Item 1A. Risk Factors

We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and you should carefully consider them. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, we encourage you to consider the following discussion of risk factors, in its entirety, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other public filings with the SEC. Other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our Business

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history, and it is difficult for potential investors to evaluate our business.

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company founded in April 2017 and have only recently commenced revenue-producing operations and our historical operations have primarily consisted of the preliminary formulation, testing and development of our various product candidates. Our limited operating history makes it difficult for potential investors to evaluate our initial product candidates or our prospective operations. As an early-stage company, we are subject to all the risks inherent in the initial organization, financing, expenditures, complications and delays in a new business. Further, biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking, involves a substantial degree of risk and is a capital-intensive business. Accordingly, you should consider our prospects in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early stages of product development and commercialization, especially clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies such as ours. As a company with a limited operating history, we may be unable to:

There can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful or that we will ultimately be able to attain profitability. If we cannot successfully execute any one of the foregoing, our business may not succeed.

Our business is adversely affected by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the impact could be material.

Public health outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics have had, and could in the future have, an adverse impact on our operations and financial condition. The continuing pandemic caused by the novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) has caused many countries, including the United States, to declare national emergencies and implement preventive measures such as travel bans and shelter-in-place or total lock-down orders, some of which have eased. The continuation or re-implementation of these bans and orders remains uncertain. In some cases, these bans and orders have influenced certain aspects of our business. For example, we began commercializing our Biorphen product in December 2019; however, we have encountered difficulty in creating significant market pull-through demand for Biorphen in 2020 as our in-person sales calls to key personnel at hospitals and surgical centers and introductory product presentation seminars were cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are working on other promotional efforts to drive further adoption in the market, but we expect that our Biorphen sales and marketing efforts will continue to be adversely affected by the pandemic in 2021. COVID-19 may also affect our ability to complete recruitment and data analysis for our clinical trials and our ability to conduct research and development of our complement programs in our planned timeframe. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our operations will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the duration and severity of the outbreak, and the actions that may be required to contain COVID-19 or treat its impact. In particular, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may experience disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies, drug manufacturing and clinical trials including:

We may need to grow the size of our organization, and we could experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we may need to expand the size of our employee and consultant/contractor base. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees. In addition, our management may have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and any other future product candidates and our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our future growth.

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

We face a potential risk of product liability as a result of the commercialization of our approved products and clinical testing of our new product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize our current product candidates or any other future product. For example, we may be sued if our approved products or any product we develop, including any of our product candidates, or any materials that we use in our products allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. In the United States, 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. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We carry product liability insurance we consider adequate for our current level of expected product sales, clinical testing and product development. Our inability to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of our approved products or additional products we develop. Although we will endeavor to obtain and maintain such insurance in coverage amounts we deem adequate, 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 we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may 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.

We may acquire businesses or products, or form strategic alliances, in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such acquisitions.

We may acquire additional businesses or products, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction.

We rely significantly on information technology and any failure, inadequacy, interruption or security lapse of that technology, including any cybersecurity incidents, could harm our ability to operate our business effectively.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of third parties with which we contract are vulnerable to damage from cyber-attacks, computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. System failures, accidents or security breaches could cause interruptions in our operations, and could result in a material disruption of our product development and clinical activities and business operations, in addition to possibly requiring substantial expenditures of resources to remedy. Cybersecurity attacks in particular are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in systems, misappropriation of our confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data. The loss, theft or sabotage of product development or clinical trial data 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 liability and our development programs and the development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Sales of counterfeits of any of our product candidates, as well as unauthorized sales of any of our product candidates, may have adverse effects on our revenues, business and results of operations and damage our brand and reputation.

Our current approved products or our new product candidates may become subject to competition from counterfeit pharmaceutical products, which are pharmaceutical products sold under the same or very similar brand names and/or having a similar appearance to genuine products, but which are sold without proper licenses or approvals. Such products divert sales from genuine products, often are of lower cost, often are of lower quality (having different ingredients or formulations, for example), and have the potential to damage the reputation for quality and effectiveness of the genuine product. Obtaining regulatory approval for our product candidates is a complex and lengthy process. If during the period while the regulatory approval is pending, illegal sales of counterfeit products begin, consumers may buy such counterfeit products, which could have an adverse impact on our revenues, business and results of operations. In addition, if illegal sales of counterfeits result in adverse side effects to consumers, we may be associated with any negative publicity resulting from such incidents. Although pharmaceutical regulation, control and enforcement systems throughout the world have been increasingly active in policing counterfeit pharmaceuticals, we may not be able to prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling or purporting to sell counterfeit products competing with our current products or our new product candidates. Such sales may also be occurring without our knowledge. The existence and any increase in production or sales of counterfeit products or unauthorized sales could negatively impact our revenues, brand reputation, business and results of operations.

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

We depend entirely on the success of current approved products and our new product candidates. If we are unable to generate revenues from our approved products and new product candidates, our ability to create stockholder value will be limited.

We have various product candidates under review with the FDA and are in the early stages of clinical development with a number of new product candidates, and have not yet generated significant revenues from our approved drug products. We plan on submitting our clinical trial protocols and receiving approvals from the FDA and international regulatory authorities before we commence any clinical trials. We may not be successful in obtaining acceptance from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to start our clinical trials. If we do not obtain such acceptance, the time in which we expect to commence clinical programs for any product candidate will be extended and such extension will increase our expenses and increase our need for additional capital. Moreover, there is no guarantee that our clinical trials will be successful or that we will continue clinical development in support of additional product approvals from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any indication. We note that most product candidates never reach the clinical development stage and even those that do commence clinical development have only a small chance of successfully completing clinical development and gaining regulatory approval. Therefore, our business substantially depends entirely on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur.

