ORAGENICS INC [OGEN] Filings

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023

For the transition period from__________ to ___________

Commission file number 001-32188

ORAGENICS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

813-286-7900

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

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

None

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, was approximately $6,701,615 computed based upon a last sales price of $3.31 as reported by the NYSE American as of June 30, 2023.

As of March 26, 2024, there were 4,480,693 shares of the registrant’s Common stock outstanding.

Note Regarding Reverse Stock Splits

On January 20, 2023, we filed an amendment to our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida to effect a reverse split of our authorized, issued and outstanding common stock at a ratio of one for sixty. All historical share and per share amounts reflected in this report have been adjusted to reflect the reverse stock split.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS AND CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS

This report, along with other documents that are publicly disseminated by us, contains or might contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements included in this report and in any subsequent filings made by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that we or our management expect, believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. These statements represent our reasonable judgment on the future based on various factors and using numerous assumptions and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results and financial position to differ materially. We claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements provided in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Examples of forward-looking statements include: (i) projections of revenue, earnings, capital structure and other financial items, (ii) statements of our plans and objectives, (iii) statements of expected future economic performance, and (iv) assumptions underlying statements regarding us or our business. Forward-looking statements can be identified by, among other things, the use of forward-looking language, such as “believes,” “expects,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “seeks,” “plans,” “intends,” “anticipates” or “scheduled to” or the negatives of those terms, or other variations of those terms or comparable language, or by discussions of strategy or other intentions.

Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by the statements. The forward-looking information is based on various factors and was derived using numerous assumptions. Important factors that could cause our actual results to be materially different from the forward-looking statements include the following risks and other factors discussed under the Item 1A “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These factors include:

We caution investors that actual results or business conditions may differ materially from those projected or suggested in forward-looking statements as a result of various factors including, but not limited to, those described above and in the Risk Factors section of this report. We cannot assure you that we have identified all the factors that create uncertainties. Moreover, new risks emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all risks on our business or the extent to which any risk, or combination of risks, may cause actual results to differ from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to publicly release the result of any revision of these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date they are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

This description contains certain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements as a result of certain of the risks set forth herein. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained herein.

Overview

We are a development-stage company dedicated to the research and development of nasal delivery pharmaceutical medications in neurology and fighting infectious diseases. Our lead product ONP-002 is a fully synthetic, non-naturally occurring neurosteroid, is lipophilic, and can cross the blood-brain barrier to rapidly reduce swelling, oxidative stress and inflammation while restoring proper blood flow through gene amplification.

Our ONP-002 Neurology Asset for Brain Related Illness and Injury

Following our December 2023 acquisition of certain assets from Odyssey Health, Inc. (“Odyssey”) related to the segment of Odyssey’s business focused on developing medical products that treat brain related illnesses and diseases (the “Neurology Assets”) our lead product and focus is on the development and commercialization of ONP-002 for the treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (“mTBI” or “Concussion”).

ONP-002 to date has been shown to be stable up to 104 degrees for 18-months. The drug candidate is spray-dry manufactured into a powder and filled into the novel intranasal device. The drug is then administered through the nasal passage from the device. The novel intranasal device is lightweight and easy to use in the field.

We believe the proprietary powder formulation and intranasal administration allows for rapid and direct accessibility to the brain. The device is breath propelled and we expect it to allow patients to blow into the device which closes the soft palate in the back of the nasopharynx, preventing the flow of drug to the lungs or esophagus, minimizes system exposure and side effects, and easily crosses the blood brain barrier. This mechanism traps ONP-002 in the nasal cavity allowing for more abundant and faster drug availability in the traumatized brain.

Expected ONP-002 Product Development Timeline:

This product development plan is an estimate and is subject to change based on funding, technical risks and regulatory approvals.

Validation and Stability of ONP-002

A Certificate of Analysis (“COA”) was issued by the manufacturer of the drug, indicating that testing methods were standard and include appearance, identification by 1H NMR, identification by Mass Spectroscopy (MS), optical purity by HPLC, residual solvent analysis, elemental impurities, percent water, and residue on ignition. The manufacturer has shown both the specifications and the results, indicating that the material supplied passes all criteria. ONP-002 is supplied in pure form. As such, no excipients are present. Stability studies were performed by storing samples under carefully controlled conditions with respect to temperature and humidity. The stability testing protocol included storage at 25 °C± 2 °C at 60% relative humidity ± 5% relative humidity for 24 months and 40 °C± 2 °C at 75% relative humidity ± 5% for 18 months. Samples were pulled at the scheduled time and analyzed for appearance, purity, assay, optical purity, and water content. No changes in ONP-002 were seen.

Intellectual Property

Patents on ONP-002 have been filed and/or issued and a patent has been filed on the nasal delivery device as follows:

ONP-002 Pre-Clinical Trials

The drug has completed toxicology studies in rats and dogs. Those studies show that ONP-002 has a large safety margin of its predicted efficacious dose. In preclinical animal studies, the drug demonstrated rapid and broad biodistribution throughout the brain while simultaneously reducing swelling, inflammation, and oxidative stress, along with an excellent safety profile.

Results from the preclinical studies suggest that ONP-002 has an equivalent, and potentially superior, neuroprotective effect compared to related neurosteroids. The animals treated with the drug post-concussion showed positive behavioral outcomes using various testing platforms including improved memory and sensory-motor performance, and reduced depression/anxiety like behavior.

ONP-002 Induction of PXR

The induction of the human CYP450 enzymes, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 by ONP-002, as measured by mRNA expression, was tested in human hepatocytes from 3 donors at 3 concentrations: 1 μM, 10 μM and 100 μM.. Results reflected that ONP-002 through the known PXR-mechanism produced a modest induction of CYP3A4, up to 17% of the positive control, and a greater induction of CYP2B6, of up to 59% of the positive control, both at a concentration of 100 μM. Past data reflected that ONP-001 (ent-Progesterone) and Progesterone induce the PXR receptor. Receptor binding studies have been performed showing neither ONP-001 or -002 activate the classical Progesterone Receptor.

ONP-002 Animal Studies

All surgical animals (male Sprague-Dawley rats approx. 250 grams) were anesthetized with an initial isoflurane induction for 4 min-the minimum time necessary to sedate the animal. The scalp was shaved and cleaned with isopropanol and betadine. During the stereotaxic surgery, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. A medial incision was made, and the scalp was pulled back over the medial frontal cortex. A 6-mm diameter craniotomy was performed exposing the brain tissue. An electrically controlled injury device using a 5 mm metal impactor was positioned over the exposed brain. An impact speed of 1.6 m/s at a 90-degree angle from vertical was used to produce an open head injury at a depth of 1mm to create a milder TBI. All treatments were given intranasal (IN) as a liquid solution with a micro atomizer. Vehicle for all administrations was 22.5% Hydroxy-Propyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD).

Molecular Studies - Brain tissue was taken from the penumbral region of injury.

Cerebral Edema

In Figure 2, we show that ONP-002 reduces swelling in rats compared to vehicle-treated at 24-hrs after brain injury by measure of brain water content through speed-vacuum dehydration and tissue weight comparisons. ONP-002-treated (4mg/kg) and vehicle-treated were compared to sham which was set at zero. Local edema can occur after mTBI. Severe cerebral edema is associated with poor outcomes including increased mortality after mTBI with Second Impact Syndrome (2). *Denotes significance at p<0.05, n=6

Figure 2

Inflammation

mTBI causes vascular and neuronal stress. Microglia and reactive astrocytes infiltrate the areas of injury and release inflammatory mediators, like TNF-alpha. We show that ONP-002 (4mg/kg) reduces TNF-alpha-mediated neuroinflammation in brain tissue of rats compared to vehicle at 24-hrs after mTBI (ELISA).

