are required to make a formal assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, and once we cease to be an emerging growth company, we will be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404

80

within the prescribed period, we will be engaging in a process to document and evaluate its internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of our internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are designed and operating effectively, and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation to meet the detailed standards under the rules. During the course of our testing, our management may identify material weaknesses or deficiencies which may not be remedied in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. See “Risk Factors — We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Any material weakness may cause us to fail to timely and accurately report our financial results or result in a material misstatement of our financial statements.” above for additional information regarding a previously identified material weakness. These reporting and other obligations place significant demands on our management and administrative and operational resources, including accounting resources.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time-consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of our management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our failure to meet Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements could result in a delisting of our Common Stock.

If we fail to satisfy Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements, such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price requirement, Nasdaq may take steps to delist our Common Stock. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of our Common Stock and would impair a stockholder’s ability to sell or purchase our Common Stock when a stockholder wishes to do so. In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow our Common Stock to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our Common Stock, prevent our Common Stock from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements.

Comprehensive U.S. federal income tax reform could adversely affect the Company.

Changes to tax laws, which changes may have retroactive application, could adversely affect the Company or holders of our Common Stock. In recent years, many changes have been made to applicable tax laws and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future.

The TCJA, which was enacted in 2017, included changes to U.S. federal tax rates, imposed significant additional limitations on the deductibility of interest, allowed for the expensing of capital expenditures, and put into effect the migration from a “worldwide” system of taxation to a modified territorial system. On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the CARES Act, which included certain changes in tax law (including to the TCJA) intended to stimulate the U.S. economy in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, including temporary

81

beneficial changes to the treatment of net operating losses, interest deductibility limitations and payroll tax matters. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which contained certain tax measures, including a corporate alternative minimum tax of 15% on some large corporations, an excise tax of 1% on certain corporate stock buy-backs, and an excise tax with respect to certain drug sales for failing to offer a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. The impact of these tax reforms on holders of our Common Stock is uncertain and could be adverse. We urge our stockholders to consult with their legal and tax advisors with respect to such legislation and the potential tax consequences of investing in our Common Stock.

The Warrants will become exercisable for our Common Stock, which would increase the number of shares eligible for future resale in the public market and result in dilution to our stockholders.

Outstanding warrants to purchase an aggregate of 11,003,988 shares of our Common Stock are exercisable in accordance with the terms of the Warrant Agreement governing those securities. The exercise price of these Warrants is $11.50 per share. To the extent such Warrants are exercised, additional shares of our Common Stock will be issued, which will result in dilution to the holders of our Common Stock and increase the number of shares eligible for resale in the public market. Sales of substantial numbers of such shares in the public market, or the fact that such Warrants may be exercised, could adversely affect the prevailing market prices of our Common Stock. However, there is no guarantee that the Warrants will ever be in the money prior to their expiration, and as such, the Warrants may expire worthless. See below risk factor, “The Warrants may never be in the money, and they may expire worthless and the terms of the Warrants may be amended in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of a majority of the then-outstanding Warrants approve of such amendment.”

The Warrants may never be in the money, they may expire worthless and the terms of the Warrants may be amended in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of a majority of the then-outstanding Warrants approve of such amendment.

As of the date of this prospectus, the exercise price for our Warrants is $11.50 per share of Common Stock. On December 16, 2022, the closing price of our Common Stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market was $3.25. If the price of our shares of Common Stock remains below $11.50 per share, which is the exercise price of our Warrants, we believe our warrantholders will be unlikely to cash exercise their Warrants, resulting in little or no cash proceeds to us. There is no guarantee that our Warrants will be in the money prior to their expiration and, as such, our Warrants may expire worthless.

In addition, the Warrants were issued in registered form under the Warrant Agreement between Continental, as warrant agent, and Vickers. The Warrant Agreement provides that the terms of the Warrants may be amended without the consent of any holder to cure any ambiguity or correct any defective provision or correct any mistake, but requires the approval by the holders of a majority of the then-outstanding Warrants to make any change that adversely affects the interests of the registered holders of Warrants. Accordingly, we may amend the terms of the Warrants in a manner adverse to a holder if holders of a majority of the then-outstanding Warrants approve of such amendment. Although our ability to amend the terms of the Warrants with the consent of majority of the then-outstanding Warrants is unlimited, examples of such amendments could be amendments to, among other things, increase the exercise price of the Warrants, convert the Warrants into cash, shorten the exercise period, or decrease the number of shares of our Common Stock purchasable upon exercise of a Warrant.

We may redeem any unexpired Warrants prior to their exercise at a time that is disadvantageous to you, thereby making the Warrants worthless.

We have the ability to redeem outstanding Warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration, at a price of $0.01 per Warrant, provided that the closing price of our Common Stock equals or exceeds $18.00 per share (as adjusted for share subdivisions, share dividends, rights issuances, subdivisions,

82

reorganizations, recapitalizations and the like) on each of the 20 trading days within any 30-trading-day period commencing after the Warrants become exercisable and ending on the third trading day prior to the date on which notice of redemption is given. If and when the Warrants become redeemable by us, we may exercise our redemption right even if we are unable to register or qualify the underlying securities for sale under all applicable state securities laws. Redemption of the outstanding Warrants could force the holders thereof to: (i) exercise such Warrants and pay the exercise price therefor at a time when it may be disadvantageous for a holder to do so; (ii) sell such Warrants at the then-current market price when a holder might otherwise wish to hold such Warrants; or (iii) accept the nominal redemption price that, at the time the outstanding Warrants are called for redemption, is likely to be substantially less than the market value of such Warrants.

In addition, we may redeem the Warrants at any time after they become exercisable and prior to their expiration for a number of shares of our Common Stock determined based on the fair market value of our Common Stock. The value received upon exercise of the Warrants (1) may be less than the value the holders would have received if they had exercised their Warrants at a later time where the underlying share price is higher and (2) may not compensate the holders for the value of the Warrants.

83

MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA

Certain information contained in this prospectus relates to or is based on studies, publications, surveys and other data obtained from third-party sources and our own internal estimates and research. While we believe these third-party sources to be reliable as of the date of this prospectus, we have not independently verified the market and industry data contained in this prospectus or the underlying assumptions relied on therein. Finally, while we believe our own internal research is reliable, such research has not been verified by any independent source. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are liable for the information provided in this prospectus. The industry in which we operate is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described in the section of this prospectus titled “Risk Factors”. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates made by the independent parties and by us.

84