We face competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We have existing competitors and potential new competitors in a number of jurisdictions, many of which have or will have substantially greater name recognition, commercial infrastructures and financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. Established competitors may invest heavily to quickly discover and develop novel compounds that could make any of our product candidates obsolete or uneconomical. In addition, mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors, potentially reducing or eliminating our commercial opportunity. Furthermore, such potential competitors may enter the market before us, and their products may be designed to circumvent our pending patent applications and any patents we may receive. They may also challenge, narrow or invalidate any granted patents or our patent applications, and such patents and patent applications may fail to provide adequate protection for our product candidates. Any new product that competes with an approved product may need to demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, cost, convenience, tolerability and safety to be commercially successful. Other competitive factors, including generic competition, could force us to lower prices or could result in reduced sales. In addition, new products developed by others could emerge as competitors to our product candidates. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing and commercializing products before or more successfully than our product candidates.

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive. We face competition (from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide) with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future. We compete directly with companies that focus on 505(b)(2) and generic drugs, and companies dedicating their resources to novel forms of therapies for these indications. Many of these competitors are attempting to develop products for our target indications. We face the risk that our competitors will develop a competing product using the same 505(b)(2) pathway that we intend to pursue. Our business model is to focus on product candidates that we consider to have a shorter timeline to, and lower cost of, regulatory approval. These attributes can also be taken advantage of by our competitors to develop and obtain marketing approval of a competing product. In addition, following FDA approval of our product candidates for which we have no patent protection, our competitors may seek to develop a competing product pursuant to the 505(j) pathway, which is an abbreviated pathway used for the regulatory approval of generic product candidates. As a result of the foregoing, we may find that the market opportunity for our product candidates for which we have no patent protection is relatively small due to the fact that barriers to entry are low and generic competition may follow within relatively short time periods after our product is approved. With the proliferation of new drugs and therapies in these areas, we expect to face increasingly intense competition as new technologies become available. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing products and new products that may become available in the future.

There are products already approved for all of the indications we are targeting. Many of these approved products are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. This may make it difficult for us to achieve our business strategy of replacing existing products with our product candidates. In addition, where we are able to offer benefits over existing products offered by our competitors, those competitors may reformulate their drugs in a manner that mimics the benefits offered by our product candidates. As noted below, many of our product candidates are not eligible for patent protection or the market and data exclusivity provisions under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Consequently, our commercial operations face significant direct competition and our competitors may develop products that are similar to ours and perhaps safer, more effective, more convenient or less costly than any that we are developing or that would render our product candidates obsolete or non-competitive. Our inability to successfully compete could negatively impact our business, results of operations and stock price.

Our competitors may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for comparable products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, and the risk of our competitors doing so may lead us to develop drug candidates without disclosing certain information with regard to such candidates.

The FDCA provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA or 505(b)(2) NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, (e.g., for new indications, dosages, strengths or dosage forms of an existing drug). Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. As a result, many of our competitors have the ability to bring a product candidate to market more rapidly than we can and depending on the nature of their product candidate they could substantially delay the introduction of our product candidate into the market if their product qualifies for the market and data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA. In order to preserve any competitive advantage, we will, at times, make the decision to pursue a product candidate for which we will not disclose the API, dosage or reference drug until such time as we believe that any competitive advantage would not be materially compromised by public disclosure of such information, which in some cases may be as late as our receipt of marketing approval from the FDA. Our business currently depends on our ability to bring our product candidates to market in a manner that preserves our perceived competitive advantage and any loss of that competitive advantage could negatively impact our business, results of operations and stock price.

If we are not able to obtain any required regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidate and our ability to generate revenue will be limited.

We may be required to successfully complete clinical trials for our product candidates before we can apply for marketing approval. Even if we complete any such clinical trials, it does not assure marketing approval. Any such clinical trials may be unsuccessful, which would materially harm our business. Even if such initial clinical trials are successful, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials to establish our product candidates’ safety and efficacy, before an NDA or foreign equivalents can be submitted to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for marketing approval of our product candidates.

Our success depends on the receipt of regulatory approval and the issuance of such regulatory approvals is uncertain and subject to a number of risks, including the following:

Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates for the foregoing, or any other reasons, will prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, and our ability to generate sufficient revenue will be materially impaired. We cannot guarantee that regulators will agree with our assessment of the results of the clinical trials we intend to conduct in the future or that such trials will be successful. The FDA and other regulators have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional clinical trials, or pre-clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from pre-clinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive, often takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon, among other things, the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, the jurisdiction in which regulatory approval is sought and the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Changes in regulatory approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for a submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory approval obtained in one jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that a product candidate will receive regulatory approval in all jurisdictions in which we may seek approval, but the failure to obtain approval in one jurisdiction may negatively impact our ability to seek approval in a different jurisdiction. Failure to obtain regulatory marketing approval for our product candidates will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate, and our ability to generate sufficient revenue will be materially impaired.

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

We intend to seek FDA approval through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for the majority of our product candidates. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, added Section 505(b)(2) to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for our product candidates as anticipated, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates would likely substantially increase. Moreover, the inability to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market faster than our product candidates, which could materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we are allowed to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for a product candidate, we cannot assure you that we will receive the requisite or timely approvals for commercialization of such product candidate. For example, we had under development a patented injectable pentoxifylline therapeutic candidate, which we believed would satisfy the requirements of the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. However, based on a pre-IND meeting with the FDA in March 2018 to discuss the clinical and regulatory pathway for the product, we have decided to suspend all further development activities for this candidate indefinitely due to extraordinarily high costs of the clinical trials that would be required by the FDA.