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of IN ONP-002 in Dog

This pivotal GLP 14-day study used repeat dosing of ONP-002, 3X a day, approximately 4 hours apart, for 14 consecutive days at concentrations of 0, 3, 10 or 23 mg/mL at a volume of 1 mL/nostril to beagle dogs (both nostrils had drug administered). The IN treatment was given as a liquid solution using a micro atomizer using 22.5% HPβCD as the vehicle. IN ONP-002 dosing revealed that ONP-002 was well tolerated up to the highest dose of 23 mg/ml or 46mg in total per dosing. Clinical observations were limited to increased salivation in dogs which occurred in a dose-dependent manner. There were no effects on body weight, food consumption, ophthalmic parameters, clinical chemistry, haematology, or organ weights at any of the doses tested. Microscopic analysis revealed purulent exudates in the nasal turbinate and evidence of inflammatory infiltrates and fibrin deposition in the lungs. All of these events were classified as mild, reversed during the recovery period, and did not appear to show any dose dependency. Similar findings were evident in vehicle control treated dogs indicating the findings were vehicle related. The highest dose of 23 mg/ml was thus determined to be the NOAEL which is equivalent to a ONP-002 dose of 1.5mg/kg and 2.3mg/kg in male and female dogs, respectively. Testing shows the dose-dependent increase in plasma exposure of ONP-002 in male and female dogs following IN administration. Plasma exposure levels were similar in males and females and there did not appear to be any evidence of drug accumulation following multiple doses.

Cardiopulmonary Safety Pharmacology

The effect of ONP-002 on the human ether-a-go-go related gene (hERG) tail currents was assessed in a non-Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) study using manual whole-cell patch clamp. ONP-002 tested at a single concentration of 10 μM inhibited hERG tail currents by 42.6% (n=3). In order to achieve a safety factor of 30-fold between in vitro hERG IC50 and free plasma levels of ONP-002 in clinical studies, Cmax should not exceed a free drug concentration of 0.33 μM (99 ng/ml). ONP-002 is 97.2% human plasma protein bound and is estimated to reach a plasma Cmax of 12.5 nM, the highest dose of 0.533 mg/kg to be administered in the planned first in human (FIH) study, which provides a safety factor of 800-fold. A GLP study is planned at Charles River, Inc. and will be performed prior to IND submission.

ONP-002 Clinical Trials

ONP-002 has completed a Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy human subjects showing it is safe and well tolerated.

Safety studies have established a dosing regimen of 2X/day for fourteen days. The Phase I clinical trial was performed in Melbourne, Australia with a Contract Research Organization (CRO), Avance Clinical Pty Ltd and Nucleus Network Pty Ltd. The country of Australia provides a currency exchange advantage and a tax rebate at the end of our fiscal year from the Australian government on all Research and Development performed in Australia.

The Phase 1 study was double-blinded, randomized and placebo controlled (3:1, drug:placebo). Phase 1 used a Single Ascending/Multiple Ascending (SAD/MAD) drug administration design. The SAD component was a 1X treatment (low, medium, or high dose) and the MAD component was a 1X/day treatment for five consecutive days (low and medium dose). Blood and urine samples were collected at multiple time points for safety pharmacokinetics. Standard safety monitoring was provided for each body system.

Forty human subjects (31 males, 9 females) were successfully enrolled in Phase I. The Safety Review Board, made up of medical doctors, has reviewed the trial data and has determined the drug is safe and well tolerated at all dosing levels.

We anticipate preparing for Phase 2 clinical trials to further evaluate ONP-002’s safety and efficacy. Based on the Phase I data, we plan to apply for an Investigational New Drug application with the FDA and conduct a Phase II trial in the United States.

We anticipate a Phase 2 clinical trial will be performed administering ONP-002 intranasally in concussed patients 2x a day for up to fourteen days. The Phase 2a feasibility study is expected to be performed in Australia with a target initiation date in the second or third quarter of 2024 to be followed closely by a Phase 2b proof of concept study in the US.

Our SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Product Candidate – NT-CoV2-1

Prior to the purchase of the Neurology Assets, starting in May 2020 with the acquisition of one hundred percent (100%) of the total issued and outstanding common stock of Noachis Terra, Inc. (“Noachis Terra”) and through December 31, 2023, we were focused on the development and commercialization of a vaccine produce candidate to provide long-lasting immunity from SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. During that time, we conducted testing in animal models, including SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies in hamsters, using specific formulations for intramuscular administration and intranasal administration, both based on the NIAID pre-fusion stabilized spike protein antigens.

In June of 2021 we initiated an immunogenicity study in mice and on August 30, 2021, we announced the successful completion of the mouse studies that supported further development using either intramuscular or intranasal routes of administration. In September of 2021 we initiated a hamster challenge to assess inhibition of viral replication using adjuvants specific for intramuscular and intranasal administration. In December of 2021, we announced that both formulations generated robust immune responses and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral loads to undetectable levels in the nasal passages and lungs five days following a viral challenge. On June 14, 2022, we announced that the results of these studies were published in Nature Scientific Reports.

In March of 2022, following a positive assessment of a rabbit-based pilot study, we initiated a Good Laboratory Practice toxicology study to evaluate the safety profile and immunogenicity of NT-CoV2-1 in rabbits. This preclinical study was designed to provide data required to advance our intranasal vaccine candidate into human clinical studies.

Following the successful results of the animal studies previously referenced and a Type B Pre-IND Meeting with the FDA we determined to focus our development efforts and financial resources on the intranasal delivery vaccine produce candidate, NT-CoV2-1. As part of this intranasal development focus, during 2023 we entered into strategic license agreements and announced an award of a grant from CQDM.

However, due to lack of financial resources our research and development activities for our NT-CoV2-1 vaccine product were suspended as of December 31, 2023, and are not currently active. We will continue to evaluate opportunities and funding resources for our SARS-CoV-2 and NT-CoV2-1 candidate products in the future of which there can be no assurances. These opportunities and funding resources could include, without limitation, sublicensing agreements, joint ventures or partnerships, sales or licensing of technology, government grants and public or private financings, through the sale of debt or equity securities or by securing a line of credit or other loan. There can be no assurances that we will be able to secure any such opportunity or funding.

Our Lantibiotic Product Candidate

Members of our scientific team discovered that a certain bacterial strain of Streptococcus mutans, produces Mutacin 1140 (MU1140), a molecule belonging to the novel class of antibiotics known as lantibiotics. Lantibiotics, such as MU1140, are highly modified peptide antibiotics made by a small group of Gram-positive bacterial species. Over 60 lantibiotics have been discovered, to date. We believe lantibiotics are generally recognized by the scientific community to be potent antibiotic agents.

In nonclinical testing, MU1140 has shown activity against all Gram-positive bacteria against which it has been tested, including those responsible for a number of healthcare associated infections, or HAIs. A high percentage of hospital-acquired infections are caused by highly antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. We believe the need for novel antibiotics is increasing because of the growing resistance of target pathogens to existing FDA approved antibiotics on the market.

Lantibiotics have been difficult to investigate for their clinical usefulness as therapeutic agents in the treatment of infectious diseases due to a general inability to produce or synthesize sufficient quantities of pure amounts of these molecules. Traditional fermentation methods can only produce minute amounts of the lantibiotic.

While lantibiotics are promising, in 2023 we concluded we needed to make several changes to reduce the cash used in operations. In September of 2023, we terminated our lease for the building where some of the research and development activities for the lantibiotic program were undertaken. The closing of the laboratory was part of the continued focus on preserving cash resources while seeking additional funding through various mechanisms.

As of December 31, 2023, research and development activities related to the lantibiotic program are inactive. We will evaluate opportunities for the lantibiotic program; however, moving forward our focus is to strengthen our focus and expertise on developing our intranasal drug delivery platform and drug candidates that treat brain related illnesses and diseases.

Our Business Development Strategy

Success in the biopharmaceutical and product development industry relies on the continuous development of novel product candidates. Most product candidates do not make it past the clinical development stage, which forces companies to look externally for innovation. Accordingly, we expect, from time to time, to seek strategic opportunities through various forms of business development, which can include strategic alliances, licensing deals, joint ventures, collaborations, equity or debt-based investments, dispositions, mergers, and acquisitions. We view these business development activities as a necessary component of our strategies, and we seek to enhance shareholder value by evaluating business development opportunities both within and complementary to our current business, as well as opportunities that may be new and separate from the development of our existing product candidates. Consistent therewith, in December 2023 we acquired our Neurology Assets.

Our ONP-002

Market Opportunity 

Currently, we are focused on expanding our nasal drug delivery platform to the treatment of neurological brain disorders, illnesses and injuries, or concussions. We believe concussion is a significant unmet need, and that, currently, there are no therapeutic treatments available for moderate to severe concussion. We further believe nasal delivery offers many advantages over standard systemic delivery systems, such as i) its non-invasive character, ii) fast onset of action, and iii) in most cases, reduced side effects due to a more targeted delivery.