Notwithstanding the approval of many products by the FDA pursuant to Section 505(b)(2), over the last few years some pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) to allow reliance on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness. If the FDA changes its interpretation of Section 505(b)(2), or if the FDA’s interpretation is successfully challenged in court, this could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any Section 505(b)(2) application that we submit. In addition, we expect that our competitors will file citizens’ petitions with the FDA in an attempt to persuade the FDA that our product candidate, or the clinical studies that support their approval, contain deficiencies. Such actions by our competitors could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2).

Moreover, the FDA recently adopted an interpretation of the three-year exclusivity provisions whereby a 505(b)(2) application can be blocked by exclusivity even if does not rely on the previously approved drug that has exclusivity (or any safety or effectiveness information regarding that drug). Under the FDA’s new interpretation, approval may be blocked by exclusivity awarded to a previously-approved drug product that shares certain innovative features with our product, even if our 505(b)(2) application does not identify the previously-approved drug product as a listed drug or rely upon any of its safety or efficacy data. Any failure to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates would significantly limit our ability to generate sufficient revenues, and any failure to obtain such approval for all of the indications and labeling claims we deem desirable could reduce our potential revenues.

An NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2) subjects us to the risk that we may be subject to a patent infringement lawsuit that would delay or prevent the review or approval of our product candidate.

The 505(b)(2) application would enable us to reference published literature or the FDA’s previous findings of safety and effectiveness for the branded reference drug. For NDAs submitted under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, the patent certification and related provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act apply. In accordance with Hatch-Waxman Act, in seeking approval for a drug through such an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

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

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the holder of patents that the 505 (b)(2) application references may file a patent infringement lawsuit after receiving notice of the Paragraph IV certification. Filing of a patent infringement lawsuit against the filer of the 505(b)(2) applicant within 45 days of the patent owner’s receipt of notice triggers a one-time, automatic, 30-month stay of the FDA’s ability to approve the 505(b)(2) NDA, unless patent litigation is resolved in favor of the Paragraph IV filer or the patent expires before that time. Accordingly, we may invest a significant amount of time and expense in the development of one or more product candidates only to be subject to significant delay and patent litigation before such product candidates may be commercialized, if at all.

In addition, a 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired. The FDA may also require us to perform one or more additional clinical studies or measurements to support the change from the branded reference drug, which could be time consuming and could substantially delay our achievement of regulatory approvals for such product candidates. The FDA may also reject our future 505(b)(2) submissions and require us to file such submissions under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA, which would require us to provide extensive data to establish safety and effectiveness of the drug for the proposed use and could cause delay and be considerably more expensive and time consuming. These factors, among others, may limit our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Companies that produce branded reference drugs routinely bring litigation against ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicants that seek regulatory approval to manufacture and market generic and reformulated forms of their branded products. These companies often allege patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights as the basis for filing suit against an ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant. Likewise, patent holders may bring patent infringement suits against companies that are currently marketing and selling their approved generic or reformulated products. Litigation to enforce or defend intellectual property rights is often complex and often involves significant expense and can delay or prevent introduction or sale of our product candidates. If patents are held to be valid and infringed by our product candidates in a particular jurisdiction, we would, unless we could obtain a license from the patent holder, be required to cease selling in that jurisdiction and may need to relinquish or destroy existing stock in that jurisdiction. There may also be situations where we use our business judgment and decide to market and sell our approved products, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) have not been finally resolved by the courts, which is known as an “at-risk launch.” The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner and not necessarily by the profits earned by the infringer. In the case of a willful infringement, the definition of which is subjective, such damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent and, to a lesser extent, 505(b)(2) products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than bioequivalent and, to a lesser extent, 505(b)(2) products, resulting in disproportionate damages compared to any profits earned by the infringer. An adverse decision in patent litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for our additional product candidates, we may not be able to successfully commercialize these products, and the revenue that we generate from those sales, if any, may be limited.

If approved for marketing, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon each product’s acceptance by the medical community, including physicians, patients and health care payors. The degree of market acceptance for any of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our product candidates are approved, but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, health care payors, and patients, we may not generate sufficient revenue and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

In addition, even if we obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, the timing or scope of any approvals may prohibit or reduce our ability to commercialize our product candidates successfully. For example, if the approval process takes too long, we may miss market opportunities and give other companies the ability to develop competing products or establish market dominance. Any regulatory approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render our product candidates not commercially viable. For example, 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 any of our product candidates, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve any of our product candidates with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that indication. Further, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may place conditions on approvals or require risk management plans or a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. The FDA may also require a REMS for an approved product when new safety information emerges. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of our product candidates. Moreover, product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following the initial marketing of the product. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial success of our product candidates.

We are subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our product candidates could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and withdrawal from the market and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

The FDA or foreign equivalent may still impose significant restrictions on our products indicated uses or the conditions of approval, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly and time-consuming post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and post-market surveillance to monitor safety and efficacy. Our product candidates will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements governing the manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, advertising, promotion, recordkeeping and reporting of adverse events and other post-market information. These requirements include registration with the FDA, as well as continued compliance with current Good Clinical Practices regulations (“cGCPs”) for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents.

The FDA has the authority to require a REMS as part of an NDA or after approval, which may impose further requirements or restrictions on the distribution or use of an approved drug, such as limiting prescribing to certain physicians or medical centers that have undergone specialized training, limiting treatment to patients who meet certain safe-use criteria or requiring patient testing, monitoring and/or enrollment in a registry.

With respect to sales and marketing activities by us or any future partner, advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules in addition to other applicable federal, state and local laws in the United States and similar legal requirements in other countries. In the United States, the distribution of product samples to physicians must comply with the requirements of the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act. Application holders must obtain FDA approval for product and manufacturing changes, depending on the nature of the change. We may also be subject, directly or indirectly through our customers and partners, to various fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, U.S. False Claims Act, and similar state laws, which impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs. If we participate in the U.S. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the Federal Supply Schedule of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or other government drug programs, we will be subject to complex laws and regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations. All of these activities are also potentially subject to U.S. federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Similar requirements exist in many of these areas in other countries.