Systemic approaches often fail to efficiently supply the central nervous system with drugs for the treatment of neurological disorders, which, we believe, presents a unique opportunity for intranasal drug delivery. The global nasal drug delivery technology market is projected to grow to $112 billion by 2030.

Our Growth Strategy

If the FDA clears or approves our product candidates to be marketed commercially, we intend to enter into agreements with industry partners or qualified distributors throughout the United States. We intend to pursue a similar approach will be pursued if our product candidates are cleared or approved for marketing outside of the United States. We intend to require such partners or distributors to pay us an initial license fee, as well as royalties based on gross sales. Retaining exclusivity is expected to be based on a mutually agreeable semi-annual or quarterly sales minimum. We also anticipate focusing on international growth because, generally, we believe such international license agreements provide a stronger path to revenue and earnings than purely domestic products.

Our objective is to eventually grow revenue through marketing and sales of ONP-002 if it gains regulatory approvals. Although no assurances can be given, management anticipates company growth from the following areas:

We currently have no products authorized for commercial distribution in the United States, Europe, or any other country. We have development programs for devices and pharmaceutical drugs, which are in various stages of development. Currently we are only funding the development of ONP-002 intended to treat concussion. Due to funding constraints and market conditions, our NT-CoV2-1 vaccine product and our antibiotic product candidate have been suspended. All of our products require regulatory clearance or approvals, and we cannot begin marketing and selling our product candidates until we obtain applicable authorizations from the respective regulatory agency.

Our License Agreements

Our Inspirevax License Agreement

On February 23, 2023, we entered into a Commercial License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Inspirevax Inc. (“Inspirevax”) for our vaccine product candidate. Pursuant to the License Agreement Inspirevax granted us an exclusive worldwide license to use Inspirevax’s inventions, patents, trade secrets, know-how, copyright, biological material, designs, and/or technical information created by or on behalf of Inspirevax (the “Inspirevax Technologies”) relating to its novel lipid-protein based intranasal adjuvants, to make, research, and develop an intra-nasal vaccine in combination with an antigen (“Combination Product”) to be used in an intranasal vaccine for use against diseases caused by coronaviruses and any genetic variants thereof to be sold by us.

As consideration for the grant of the license, we paid an upfront signing fee of $50,000. We will be subject to certain milestone payments as follows: (a) $75,000 upon our decision on an appropriate nasal spray device, (b) $100,000 upon a first patient being dosed in a phase 2a clinical trial, (c) $200,000 upon a first patient being dosed in a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial, (d) $800,000 upon a biologics License Application being submitted to the FDA, (e) $400,000 upon first filing of marketing authorization outside of the United States, and $200,000 for each such additional filing up to five filings, (f) $2,000,000 upon first commercial sale in the United States, (g) $1,000,000 upon first commercial sale in Europe, (h) $500,000 upon first commercial sale outside of United States and Europe and $250,000 for each other country or region up to five. Additionally, during the term we will pay Inspirevax a 7% royalty on net sales subject to certain gross revenue limitations at which time the royalty will decrease to 4%.

The Inspirevax License Agreement requires that we use our best efforts to develop a product using the Inspirevax technology including the following: (a) first subject enrollment in first clinical study by December 31, 2023, (b) the first subject enrolled in a Phase 2a study by September 30, 2024, (c) first subject enrolled in a phase 3 registration trial by December 31, 2026, and (d) first marketing approval application submitted by June 30, 2028.

Unless terminated earlier, the License Agreement will terminate the later of (i) twenty (20) years from the first commercial sale of a product, (ii) the last date a product is covered by a valid patent claim, or (iii) the expiration of regulatory exclusivity. We may terminate the License Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to Inspirevax. Either party may terminate, if the other party defaults or is in breach of the License Agreement, provided that if the defaulting party cures the breach within sixty (60) days after the notice is given, the License Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The License Agreement contains customary confidentiality obligations.

The companies formed a Joint Development Committee (JDC) comprising representatives of both companies to oversee the development efforts collaboratively. Additionally, the agreement provides a certain period of time for the companies to expand their collaboration to pursue the development of additional intranasal vaccine candidates using Inspirevax’s adjuvants.

We paid the upfront signing fee. However, none of the additional consideration milestones have been met, as of December 31, 2023, we have suspended all research and development activity for the COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Government Regulations

In the United States, foods (including dietary supplements), drugs (including biological products), medical devices, cosmetics, tobacco products and radiation-emitting products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDC Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the manufacture, distribution and sale of these products. These laws and regulations prescribe criminal and civil penalties that can be assessed, and violation of these laws and regulations can result in enforcement action by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

FDA Regulation of Drugs-New Drug Approval Process

Pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDC Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs or Biologics License Applications (“BLA “)s, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the United States typically involves the following steps before a biological product or new drug may be marketed in the United States:

Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

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

A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

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

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

Clinical trials to support NDAs or BLAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, after the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 clinical trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in rare instances where the trial is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible.

The length of time and related costs necessary to complete clinical trials varies significantly and may be difficult to predict. Clinical trial results are frequently susceptible to varying interpretations that may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals. Additional factors that can cause delay or termination of our clinical trials, or cause the costs of these clinical trials to increase, include:

Any drug is likely to produce some toxicities or undesirable side effects in animals and in humans when administered at sufficiently high doses and/or for sufficiently long periods of time. Unacceptable toxicities or side effects may occur at any dose level, and at any time in the course of animal studies designed to identify unacceptable effects of a drug candidate, known as toxicological studies, or in clinical trials of our drug candidates. The appearance of any unacceptable toxicity or side effect could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, limit, delay or abort the development of any of our drug candidates and could ultimately prevent their marketing approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications.

The FDA’s fast track and breakthrough therapy designation programs are intended to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drug candidates intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for these conditions. Under these programs, FDA can, for example, review portions of an NDA or BLA for a drug candidate before the entire application is complete, thus potentially beginning the review process at an earlier time.

We cannot guarantee that the FDA will grant any of our requests for fast track or breakthrough therapy designations, that any such designations would affect the time of review or that the FDA will approve the NDA or BLA submitted for any of our drug candidates, whether or not these designations are granted. Additionally, FDA approval of a fast track/breakthrough product can include restrictions on the product’s use or distribution (such as permitting use only for specified medical conditions or limiting distribution to physicians or facilities with special training or experience). Approval of such designated products can be conditioned on additional clinical trials after approval.

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

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA or BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA or BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA or the BLA must include the results of all pre-clinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA or BLA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. If the NDA or BLA submission is filed, the FDA reviews the NDA or BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs or BLAs. Most such applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed in six to eight months. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. For biologics, priority review is further limited to drugs intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease relative to the currently approved products. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

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

After the FDA evaluates the NDA or BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA or BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

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

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA or BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA or BLA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs or BLAs.

The required testing, data collection, analysis and compilation of an IND and a BLA or NDA are labor intensive and costly and may take a great deal of time. Tests may have to be redone or new tests performed in order to comply with FDA requirements. It can take considerable time (e.g., 5-10 years) and resources to achieve enrollment sufficient to commence such trials and complete Phase 2 or 3 clinical trials. Moreover, there is no guarantee a product will be approved.

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop and market drugs for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States at the time of application for orphan drug designation. The first developer to receive FDA marketing approval for an orphan drug is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for the orphan drug indication. However, a drug that the FDA considers to be clinically superior to, or different from, another approved orphan drug, even though for the same indication, may also obtain approval in the United States during the seven-year exclusive marketing period.

Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, designation as a Fast-Track product for a new drug or biological product means that the FDA will take such actions as are appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application for approval of such product.

Legislation similar to the Orphan Drug Act has been enacted in other countries outside of the United States, including the EU. The orphan legislation in the EU is available for therapies addressing conditions that affect five or fewer out of 10,000 persons, are life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions and for which no satisfactory treatment is authorized. The market exclusivity period is for ten years, although that period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product does not justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has the authority to facilitate and expedite the development and review of a drug through various programs, such as fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation. Each program may be utilized by the FDA in the context of particular circumstances. For example, fast track designation would generally be used to facilitate the development and review of a drug that addresses an unmet medical need. Breakthrough therapy designation applies similarly in cases where a drug demonstrates substantial improvement over existing and available therapies. Priority review designation suggests the FDA will take action on an application within six months of filing.

Accelerated approval is also possible in the event a product treats a serious or life-threatening condition and provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. Products in this category must also meet a number of additional requirements. While a product may qualify for one or more of the foregoing programs, the FDA reserves the right to later decide the product no longer qualifies or that the product is no longer subject to priority regarding its review or approval.

Emergency Use Authorization

The FDA also has the authority to grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) to allow unapproved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives, as designated by the U.S. government. An EUA granted by the FDA would permit a drug candidate to be able to be distributed under the conditions set forth in the EUA prior to FDA approval. Furthermore, the FDA may revoke an EUA for a variety of reasons, including where it is determined that the underlying health emergency no longer exists or warrants such authorizations.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs, BLAs or supplements to NDAs or BLAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, except a product with a new active ingredient that is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and directed at a molecular target determined by FDA to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer that is subject to an NDA submitted on or after August 18, 2020.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, (“BPCA”), provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity – patent or non-patent – for a drug if certain conditions are met. For BLAs, the BPCA provides a six-month extension for non-patent exclusivity if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

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

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims covering the applicant’s product or method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active 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: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA labeling does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

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

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

Exclusivity

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

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, the owner of relevant drug patent may apply for up to a five-year patent term extension. Only one patent may be extended for each regulatory review period, which is composed of two parts: a testing phase, and an approval phase. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase – the time between the day the IND becomes effective and NDA submission – and all of the review phase – the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years and only one patent may be extended.

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

Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications

Most drug products obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA or an ANDA. A third alternative is a special type of NDA, commonly referred to as a Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2), NDA, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use, such as the FDA’s findings of safety and/or effectiveness for a similar previously approved product, or published literature, in support of its application.

505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the 505(b)(2) applicants can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain pre-clinical or clinical trials of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Thus approval of a 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, 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, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once an NDA or BLA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA or BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality-control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered. In addition, prescription drug manufacturers in the United States must comply with applicable provisions of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and provide and receive product tracing information, maintain appropriate licenses, ensure they only work with other properly licensed entities, and have procedures in place to identify and properly handle suspect and illegitimate products.

Failure to comply with the applicable FDA requirements may subject manufacturers and distributors to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other things, warning letters, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, civil money penalties, fines, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties. Further, the FDA has authority to issue mandatory recalls for medical devices and biologics, and we may need to undertake a voluntary recall for any of our products.

In addition to regulations enforced by the FDA, we are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other federal, state and local regulations. Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals, biological materials and radioactive compounds.

Biologics

Biological products used for the prevention, treatment or cure of a disease or condition of a human being are subject to regulation under the FDC Act, except the section of the FDC Act which governs the approval of NDAs. Biological products are approved for marketing under provisions of the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, via a BLA. However, the application process and requirements for approval of BLAs are very similar to those for NDAs, and biologics are associated with similar approval risks and costs as drugs. To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the US and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the product may also be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer. In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biologics, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, creates an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Biosimilarity sufficient to reference a prior FDA-approved product requires that there be no differences in conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, and strength, and no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and at least one clinical trial, absent a waiver by the Secretary. A biosimilar product may be deemed interchangeable with a prior approved product if it meets the higher hurdle of demonstrating that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. To date, only four biosimilar products and no interchangeable products have been approved under the BPCIA. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, particularly with respect to interchangeability, are still being evaluated by the FDA.

A reference biologic is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and no application for a biosimilar can be submitted for four years from the date of licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biologics for the same condition of use for the lesser of (i) one year after first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar, (ii) eighteen months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge, (iii) eighteen months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference biologic in favor of the first interchangeable biosimilar applicant, or (iv) 42 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar’s application has been approved if a patent lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Regulation Outside the United States

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, the company would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Regulation and Marketing Authorization in the European Union

The process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union follows essentially the same lines as in the United States and, likewise, generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

Pre-clinical Studies

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animal studies, in order to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant EU regulations and requirements. The results of the pre-clinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA.

Clinical Trial Approval

Requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union including GCP are implemented in the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC. Pursuant to Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC, as amended, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of an EU member state in which a study is planned to be conducted, or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. To this end, a CTA is submitted, which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier, or IMPD, and further supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and other applicable guidance documents. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application in that country.

In April 2014, the EU legislators passed the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, which replaced the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the European Union, the new EU clinical trials legislation was passed as a regulation that is directly applicable in all EU member states. All clinical trials performed in the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC until the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 becomes applicable. According to the current plans of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, the new Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable in 2019. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC will, however, still apply three years from the date of entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation to (i) clinical trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year after the entry into application if the sponsor opts for old system.

The new Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include:

Marketing Authorization

Authorization to market a product in the member states of the European Union proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized authorization procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure, or a national procedure.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization that is valid in all EU member states based on a single application. Certain medicinal products, including products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must undergo the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization, which, if granted by the European Commission, is automatically valid in all 28 EU member states. The EMA and the European Commission administer this centralized authorization procedure pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, this procedure is mandatory for:

The centralized authorization procedure is optional for other medicinal products if they contain a new active substance or if the applicant shows that the medicinal product concerned constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization is in the interest of patients in the European Union.

Administrative Procedure

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy, and quality of medicinal products for human use on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each member state’s national authority for medicinal products, with an expert appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co-ordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the Committee acting as a Co-Rapporteur. After approval, the Rapporteur(s) continue to monitor the product throughout its life cycle. The CHMP has 210 days to adopt an opinion as to whether a marketing authorization should be granted. The process usually takes longer in case additional information is requested, which triggers clock-stops in the procedural timelines. The process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the regulatory authorities of member states and a number of experts. When an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in respect of a drug that is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, the applicant may be pursuant to Article 14(9) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 request an accelerated assessment procedure. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time-limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time-limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report, or EPAR, is produced. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on which this conclusion was reached. After the adoption of the CHMP opinion, a decision on the MAA must be adopted by the European Commission, after consulting the E.U. member states, which in total can take more than 60 days.

Conditional Approval

In specific circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14(7) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) the product fulfills unmet medical needs and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances

Under Article 14(8) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, products for which the applicant can demonstrate that comprehensive data (in line with the requirements laid down in Annex I of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended) cannot be provided (due to specific reasons foreseen in the legislation) might be eligible for marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances. This type of authorization is reviewed annually to reassess the risk-benefit balance. The fulfillment of any specific procedures/obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is aimed at the provision of information on the safe and effective use of the product and will normally not lead to the completion of a full dossier/approval.

Market Authorizations Granted by Authorities of E.U. Member States

In general, if the centralized procedure is not followed, there are three alternative procedures as prescribed in Directive 2001/83/EC:

A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Union.

Pediatric Studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are set forth in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, which is referred to as the Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine in children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine in children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population.

Before a marketing authorization application can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Regulatory Data Protection

EU legislation also provides for a system of regulatory data and market exclusivity. According to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities approved on the basis of complete independent data package benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder, or MAH, obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator is able to gain the period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical test, pre-clinical tests and clinical trials. However, products designated as orphan medicinal products enjoy, upon receiving marketing authorization, a period of ten years of orphan market exclusivity. Depending upon the timing and duration of the EU marketing authorization process, products may be eligible for up to five years’ supplementary protection certificates, or SPCs, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. Such SPCs extend the rights under the basic patent for the drug.

Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained

If we obtain authorization for a medicinal product in the European Union, we will be required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products:

Pharmacovigilance and other requirements

We will, for example, have to comply with the EU’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. Other requirements relate, for example, to the manufacturing of products and APIs in accordance with good manufacturing practice standards. EU regulators may conduct inspections to verify our compliance with applicable requirements, and we will have to continue to expend time, money and effort to remain compliant. Non-compliance with EU requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties in the European Union. Similarly, failure to comply with the EU’s requirements regarding the protection of individual personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Individual EU member states may also impose various sanctions and penalties in case we do not comply with locally applicable requirements.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing of authorized drugs, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP, requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. The EMA enforces its current GMP requirements through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. The EMA may have a coordinating role for these inspections while the responsibility for carrying them out rests with the member states competent authority under whose responsibility the manufacturer falls. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs and lost revenues, and could subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil and criminal penalties.