In addition, if any of our product candidates are approved for a particular indication, our product labeling, advertising and promotion would be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the product’s approved FDA labeling. If we receive marketing approval for our product candidates, physicians may nevertheless legally prescribe our products to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability and government fines. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees of permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

If we or a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or we or our manufacturers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be subject to the following administrative or judicial sanctions:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue. Adverse regulatory action, whether pre- or post-approval, can also potentially lead to product liability claims and increase our product liability exposure.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Significant additional labeling or warning requirements or limitations on the availability of our products may inhibit sales of affected products.

Various jurisdictions may seek to adopt significant additional product labeling or warning requirements or limitations on the availability of our products relating to the content or perceived adverse health consequences of our products. Federal laws may preempt some or all of these attempts by state or localities to impose additional labeling or warning requirements. If these types of requirements become applicable to our products under current or future environmental or health laws or regulations, they may inhibit sales of our products. Moreover, if we fail to meet compliance deadlines for any such new requirements, our products may be deemed misbranded or mislabeled and could be subject to enforcement action, or we could be exposed to private lawsuits alleging misleading labels or product promotion.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the health care system that could prevent or delay marketing approval for our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell our product candidates. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”) changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for drugs. In addition, this legislation authorized Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to use formularies where they can limit the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. As a result of this legislation and the expansion of federal coverage of drug products, we expect that there will be additional pressure to contain and reduce costs. These cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for our product candidates and could seriously harm our business. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively referred to as the Health Care Reform Law, was enacted, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The Health Care Reform Law, among other things, imposed reporting requirements on manufacturers related to drug samples and financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and established a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program.

Some of the provisions of the Health Care Reform Law have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Health Care Reform Law, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Health Care Reform Law. Since January 2017, former President Trump had signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay, circumvent or loosen certain requirements mandated by the Health Care Reform Law. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Health Care Reform Law. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, two bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Health Care Reform Law have been signed into law. The Tax Act included a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Health Care Reform Law on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On January 22, 2018, former President Trump signed a continuing resolution on appropriations for fiscal year 2018 that delayed the implementation of certain Health Care Reform Law-mandated fees, including the so-called “Cadillac” tax on certain high cost employer-sponsored insurance plans, the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share, and the medical device excise tax on non-exempt medical devices. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Health Care Reform, effective January 1, 2019, to increase from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Health Care Reform is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Act. While the Texas U.S. District Court Judge, as well as the Trump administration and CMS, have stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect pending appeal of the decision, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the Health Care Reform will impact the ACA and our business. We cannot predict the impact on our business of changes to current laws and regulations. However, any changes that lower reimbursements for products for which we may obtain regulatory approval, or that impose administrative and financial burdens on us, could adversely affect our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Health Care Reform Law was enacted. These changes include, among others, aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, which may alter or completely replace the existing health care financing structure. Any of these reform measures could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services, which could result in reduced demand for any such product candidate that we may have developed or additional pricing pressures on our business.

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. On January 31, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, proposed modifications to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute discount safe harbor for the purpose of reducing the cost of drug products to consumers which, among other things, if finalized, will affect discounts paid by manufacturers to Medicare Part D plans, Medicaid managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers working with these organizations. While some of these and other proposed measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and government administration officials have each indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs.

The policies of the FDA or similar regulatory authorities may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, in December 2016, the 21^st Century Cures Act was signed into law. The 21^st Century Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and biologics and spur innovation, but it has not yet been fully implemented and its ultimate implementation is unclear. Furthermore, the Trump administration has 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. If these executive actions impose constraints on the FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted. 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, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

If we market our existing approved products or any of our new product candidates in a manner that violates health care fraud and abuse laws, or if we violate government price reporting laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA enforces laws and regulations, which require that the promotion of pharmaceutical products be consistent with the approved prescribing information. While physicians may prescribe an approved product for a so-called “off label” use, it is unlawful for a pharmaceutical company to promote its products in a manner that is inconsistent with its approved label and any company which engages in such conduct can be subject to significant liability. Similarly, industry codes in the EU and other foreign jurisdictions prohibit companies from engaging in off-label promotion and regulatory agencies in various countries enforce violations of the code with civil penalties. While we intend to ensure that our promotional materials are consistent with our label, regulatory agencies may disagree with our assessment and may issue untitled letters, warning letters or may institute other civil or criminal enforcement proceedings. In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal health care fraud and abuse laws have been applied in recent years to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. These laws include, among others, the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, U.S. False Claims Act and similar state laws. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of their exceptions and safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of these laws.

The U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any health care item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed health care programs. This statute has been interpreted broadly to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and others on the other hand. Although there are several statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not, in all cases, meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Moreover, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the Health Care Reform Law, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and other criminal health care fraud statutes; a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statutes or specific intent to violate them in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Health Care Reform Law provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. False Claims Act. Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid.

Over the past few years, several pharmaceutical and other health care companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of alleged promotional and marketing activities, such as: allegedly providing free trips, free goods, sham consulting fees and grants and other monetary benefits to prescribers; reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates; engaging in off-label promotion that caused claims to be submitted to Medicare or Medicaid for non-covered, off-label uses; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program to reduce liability for Medicaid rebates. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include significant administrative, criminal, and civil monetary penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer’s products from reimbursement under government programs, fines and imprisonment.