Marketing and Promotion

The marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83/EC. The applicable regulations aim to ensure that information provided by holders of marketing authorizations regarding their products is truthful, balanced and accurately reflects the safety and efficacy claims authorized by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

Patent Term Extension

In order to compensate the patentee for delays in obtaining a marketing authorization for a patented product, a supplementary certificate, or SPC, may be granted extending the exclusivity period for that specific product by up to five years. Applications for SPCs must be made to the relevant patent office in each E.U. member state and the granted certificates are valid only in the member state of grant. An application has to be made by the patent owner within six months of the first marketing authorization being granted in the European Union (assuming the patent in question has not expired, lapsed or been revoked) or within six months of the grant of the patent (if the marketing authorization is granted first). In the context of SPCs, the term “product” means the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients for a medicinal product and the term “patent” means a patent protecting such a product or a new manufacturing process or application for it. The duration of an SPC is calculated as the difference between the patent’s filing date and the date of the first marketing authorization, minus five years, subject to a maximum term of five years.

A six-month pediatric extension of an SPC may be obtained where the patentee has carried out an agreed pediatric investigation plan, the authorized product information includes information on the results of the studies and the product is authorized in all member states of the European Union.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

There has been an increased focus on drug pricing in recent years in the United States. Although there are no direct government price controls over private sector purchases in the United States, there are rebates and other financial requirements for federal and state health care programs. The Medicare Modernization Act, enacted in December 2003, established the Medicare Part D outpatient prescription drug benefit, which is provided primarily through private entities that attempt to negotiate price concessions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. The health care reform legislation enacted in 2010, known as the Affordable Care Act, requires drug manufacturers to pay 50% of the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole,” on prescriptions for branded products filled when the beneficiary reaches this coverage. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 resulted in changes to the way drug prices are reported to the government and the formula using such information to calculate the required Medicaid rebates. The Affordable Care Act increased the minimum basic Medicaid rebate for branded prescription drugs from 15.1% to 23.1% and requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay states rebates on prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid managed care enrollees. In addition, the Affordable Care Act increased the additional Medicaid rebate on “line extensions” (such as extended-release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, revised the definition of average manufacturer price by changing the classes of purchasers included in the calculation, and expanded the entities eligible for discounted pricing under the federal 340B drug pricing program. Current orphan drugs are excluded from the expanded 340B hospitals eligible for discounts.

The Affordable Care Act imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The fee (which is not deductible for federal income tax purposes) is based on the manufacturer’s market share of sales of branded drugs and biologics (excluding orphan drugs) to, or pursuant to coverage under, specified U. S. government programs. The Affordable Care Act also contains a number of provisions, including provisions governing the way that health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, enrollment in federal health care programs, reimbursement changes, the increased use of comparative effectiveness research in health care decision-making, and enhancements to fraud and abuse requirements and enforcement, that are affecting existing government health care programs and will result in the development of new programs. The Affordable Care Act also contains requirements for manufacturers to publicly report certain payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state health care legislation and regulations, including regulations that will be issued to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and further changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenues or increase our costs could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows.

Public and private health care payers control costs and influence drug pricing through a variety of mechanisms, including through negotiating discounts with the manufacturers and through the use of tiered formularies and other mechanisms that provide preferential access to certain drugs over others within a therapeutic class. Payers also set other criteria to govern the uses of a drug that will be deemed medically appropriate and therefore reimbursed or otherwise covered. Payers may require physicians to seek approval from them before a product will be reimbursed or covered, commonly referred to as prior authorization. In particular, many public and private health care payers limit reimbursement and coverage to the uses of a drug that are either approved by the FDA or appear in a recognized drug compendium. Drug compendia are publications that summarize the available medical evidence for particular drug products and identify which uses of a drug are supported or not supported by the available evidence, whether or not such uses have been approved by the FDA. For example, in the case of Medicare Part D coverage for oncology drugs, the Medicare Modernization Act, with certain exceptions, provides for Medicare coverage of unapproved uses of an FDA-approved drug if the unapproved use is reasonable and necessary and is supported by one or more citations in CMS-approved compendia, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Drugs and Biologics Compendium. Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. For example, in the European Union, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of such products to consumers. The approach taken varies from member state to member state. Some jurisdictions operate positive or negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits and may limit or restrict reimbursement. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, and prescription drugs in particular, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products, as exemplified by the actions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom, which evaluates the data supporting new medicines and passes reimbursement recommendations to the government. In addition, in some countries cross-border imports from low-priced markets (parallel imports) exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our drug candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessment) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. E.U. member states may approve a specific price for a drug product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, there can be considerable pressure from governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various E.U. member states, and parallel distribution (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states), can further reduce prices. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

An increasing number of states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to file periodic reports of expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states; to make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities; to report information pertaining to and justifying price increases; or to register their sales representatives. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals; price gouging; or pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing. In addition, states such as California, Connecticut, Nevada, and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Environmental, Health and Safety Matters

The manufacturing facilities of the third-parties that develop our product candidates are subject to extensive environmental, health and safety laws and regulations in a number of jurisdictions, governing, among other things: the use, storage, registration, handling, emission and disposal of chemicals, waste materials and sewage; chemicals, air, water and ground contamination; air emissions and the cleanup of contaminated sites, including any contamination that results from spills due to our failure to properly dispose of chemicals, waste materials and sewage.

These laws, regulations and permits could potentially require the expenditure by us of significant amounts for compliance or remediation if, among other things, our operations result in contamination of the environment or breach of regulatory obligations or expose individuals to harm. If the third-party manufacturers fail to comply with such laws, regulations or permits, we may be subject to fines and other civil, administrative or criminal sanctions, including the revocation of permits and licenses necessary to continue our business activities. In addition, we may be required to pay damages or civil judgments in respect of third-party claims, including those relating to personal injury (including exposure to hazardous substances we use, store, handle, transport, manufacture or dispose of), property damage or contribution claims. Some environmental, health and safety laws allow for strict, joint and several liability for remediation costs, regardless of comparative fault. We may be identified as a responsible party under such laws. Such developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, laws and regulations relating to environmental, health and safety matters are often subject to change. In the event of any changes or new laws or regulations, we could be subject to new compliance measures or to penalties for activities that were previously permitted.

Competition

Our industry is subject to rapid and intense technological change. Competition is intense among manufacturers of nutritional, non-prescription, and prescription pharmaceuticals. We face, and will continue to face, competition from nutraceutical, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies developing similar products and technologies both in the United States and abroad, as well as numerous academic and research institutions, governmental agencies and private organizations engaged in drug funding or research and discovery activities both in the United States and abroad. Academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations may also conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for discovery, research and clinical development of technologies and products similar to ours. We also face competition from entities and healthcare providers using more traditional methods. We believe there are a substantial number of products under development by numerous nutraceutical, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies, and it is likely that other competitors will emerge.

Many of our existing and potential competitors are large, well-established pharmaceutical, chemical or healthcare companies with considerably greater research and product development capabilities and financial, scientific, marketing and human resources than we have. Large and established companies, such as Merck & Co., Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, CSL Ltd., Sanofi Pasteur, SA, Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Moderna, among others, compete in the same or similar markets. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing government contracts and grants to support their research and development efforts, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals to market products, manufacturing such products on a broad scale and marketing approved products. As a result, these competitors may succeed in developing competing products earlier than we do; obtain patents that block or otherwise inhibit our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates; obtain approvals from the FDA or other regulatory agencies for products more rapidly than we do; or develop treatments or cures that are safer or more effective than those we propose to develop. These competitors may also devote greater resources to marketing or selling their products and may be better able to withstand price competition. In addition, these competitors may introduce or adapt more quickly to new technologies or scientific advances, which could render our technologies obsolete, and may introduce products or technologies that make the continued development, production, or marketing of our product candidates uneconomical. These competitors may also be more successful in negotiating third-party licensing or collaborative arrangements and may be able to take advantage of acquisitions or other strategic opportunities more readily than we can. These actions by competitors or potential competitors could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot assure you that we will be able to compete successfully.

Regardless of the disease, smaller or early-stage companies and research institutions also may prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established pharmaceutical companies. As these companies develop their technologies, they may develop proprietary positions, which may prevent or limit our product development and commercialization efforts. We will also face competition from these parties in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and participant registration for clinical trials and in acquiring and in-licensing technologies and products complementary to our programs or potentially advantageous to our business. If any of our competitors succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities for their products sooner than we do or for products that are more effective or less costly than ours, our commercial opportunity could be significantly reduced.

We have a limited ability to predict how competitive our products and product candidates will be in the marketplace.

Our Intellectual Property

We rely upon a combination of licenses, patents, trade secrets, know-how, and licensing opportunities to develop our business. Our future prospects depend on our ability to protect our intellectual property. We also need to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties.

Patents

We attempt to protect our technology and products through patents and patent applications. As part of the December 2023 acquisition of ONP-002 and related intellectual property, we acquired the following patents for ONP-002 which have been filed and/or issued and a patent has been filed on the nasal delivery device.

The list below outlines the ONP-002 and nasal delivery device patents.

Patent applications that concern ONP-002 and the nasal delivery device have been filed as follows:

The effect of issued patents is that they provide patent protection for the claims covered by the patents. While the expiration of a product patent normally results in a loss of market exclusivity for the covered product or product candidate, commercial benefits may continue to be derived from: (i) later-granted patents on processes and intermediates related to the most economical method of manufacture of the active ingredient of such product; (ii) patents relating to the use of such product; (iii) patents relating to novel compositions and formulations; and (iv) in the United States and certain other countries, market exclusivity that may be available under relevant law. The effect of patent expiration on products or product candidates also depends upon many other factors such as the nature of the market and the position of the product in it, the growth of the market, the complexities and economics of the process for manufacture of the active ingredient of the product and the requirements of new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or similar laws and regulations in other countries.

We believe that the protection of discoveries in connection with our development activities, our proprietary products, technologies, processes and know-how and all of our intellectual property are important to our business. To achieve a competitive position, we rely on trade secrets, non-patented proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation, where patent protection is not believed to be appropriate or attainable. In addition, as outlined above, we have a number of patent licenses from third parties, some of which may be important to our business. There can be no assurance that any of our patents, licenses or other intellectual property rights will afford us any protection from competition.

Trademarks

Our trademarks are important to our business. We currently use the following unregistered trademarks: SMaRT Replacement Therapy™, MU1140™, and LPT3-04™. In March 2022, the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance in connection with our application for registration of the mark of ORAGENICS™ (therapeutic products; anti-infectives and vaccine products). Registration of the mark of ORAGENICS™ is pending, subject to our filing of a Statement of Use and the subsequent acceptance thereof by the USPTO. We also have rights to use other names essential to our business. Federally registered trademarks have a perpetual life, as long as they are maintained and renewed on a timely basis and used properly as trademarks, subject to the rights of third parties to seek cancellation of the trademarks if they claim priority or confusion of usage. We regard our trademarks and other proprietary rights as valuable assets and believe they have significant value to us.

Protection of Trade Secrets

We attempt to protect our trade secrets, including the processes, concepts, ideas and documentation associated with our technologies, through the use of confidentiality agreements and non-competition agreements with our current employees and with other parties to whom we have divulged such trade secrets. There can be no assurance that these agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, that others will not independently develop equivalent proprietary information or that other third parties will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and other intellectual property. If our employees or other parties breach our confidentiality agreements and non-competition agreements or if these agreements are not sufficient to protect our technology or are found to be unenforceable, our competitors could acquire and use information that we consider to be our trade secrets and we may not be able to compete effectively. Most of our competitors have substantially greater financial, marketing, technical and manufacturing resources than we have and we may not be profitable if our competitors are also able to take advantage of our trade secrets.

We may find it necessary to initiate litigation to enforce our patent rights, to protect our intellectual property or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Litigation is costly and time-consuming, and there can be no assurance that our litigation expenses will not be significant in the future or that we will prevail in any such litigation.

Human Capital

Employees

We have five full-time employees. We enjoy good relations with our employees. None of our employees are a member of any labor union, and we are not a party to any collective bargaining agreement.

Consultants

We have consulting agreements with a number of scientists, clinicians and regulatory experts. They serve as important contacts for us throughout the broader scientific and clinical communities. They are distinguished individuals with expertise in numerous fields, including vaccine development and regulatory matters.

We retain each consultant according to the terms of the consulting agreement. Under such agreements, we pay them a consulting fee and reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in performing their services for us. In addition, some consultants hold options to purchase our common stock, subject to the vesting requirements contained in separate award agreements. Our consultants may be employed by other entities and therefore may have commitments to their employer or may have other consulting or advisory agreements that may limit their availability to us.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in November 1996 and commenced operations in 1999. We consummated our initial public offering in June 2003. Our corporate office is located at 1990 Main Street Suite 750 Sarasota, Florida 34236.

Available Information

Our website is www.oragenics.com. On our website we make available at no cost our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish them to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The information contained on our website is not a part of this annual report on Form 10-K.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision in our securities. These risk factors are effective as of the date of this Form 10-K and shall be deemed to be modified or superseded to the extent that a statement contained in our future filings modifies or replaces such statement. All of these risks may impair our business operations. The forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K involve risks and uncertainties and actual results may differ materially from the results we discuss in the forward-looking statements. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Risk Factor Summary

The below summary of risk factors provides an overview of many of the risks we are exposed to in the normal course of our business activities. As a result, the below summary risks do not contain all of the information that may be important to you, and you should read the summary risks together with the more detailed discussion of risks set forth following this section as well as elsewhere in this Annual Report. Additional risks, beyond those summarized below or discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report, may apply to our activities or operations as currently conducted or as we may conduct them in the future or in the markets in which we operate or may in the future operate. Consistent with the foregoing, we are exposed to a variety of risks, including risks associated with the following:

Risks Related to Our Business

We have incurred significant losses since our inception and expect to continue to experience losses for the foreseeable future and may not be able to continue as a going concern.

We have incurred significant net losses and negative cash flow in each year since our inception, including net losses of approximately $21 million and $14 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, and 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, our accumulated deficit was approximately $206 million. We have devoted a significant amount of our financial resources to research and development, including our nonclinical development activities and clinical trials. We expect that the costs associated with our plans to begin Phase 2 work on ONP-002 will be significant. Additionally, our License Agreements also require the payment of certain recurring and performance-based royalties that may negatively impact our financial capabilities. In addition, Ladenburg Thalmann has sent us an invoice and demand letter claiming it is owed $2,500,000 in connection with our purchase of the Neurology Assets (the “Ladenburg Claim”). We strongly disagree with such claim and have filed a confidential action for arbitration against Ladenburg through FINRA on March 12, 2024, seeking, among other things, a declaratory action ruling that no such fee is owed, the litigation expenses related thereto will put further strain on our limited resources. As a result, we expect to continue to incur substantial net losses and negative cash flow for the foreseeable future. These losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity and working capital. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development and commercialization, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of substantial expenses or when, or if, we will be able to generate the revenue necessary to achieve or maintain profitability.

We will need to raise additional capital in the future to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates and operate our business.

Developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products, including Phase 2 work for our ONP-002 product candidate and conducting nonclinical studies and clinical trials and establishing manufacturing capabilities, and the progress of our efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates, is expensive, and can cause us to use our limited, available capital resources faster than we currently anticipate. We anticipate that our estimated cash resources of approximately $3.5 million as of December 31, 2023, will be sufficient to fund our operations as presently structured through the second quarter of 2024. We are currently evaluating cost-saving initiatives, including restructuring that could allow further cash runway through 2024 to the extent such initiatives are undertaken but there can be no assurances we will be able to implement them. Our auditor has previously expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and absent additional financing we may be unable to remain a going concern. Our actual costs may ultimately vary from our current expectations, which could materially impact our use of capital and our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations. Our current cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are not sufficient to fully implement our business strategy and sustain our operations. Accordingly, we will need to seek additional sources of financing and such additional financing may not be available on favorable terms, if at all. Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue, if ever, we expect to finance future cash needs through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or corporate or government collaboration and licensing arrangements. If we do not succeed in raising additional funds on acceptable terms, we may be unable to complete existing nonclinical and planned clinical trials or obtain approval of our product candidates from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. We expect capital outlays and operating expenditures to increase over the next several years as we expand our infrastructure, and research and development activities. Specifically, we need to raise additional capital to, among other things:

Our present and future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

In addition, we have previously discontinued and could be forced to discontinue future product development and commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, curtail or forego sales and marketing efforts, and/or forego licensing attractive business opportunities.

Given our current cash position and significant uncertainties related to future funding opportunities and our 2023 financials, substantial doubt exists regarding our ability to continue as a going concern through one year from the date that the financial statements included in this Annual Report were issued.