We are completely dependent on third parties to manufacture our approved products and new product candidates, and our commercialization of our product candidates could be halted, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to obtain manufacturing approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of our product candidates or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the capability or infrastructure to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) in our product candidates for use in our clinical trials or for commercial product, if any. In addition, we do not have the capability to encapsulate any of our product candidates as a finished drug product for commercial distribution. As a result, we will be obligated to rely on contract manufacturers, if and when any of our product candidates are approved for commercialization. While we have entered into certain agreements with contract manufacturers for clinical and commercial supply, there can be no assurance we will be able to maintain those relationships or engage additional contract manufacturers for clinical or commercial supply of any of our product candidates on favorable terms to us, or at all.

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA to the FDA or their equivalents to other relevant regulatory authorities. We will not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. These cGMP regulations cover all aspects of the manufacturing, testing, quality control and record keeping relating to our product candidates. If our contract manufacturers do not successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

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

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

Any manufacturing problem or the loss of a contract manufacturer could be disruptive to our operations and result in lost sales. Additionally, we rely on third parties to supply the raw materials needed to manufacture our potential products. Any reliance on suppliers may involve several risks, including a potential inability to obtain critical materials and reduced control over production costs, delivery schedules, reliability and quality. Any unanticipated disruption to a contract manufacturer caused by problems at suppliers could delay shipment of Biorphen or any of our product candidates, increase our cost of goods sold and result in lost sales.

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

We may not be able to establish agreements with third parties with whom we wish to collaborate and, if we are able to establish them, we may not be able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, which could result in alterations or delays of our development and commercialization plans.

We face significant competition in seeking appropriate third parties. Whether we reach a definitive agreement will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the third parties’ resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement, and the proposed parties’ evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering the product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. Potential third parties may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. The terms of any arrangements that we may establish may also not be favorable to us.

Agreements with third parties are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future third parties. We may not be able to negotiate agreements on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate, reduce or delay its development program, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidate or bring it to market and generate product revenue.

In addition, any future agreements that we enter into may not be successful. The success of our arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our third-party collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. Disagreements between parties to an agreement regarding clinical development and commercialization matters can lead to delays in the development process or commercializing the applicable product candidate and, in some cases, termination of the agreement. These disagreements can be difficult to resolve if neither of the parties has final decision-making authority. Collaborations with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies and other third parties often are terminated or allowed to expire by the other party. Any such termination or expiration would adversely affect us financially and could harm our business reputation.

We may need to rely on third parties to conduct clinical trials for our future product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our product candidates and our business would be substantially harmed.

We have entered into agreements with third-party CROs to conduct and manage our clinical programs including contracting with clinical sites to perform our clinical studies. We plan to rely heavily on these parties for execution of clinical studies for our product candidates and will control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we will be responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on CROs and clinical sites will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs will be required to comply with cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any products in clinical development. The FDA and its foreign equivalents enforce these cGCP regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA or other regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with cGCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced under cGMP regulations and will require a large number of test subjects. Our failure or the failure of our CROs or clinical sites to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action up to and including civil and criminal penalties.

Although we intend to design the clinical trials for our product candidates in consultation with CROs, we expect that the CROs will manage all of the clinical trials conducted at contracted clinical sites. As a result, many important aspects of our drug development programs would be outside of our direct control. In addition, the CROs and clinical sites may not perform all of their obligations under arrangements with us or in compliance with regulatory requirements. If the CROs or clinical sites do not perform clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates for the subject indication may be delayed or our development program materially and irreversibly harmed. We cannot control the amount and timing of resources these CROs and clinical sites will devote to our program or any of our product candidates. If we are unable to rely on clinical data collected by our CROs, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of our clinical trials, which could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs or clinical sites terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or clinical sites. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, any such clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any of our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

We enter into various contracts in the normal course of our business, some or all of which may require us to indemnify the other party to the contract. In the event we have to perform under these indemnification provisions, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the normal course of business, we periodically may enter into commercial, service, collaboration, licensing, consulting and other agreements that contain indemnification provisions. With respect to our commercial agreements, vendors typically ask for indemnification from any third-party product liability claims that could result from the production, use or consumption of the product, as well as for alleged infringements of any patent or other intellectual property right by a third party. Should our obligation under an indemnification provision exceed applicable insurance coverage or if we were denied insurance coverage, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Similarly, if we are relying on a third party to indemnify us and the party is denied insurance coverage, or the indemnification obligation exceeds the applicable insurance coverage and does not have other assets available to indemnify us, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Any termination or suspension of, or delays in the commencement or completion of, any necessary studies of any of our product candidates for any indications could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our commercial prospects.

The commencement and completion of clinical studies can be delayed for a number of reasons, including delays related to:

Product development costs for any of our product candidates will increase if we have delays in testing or approval or if we need to perform more or larger clinical studies than planned. Additionally, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur and we may need to amend study protocols to reflect these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our study protocols to the FDA, comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of that study. If we experience delays in completion of, or if we, the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the IRB, or other reviewing entities, or any of our clinical study sites suspend or terminate any of our clinical studies of any of our product candidates, its commercial prospects may be materially harmed and our ability to generate sufficient product revenues will be delayed. Any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to generate sufficient revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, termination or suspension of, or a delay in the commencement or completion of, clinical studies may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In addition, if one or more clinical studies are delayed, our competitors may be able to bring products to market before we do, and the commercial viability of any of our product candidates could be significantly reduced.

Clinical 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 of drug product candidates is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. We cannot assure you that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will view the results as we do or that any future trials of any of our product candidates will achieve positive results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through pre-clinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Any future clinical trial results for our product candidates may not be successful.

In addition, a number of factors could contribute to a lack of favorable safety and efficacy results for any of our product candidates. For example, such trials could result in increased variability due to varying site characteristics, such as local standards of care, differences in evaluation period and surgical technique, and due to varying patient characteristics including demographic factors and health status.

We may need to conduct clinical trials for our new product candidates and we may be delayed in commercializing or fail to find success in these trials. Further, the results of any clinical trial may not be predictive of future trial results. Positive results in preclinical testing and early clinical trials do not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of pharmaceutical companies have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, including in Phase 3, after promising results in preclinical testing and early clinical trials. These setbacks have included negative safety and efficacy observations in later clinical trials, including previously unreported adverse events.

Phase 3 clinical trials often produce unsatisfactory results even though prior clinical trials were successful. Moreover, the results of clinical trials may be unsatisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities even if we believe those clinical trials to be successful. The FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agencies may suspend one or all of our clinical trials or require that we conduct additional clinical, nonclinical, manufacturing, validation or drug product quality studies and submit that data before considering or reconsidering any NDA or similar foreign regulatory application we may submit. Depending on the extent of these additional studies, approval of any applications that we submit may be significantly delayed or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional studies we conduct may not be considered sufficient by the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agencies to provide regulatory approval.

If any of these outcomes occur, we may not receive approval for our product candidate.

Third-party coverage and reimbursement and health care cost containment initiatives and treatment guidelines may constrain our future revenues.

Our ability to successfully market Biorphen and our product candidates will depend in part on the coverage and level of reimbursement that government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other organizations provide for the cost of our products and related treatments. Countries in which any of our product candidates are sold through reimbursement schemes under national health insurance programs frequently require that manufacturers and sellers of pharmaceutical products obtain governmental approval of initial prices and any subsequent price increases. In certain countries, including the United States, government-funded and private medical care plans can exert significant indirect pressure on prices. Increasingly, third-party payors attempt to contain health care costs in ways that are likely to impact our development of products, including:

We may not be able to sell Biorphen or our product candidates profitably if adequate prices are not approved or coverage and reimbursement is unavailable or limited in scope.

We are subject to extensive laws and regulations related to data privacy, and our failure to comply with these laws and regulations could harm our business.

We are subject to laws and regulations governing data privacy and the protection of personal information. These laws and regulations govern our processing of personal data, including the collection, access, use, analysis, modification, storage, transfer, security breach notification, destruction and disposal of personal data. There are foreign and state law versions of these laws and regulations to which we are currently and/or may in the future, be subject. For example, the collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed by the GDPR. The GDPR, which is wide-ranging in scope, imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third-party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Union to the United States, provides an enforcement authority and imposes large monetary penalties for noncompliance. The GDPR requirements apply not only to third-party transactions, but also to transfers of information within our company, including employee information. In addition, in 2018 California adopted a new privacy law that became effective on January 1, 2020, which borrows heavily from the GDPR. The GDPR and similar data privacy laws of other jurisdictions place significant responsibilities on us and create potential liability in relation to personal data that we or our third-party service providers process, including in clinical trials conducted in the United States and the European Union. In addition, we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards relating to privacy and data protection in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions, and we cannot determine the impact such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business.

Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property Rights

We will depend on rights to certain pharmaceutical compounds that have been acquired by us. We do not have complete control over these pharmaceutical compounds and any loss of our rights to them could prevent us from selling our products.

We are dependent on the assignment and licensing from third parties for certain of our pharmaceutical compounds and potential product candidates. Our rights to use the pharmaceutical compounds we were assigned are subject to the negotiation of, continuation of and compliance with the terms of those assignments and licenses. Moreover, under these agreements, any related patents may remain under the control of the assignor or licensor. Our rights to develop and commercialize the product candidates are subject to the validity of the intellectual property rights. Enforcement of any assigned or licensed patents or defense or any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents is often subject to the control or cooperation of the assignor or licensor. Legal action could be initiated against the original owners of the intellectual property that we acquired and an adverse outcome in such legal action could harm our business because it might prevent such companies or institutions from continuing to assign intellectual property that we may need to operate our business.

In addition, our rights to practice the inventions claimed in any patents and patent applications are subject to our assignors and licensors abiding by the terms of those agreements and not terminating them. These agreements may be terminated by the assignor or licensor if we are in material breach of certain terms or conditions of the agreement or in certain other circumstances. Our rights under these agreements are subject to our continued compliance with the terms of the agreements, including the payment of royalties and other payment due under the agreements. Termination of these agreements could prevent us from marketing some or all of our products. Because of the complexity of our products and the patents, determining the scope of the assignment or license and related royalty obligations can be difficult and can lead to disputes between us and the assignor or licensor. An unfavorable resolution of such a dispute could lead to an increase in the royalties payable pursuant to the agreement. If the assignor or licensor believed we were not paying the royalties due under the agreement or were otherwise not in compliance with the terms of the agreement, the assignor or licensor might attempt to revoke the agreement. If such an attempt were successful, we might be barred from producing and selling some or all of our products.

It may be difficult and costly to protect our intellectual property rights, and we cannot ensure the protection of these rights.

Our commercial success will depend, in part, on obtaining and maintaining patent protection for our technologies, products and processes, successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges and successfully enforcing these patents against third-party competitors. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws may diminish the value of our intellectual property. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowable or enforceable in our patents. Patent and patent applications relating to our product candidates and related technologies may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented by third parties and might not protect us against competitors with similar products or technologies.

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, permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage, or provide us with any competitive advantage at all. For example, others have filed, and in the future are likely to file, patent applications covering products and technologies that are similar, identical or competitive to any of our product candidates, or important to our business. We cannot be certain that any patent application owned by a third party will not have priority over patent applications filed by us, or that we will not be involved in interference, opposition or invalidity proceedings before U.S. or foreign patent offices.