Our ability to fund our operations is dependent upon funding from grants and/or equity financing. New financing may not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. The Ladenburg Claim may make it more difficult to obtain financing. Also, any collaborations, strategic alliances, and marketing, distribution, or licensing arrangements may require us to give up some or all of our rights to a product candidate, which in some cases may be at less than the full potential value of such rights. In addition, the regulatory and commercial success of our product candidates remains uncertain. If we are unable to obtain additional capital, we will assess our capital resources and may be required to delay, pivot, reduce the scope of, or eliminate some or all of our operations, or downsize our organization, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and ability to operate as a going concern.

Our management believes that, given the significance of these uncertainties, substantial doubt exists regarding our ability to continue as a going concern through one year from the date that these financials statements are issued.

Our auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and absent additional financing we may be unable to remain a going concern.

In light of our recurring losses, accumulated deficit and negative cash flow as described in our notes to our audited consolidated financial statements, the report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, contained an explanatory paragraph raising substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our financial statements did not include any adjustments that may have been necessary in the event we were unable to continue as a going concern. If we are unable to establish to the satisfaction of our independent registered public accounting firm that the net proceeds from our financing efforts will be sufficient to allow for the removal of this going concern qualification, we may need to significantly modify our operational plans for us to continue as a going concern. We believe we can continue our current level of operations with the cash we have on hand without additional financing through the second quarter of 2024. Absent sufficient additional financing, we may be unable to remain a going concern.

We require additional funding to be able to maintain our current level of operations and to fund the further development of our new ONP-002 product candidate; we may not be able to obtain additional funding.

To date, we have never developed any product candidate, and we cannot assure investors that we will be able to successfully develop any drug candidate, including without limitation a drug treatment for mild traumatic brain injury, with our current resources and capabilities. Because our new ONP-002 concussion drug product candidate is in early stages of development and contemplates nasal administration it will require extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing, and we will need significant additional funding to conduct such research and testing. We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales, licensing fees, royalties, milestones, contract research or other sources of funds in amounts sufficient to fully fund our operations for the foreseeable future, and we will therefore use our cash resources, and expect to require additional funds, to maintain our existing operations, continue our research and development programs, commence Phase II clinical studies and clinical trials for our ONP-002 product candidate, and to seek regulatory approvals. Additionally, we expect our operating expenses to increase, both due to additional employment costs and operating costs required to pursue the development of the Neurology Assets.

In order to support the initiatives envisioned in our business plan, we will need to raise additional funds through the sale of assets, public or private debt or equity financing, collaborative relationships or other arrangements. We are unable to provide any assurance or guarantee that additional capital will be available when needed by our company or that such capital will be available under terms acceptable to our company or on a timely basis. If adequate funds are not available, we may have to scale back our operations or limit our research and development activities, which may cause us to grow at a slower pace, or not at all, and our business could be adversely affected. With limited capital, we have put the research and development of our COVID vaccine program and our lantibiotics program on hold and have chosen instead to focus the limited capital on the development of ONP-002.

We anticipate seeking such additional funds through a combination of public or private equity or debt financings, as well as potential collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements and non-dilutive funding from government and nongovernment funding entities, as well as other sources to further the research, development, manufacturing, testing, and regulatory approval our concussion drug product. While we may continue to apply for contracts or grants from academic institutions, nonprofit organizations and governmental entities, we may not be successful.

Adequate additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all. Our ability to raise additional financing depends on many factors beyond our control, including the state of capital markets, the market price of our common stock and the development or prospects for development of competitive products by others. If we cannot raise the additional funds required for our anticipated operations or to support our development efforts, we may be required to delay significantly, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our research or development programs, downsize our organization, or seek alternative measures to avoid insolvency, including arrangements with collaborative partners or others that may require us to relinquish rights to certain of our technologies or our concussion drug candidate.

Furthermore, if we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, dilution to our existing stockholders could result. Any equity securities issued also may provide for rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of holders of our common and preferred stock. If we raise additional funds by issuing debt securities, these debt securities would have rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common stock, and the terms of the debt securities issued could impose significant restrictions on our operations. Additionally, future offerings also could have a material and adverse effect on the price of our common stock. If we raise additional funds through collaborations and licensing arrangements, we might be required to relinquish significant rights to our technologies or our products under development or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us, which could lower the economic value of those programs to us. If additional funds are raised through the issuance of equity, convertible debt or similar securities of our company, the percentage of ownership of our company by our company’s stockholders will be reduced, our company’s stockholders may experience additional dilution upon conversion, and such securities may have rights or preferences senior to those of our common stock. The preferential rights granted to the providers of such additional financing may include preferential rights to payments of dividends, super voting rights, a liquidation preference, protective provisions preventing certain corporate actions without the consent of the fund providers, or a combination thereof. We are unable to provide any assurance that additional financing will be available on terms favorable to us or at all.

We may rely on government funding and collaboration with government entities for our product development, which adds uncertainty to our research and development efforts and may impose requirements that increase the costs of development, commercialization and production of any programs developed under those government-funded programs.

Because we anticipate the resources necessary to develop our new ONP-002 concussion drug candidate will be substantial, we may explore funding and development collaboration opportunities with the U.S. or foreign governments and their agencies. We have no control or input over whether an application for grant funding or any other funding will be accepted or approved, in full or in part, and we cannot provide investors with any assurances that we will receive such funding.

Additionally, contracts and grants funded by the U.S. or foreign governments and their agencies, contain provisions that reflect the government’s substantial rights and remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial contracts, including powers of the government to:

In addition, government contracts and grants, ordinarily contain additional requirements that may increase our costs of doing business, reduce our profits, and expose us to liability for failure to comply with these terms and conditions, including the following:

If we received such grants or agreements, we may not have the right to prohibit the U.S. government from using certain technologies developed by us, and we may not be able to prohibit third-parties, including our competitors, from using those technologies in providing products and services to the U.S. government. Further, under such agreements we could be subject to obligations to and the rights of the U.S. government set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, meaning the U.S. government may have rights in certain inventions developed under these government-funded agreements, including a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government could have the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or nonexclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations, also referred to as “march-in rights.” Although the U.S. government’s historic restraint with respect to these rights indicates they are unlikely to be used, any exercise of the march-in rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. In the event we would be subject to the U.S. government’s exercise such march-in rights, we may receive compensation that is deemed reasonable by the U.S. government in its sole discretion, which may be less than what we might be able to obtain in the open market.

Additionally, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any invention generated through the use of U.S. government funding be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property.

Although we will need to comply with some of these obligations, not all of the aforementioned obligations may be applicable to us unless and only to the extent that we receive a government grant, contract or other agreement. However, as an organization, we are relatively new to government contracting and new to the regulatory compliance obligations that such contracting entails. If we were to fail to maintain compliance with those obligations, we may be subject to potential liability and to termination of our contracts.

We have limited concussion and neurology-specific research, development, manufacturing, testing, regulatory, commercialization, sales, distribution, and marketing experience, and we may need to invest significant financial and management resources to establish these capabilities. Despite such investments and our best efforts, our strategic acquisition of the ONP-002 and ONP-001 neurology drug assets may turn out to be unsuccessful.

As part of our business strategy, we monitor and analyze strategic acquisition opportunities that we believe will be strategic fits for the Company and beneficial to the Company’s shareholders. As demonstrated by our acquisition of the Neurology Assets in December of 2023, we may acquire companies, businesses, products and technologies that complement, augment or transform our existing business. However, such acquisitions could involve numerous risks that may prevent us from fully realizing the benefits that we anticipated as a result of such transactions.

Prior to our acquisition of the Neurology Assets, we had little-to-no experience in the development and commercialization of neurology or concussion related drugs. Although, in connection with the acquisition, we added experienced neurology researchers and consultants, given our size and current pre-clinical stage of development, we still have limited neurology-specific research, development, manufacturing, testing, regulatory, commercialization, sales, distribution, and marketing experience. To successfully develop our neurology product candidate, we will need to dedicate significant amounts of our limited financial and management resources to bolster our expertise in this area. Our success depends significantly on the continued contributions of our executive officers, financial, scientific and technical personnel and consultants, and on our ability to attract additional personnel.

During our operating history, many essential responsibilities have been assigned to a relatively small number of individuals, and we currently depend heavily upon the efforts and abilities of our management team. However, as we advance into neurology development, the demands on our key employees will expand and we will need to recruit additional qualified employees or consultants for our Company. The competition for such qualified personnel is intense. The loss of services of any of our existing consultants or our inability to attract additional personnel to fill critical positions could adversely affect our ability to efficiently develop our neurology product candidates. The loss or unavailability of the services of any of these individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results.