Additionally, if we or one of our licensing partners initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering any product candidate, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering any other product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“U.S. PTO”), or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, e.g. opposition proceedings. Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment of our patents or our licensors’ patents in such a way that they no longer cover product candidates or competitive products. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on any product candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

In the future, we may rely on know-how and trade secrets to protect technology, especially in cases when we believe patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. However, know-how and trade secrets are difficult to protect. While we intend to require employees, academic collaborators, consultants and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements, we may not be able to adequately protect our trade secrets or other proprietary or licensed information. Typically, research collaborators and scientific advisors have rights to publish data and information in which we may have rights. If we cannot maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, our ability to receive patent protection and our ability to protect valuable information owned by us may be imperiled. Enforcing a claim that a third-party entity illegally obtained and is using any of our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets than patents. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those offered 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 do not have, or where we do not pursue and obtain, patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Even if we pursue and obtain issued patents in particular jurisdictions, our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent third parties from so competing.

Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, especially those relating to biotechnology. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents, if obtained, or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. Patent protection must ultimately be sought on a country-by-country basis, which is an expensive and time-consuming process with uncertain outcomes. Accordingly, we may choose not to seek patent protection in certain countries, and we will not have the benefit of patent protection in such countries.

Moreover, proceedings to enforce our patent rights, or those of our licensors or partners, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our in-licensed patents, or any patents that we may own in the future, at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our owned or in-licensed patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

If we fail to obtain or maintain patent protection or trade secret protection for our product candidates or our technologies, third parties could use our proprietary information, which could impair our ability to compete in the market and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and attain profitability.

We may also rely on the trademarks we may develop to distinguish our products from the products of our competitors. We cannot guarantee that any trademark applications filed by us or our business partners will be approved. Third parties may also oppose such trademark applications, or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks. In the event that the trademarks we use are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition, and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing new brands. Further, we cannot provide assurance that competitors will not infringe the trademarks we use, or that we will have adequate resources to enforce these trademarks.

Changes in either U.S. or foreign patent law or interpretation of such laws could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and it therefore is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation.

An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned 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. A third party that files a patent application in the U.S. PTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had 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.

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 U.S. PTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard necessary to invalidate a patent claim in the U.S. PTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal court, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a U.S. PTO proceeding sufficient for the U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, the U.S. PTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing in-licensed patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Our product candidates may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which could increase our costs and delay or prevent our development and commercialization efforts.

Our success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the proprietary technologies of others. The pharmaceutical industry has been characterized by frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our proprietary technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Additionally, because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until the application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of any of our product candidates or any future product candidate. There may be certain issued patents and patent applications claiming subject matter that we may be required to license in order to research, develop or commercialize any of our product candidates, and we do not know if such patents and patent applications would be available to license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Any claims of patent infringement asserted by third parties would be time-consuming and may:

Third parties may hold proprietary rights that could prevent any of our product candidates from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to any of our product candidates or our processes could subject us to potential liability for damages and require us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market any of our product candidates or any future product candidates. We cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, we cannot be sure that we could redesign our product candidates or any future product candidates or processes to avoid infringement, if necessary. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing any of our product candidates or a future product candidate, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

We expect that there are other companies, including major pharmaceutical companies, working in the areas competitive to our proposed product candidates which either has resulted, or may result, in the filing of patent applications that may be deemed related to our activities. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued U.S. patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every issued U.S. patent. This means that, in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any issued U.S. patent in an administrative trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the U.S. PTO, we would have to prove that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no assurance that a jury and/or court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity or enforceability.

Others may claim an ownership interest in our intellectual property, which could expose us to litigation and have an adverse effect on our prospects.

A third party may claim an ownership interest in one or more of our or our licensors’ patents or other proprietary or intellectual property rights. A third party could bring legal actions against us and seek monetary damages and/or enjoin clinical testing, manufacturing and marketing of the affected product or products. We cannot guarantee that a third party will not assert a claim or an interest in any of such patents or intellectual property. If we become involved in any litigation, it could consume a substantial portion of our resources, and cause a significant diversion of effort by our technical and management personnel. If any of these actions are successful, in addition to any potential liability for damages, we could be required to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market the affected product, in which case we may be required to pay substantial royalties or grant cross-licenses to our patents. We cannot, however, assure you that any such license will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product candidate, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations as a result of claims of patent infringement or violation of other intellectual property rights. Further, the outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance, including the demeanor and credibility of witnesses and the identity of any adverse party. This is especially true in intellectual property cases that may turn on the testimony of experts as to technical facts upon which experts may reasonably disagree.

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 commonplace in our industry, we will employ individuals who were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject in the future to claims that our employees or prospective employees are subject to a continuing obligation to their former employers (such as non-competition or non-solicitation obligations) or claims that our employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Risks Related to Owning Our Common Stock

An active, liquid and orderly trading market for our shares may not continue to be developed or sustained.

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. However, trading volume has been limited and a more active public market for our common stock may not develop or be sustained over time. The market price of our common stock could be subject to significant fluctuations. The price of our stock may change in response to variations in our operating results and also may change in response to other factors, including factors specific to companies in our industry many of which are beyond our control. Our shares may be less liquid than the shares of other public companies and there may be imbalances between supply and demand for our shares. As a result, our share price may experience significant volatility and may not necessarily reflect the value of our expected performance. Moreover, sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could negatively impact the price of our common stock. As a result, you may not be able to sell your shares of our common stock in short time periods, or possibly at all, and the price per share of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

Future capital raises may dilute our existing stockholders’ ownership, could depress the market price for our common stock and have other adverse effects on our operations.

We filed a Form S-3 registration statement (“Shelf Registration”) with the SEC that became effective in December 2019 which will allow us to sell any combination of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants to purchase any of these securities, subscription rights to purchase any of these securities, and/or units consisting of one or more of the foregoing in one or more offerings up to a total dollar amount of $100 million (including the $22.5 million raised in our October 2020 offering). The issuance of additional shares of our common stock pursuant to the Shelf Registration, or issuances of securities convertible into or exercisable for our common stock or other equity-linked securities, including preferred stock, warrants, debt securities or units, would dilute the ownership interest of our common shareholders and could depress the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. If we raise additional funds by issuing debt securities, these debt securities would have rights senior to those of our common stock and the terms of the debt securities issued could impose significant restrictions on our operations, including liens on our assets. If we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, we may be required to relinquish some rights to our technologies or candidate products, or to grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

The trading price of the shares of our common stock may continue to be volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

The trading price of our common stock has fluctuated significantly in the past and is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general, and early stage public companies in particular, has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of such companies. The stock market in general has been, and the market price of our shares in particular will likely be, subject to fluctuation, whether due to, or irrespective of, our operating results and financial condition. The market price of our shares on the Nasdaq Global Market may fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

These factors and any corresponding price fluctuations may materially and adversely affect the market price of our shares and result in substantial losses being incurred by our investors. In the past, following periods of market volatility, public company stockholders have often instituted securities class action litigation. If we were involved in securities litigation, it could impose a substantial cost upon us and divert the resources and attention of our management from our business.

We are an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act of 2012 and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure 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 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (“JOBS Act”), and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to:

We have chosen to “opt out” of the extended transition periods available for complying with new or revised accounting standards, but we intend to take advantage of all of the other benefits available under the JOBS Act, including the exemptions discussed above. 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” for up to five years from the end of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the first sale of our common stock pursuant to an effective registration statement filed under the Securities Act, which will be December 31, 2023. We will lose that status sooner, however, if our revenues exceed $1.07 billion, if we issue more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt in a three-year period or if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of any June 30.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common shares.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or the subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm when required, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retrospective changes to our consolidated financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common shares. There is also a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm (when applicable in the future) will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that internal controls over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Our status as an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act may make it more difficult to raise capital as and when we need it.

Because of the exemptions from various reporting requirements provided to us as an “emerging growth company,” we may be less attractive to investors and it may be difficult for us to raise additional capital as and when we need it. Investors may be unable to compare our business with other companies in our industry if they believe that our reporting is not as transparent as other companies in our industry. If we are unable to raise additional capital as and when we need it, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

We have not paid dividends in the past and have no immediate plans to pay dividends, so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

We plan to reinvest all of our earnings, to the extent we have earnings, to cover operating costs and otherwise become and remain competitive. We do not plan to pay any cash dividends with respect to our securities in the foreseeable future. We cannot assure you that we would, at any time, generate sufficient surplus cash that would be available for distribution to the holders of our common stock as a dividend. Therefore, you should not expect to receive cash dividends on our common stock, and any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

If equity research analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they issue unfavorable commentary or downgrade our shares, the price of our shares could decline.

The trading market for our shares will rely in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business, if at all. We do not have control over these analysts, and we do not have commitments from them to write research reports about us. The price of our shares could decline if no research reports are published about us or our business, or if one or more equity research analysts downgrades our shares or if those analysts issue other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us or our business.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Our federal net operating losses (NOLs) generated in taxable years ending prior to 2018 could expire unused. Under the Tax Act, federal NOLs incurred in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017, may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of federal NOLs generated in tax years beginning before December 31, 2017, is limited. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act. In addition, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and corresponding provisions of state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” which is generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards, or NOLs, and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset its post-change income may be limited. We are performing a study to determine if we have triggered any “ownership change” limitations. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership some of which may be outside of our control. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-ownership change NOL carryforwards to offset U.S. federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.

Assuming a market for our common stock continues to develop, sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market by our existing stockholders could cause our stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.

As of March 8, 2021, we had 24,407,616 shares of common stock outstanding, all of which, other than shares held by our directors and certain officers, are eligible for sale in the public market, subject in some cases to compliance with the requirements of Rule 144, including volume limitations and manner of sale requirements.

Certain holders of our securities are entitled to rights with respect to the registration of their shares under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Registration of these shares under the Securities Act would result in the shares becoming freely tradable without restriction under the Securities Act. Any sales of securities by these stockholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

We may be at an increased risk of securities class action litigation.

Historically, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we were to be sued, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

Our charter documents and Delaware law may inhibit a takeover that stockholders consider favorable.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and applicable provisions of Delaware law may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change in control or change in our management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares, or transactions that our stockholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. The provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws:

In addition, Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law may limit our ability to engage in any business combination with a person who beneficially owns 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock unless certain conditions are satisfied. This restriction lasts for a period of three years following the share acquisition. These provisions may have the effect of entrenching our management team and may deprive our stockholders of the opportunity to sell their shares to potential acquirers at a premium over prevailing prices. This potential inability to obtain a control premium could reduce the price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or stockholders.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for:

In addition, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, 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. However, a court may determine that this provision is unenforceable.

Ownership portions held by our executives and directors, as well as by our former parent company, Harrow Health, Inc., may limit our stockholders’ ability to influence corporate matters.

Our directors and executive officers beneficially own approximately 12.9% of our common stock. Additionally, Harrow Health, Inc. (“Harrow”), our former parent company, holds approximately 14.3% of our outstanding common stock as of March 8, 2021. Accordingly, these parties, together, can significantly influence, though not independently determine, the outcome of matters required to be submitted to our stockholders for approval, including decisions relating to the election of our board of directors and the outcome of any proposed merger or consolidation of our company. These interests may not be consistent with those of our other stockholders. In addition, the significant interest held by these parties, and particularly by Harrow, may discourage third parties from seeking to acquire control of us, which may adversely affect the market price of our shares.

As stockholders in our company, you will be deemed to have notice of and have consented to the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation related to choice of forum, but will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. The choice of forum provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation may limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our restated charter to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.