Alternatively, or in addition to the above, we may enter into strategic alliances or partnership with other industry entities to utilize their research, development, manufacturing, testing, regulatory or commercialization skills, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If our future strategic collaborators do not commit sufficient resources to our alliances or partnerships and the progress of our development, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary capabilities on our own, we may be unable to advance the development of our neurology asset product candidates to the point of commercialization, even if we obtain regulatory approval. We will be competing with many companies that currently have existing, extensive and well-funded operations, and without a significant internal team or the support of a third party to perform essential functions related to neurology research, development, manufacturing, testing, regulatory approval, and commercialization, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies and our neurology product candidates may fail.

Any failure by us to effectively limit such risks as we implement our strategic acquisition could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations and cause the price of our securities to fall.

Our success with regard to the Neurology Assets depends on the viability of our business strategy with regard to those assets, which is unproven and may be unfeasible.

Our revenue and income potential with regard to the Neurology Assets, in particular the concussion asset, are unproven, and we continue to develop our strategy for such assets. Our anticipated business model is based on a variety of assumptions based on a growing trend in the healthcare systems in the United States and many other countries. These assumptions may not reflect the business and market conditions we actually face. As a result, our operating results could differ materially from those projected under our business model, and our business model may prove to be unprofitable. The product candidate ONP-002 (the concussion asset) being developed is in its early stages and will require extensive testing and clinical trials before it is commercialized. There is no guarantee that ONP-002 will be approved for commercial use. The product candidate ONP-001 (the potential treatment for Niemann Pick Disease Type C) is in its early stages and will require extensive testing and clinical trials before it is commercialized. There is no guarantee that ONP-001 will be approved for commercial use. Further, we own 50% of the rights to this product candidate, with the other 50% owner by a third party. We anticipate this product candidate will be developed through a joint venture with a third party. However, the joint venture with that third party has not been finalized. If we fail to obtain marketing authorization for these product candidates, our business, financial condition, and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

There are substantial inherent risks in attempting to commercialize newly developed products, and, as a result, we may not be able to successfully develop any products.

We hope to conduct research and development of the purchased Neurology Assets. However, commercial feasibility and acceptance of such product candidates are unknown. Scientific research and development require significant amounts of capital and takes an extremely long time to reach commercial viability, if at all. During the research and development process, we may experience technological barriers that we may be unable to overcome. Because of these uncertainties, it is possible that some or all of our future product candidates will never be successfully developed. If we are unable to successfully develop new products, we may be unable to generate new revenue sources or build a sustainable or profitable business.

With limited resources we have paused our other product candidate research and development and now rely on the progress and success of ONP-002.

With limited capital, we have put the research and development of our COVID vaccine program and our lantibiotics program on hold and have chosen instead to focus the limited capital on the development of ONP-002. As such, our future success currently depends on the successful development of ONP-002, our concussion asset, of which there can be no assurances.

We will need to achieve commercial acceptance of our products, if cleared or approved, to generate revenues and achieve profitability.

Superior products may be introduced that compete with the Neurology Assets, which would diminish or extinguish the uses for those products candidates, if cleared or approved. We cannot predict when significant commercial market acceptance for such products, if cleared or approved, will develop, if at all, and we cannot reliably estimate the projected size of any such potential market. If markets fail to accept such products, then we may not be able to generate revenue from them. Our revenue growth and achievement of profitability will depend substantially on our ability to introduce new products that are accepted by customers. Our competitors in the industry are predominantly large companies with longer operating histories, with significantly easier access to capital and other resources and an established product pipeline than us. There can be no assurance that we will be able to establish ourselves in our targeted markets, or, if established, that we will be able to maintain our market position, if any. Our commercial opportunity may be reduced if our competitors develop new or improved products that are more convenient, more effective or less expensive than our product candidates are. Competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory marketing authorization for their products more rapidly or earlier than we may obtain marketing authorization for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. If we are unable to cost-effectively achieve acceptance of our products by customers, or if our products do not achieve wide market acceptance, then our business will be materially and adversely affected.

The products candidates included in the Neurology Assets are still in development and we have not obtained authorization from any regulatory agency to commercially distribute such products in any country and we may never obtain such authorizations.

We currently have no products authorized for commercial distribution in either the United States, Europe or any other country. All of our product candidates require regulatory clearance or approvals. We cannot begin marketing and selling product candidates until we obtain applicable authorizations from the applicable regulatory agencies. The process of obtaining regulatory authorization is expensive and time-consuming and can vary substantially based upon, among other things, the type, complexity and novelty of a product candidate. Changes in regulatory policy, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the authorization of a product candidate or rejection of a regulatory application altogether.

The FDA has substantial discretion in the review process and may refuse to accept our application or may decide that data are insufficient to grant the request and require additional pre-clinical, clinical, or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from pre-clinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing authorization from the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Any marketing authorization from the FDA we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-market commitments that render the product candidate not commercially viable. If our attempts to obtain marketing authorization are unsuccessful, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain and grow our business, and our business, financial condition, and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

Our concussion drug product candidate is at the Phase II clinical stage and has not been approved for sale. We have not conducted substantial research and development for a concussion product candidate, and we may be unable to produce a concussion drug that successfully treats mild traumatic brain injury in a timely and economical manner, if at all.

Our Neurology Asset development program is in the early stages of research and development, and currently includes only one product candidate, which has completed Phase I clinical trials but has not commenced Phase II clinical trials. Limited data exist regarding the safety and efficacy of our concussion product candidate, and we must conduct a substantial amount of additional research, development and clinical testing before any regulatory authority will approve our concussion product candidate. The success of our efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates could fail for a number of reasons. For example, we could experience delays in product development and clinical trials or unsatisfactory clinical trial results.

In addition, adverse events, or the perception of adverse events, relating to a concussion product candidate administered intranasally and delivery technologies may negatively impact our ability to develop commercially successful products. Regardless of the veracity of or the data supporting these claims, these and other claims may influence public perception of the use of intranasal delivery product candidates and could result in greater governmental regulation, stricter labeling requirements and potential regulatory delays in the testing or approval of our potential product candidate. Such greater government regulation could have a material effect on our ability to develop and market our concussion product candidate.

Only a small fraction of biotechnology development programs ultimately result in commercial products or even product candidates and a number of events could delay our development efforts and negatively impact our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and to manufacture, market and sell, a nasally administered vaccine. Additionally, our ability to develop an effective concussion drug will depend on our ability to work on an accelerated timeline, with uncertain access to financial resources beyond those that we currently possess, and in competition with a significant number of better-funded and more experienced development companies. Even if a market exists, our concussion drug product candidate could be found to be ineffective or unsafe, or otherwise fail to receive necessary regulatory clearances. Our concussion drug product candidate, even if safe and effective, could be difficult to manufacture on a large scale or uneconomical to market, or our competitors could develop superior products more quickly and efficiently or more effectively market their competing products. Accordingly, our inability to develop a commercially successful concussion product will materially harm our business.

We are, and will continue to be, dependent in significant part on outside scientists and third-party research institutions for our research and development in order to be able to commercialize our product candidates.

We currently have a limited number of employees and resources available to perform the research and development necessary to commercialize our product candidates and potential future product candidates. We therefore rely, and will continue to rely, on third-party research institutions, collaborators and consultants for this capability. While the Company continues to seek additional funding, it is taking steps to reduce the use of its cash resources, which include the determination to terminate the Lease.

The third party upon whom we rely for the supply of ONP-002 is our sole source of supply, and the loss of this supplier could significantly harm our business.

ONP-002 is a fully synthetic, non-naturally occurring neurosteroid. We have one manufacturer as our current partner in the development of synthetic chemistry and manufacturing of the ONP-002 (Molecular Formula: C20H28O2, Molecular Weight: 300.14 g/mol). Our ability to successfully develop our ONP-002 product candidates, and to ultimately supply our commercial products in quantities sufficient to meet the market demand, depends in part on our ability to obtain the drug product and drug substance for our product candidates in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for commercialization and clinical testing. We do not currently have arrangements in place for a redundant or second-source supply of any products or substances in the event our current supplier ceases their operations or stops offering us sufficient quantities of these materials for any reason.

We are not certain that our single-source supplier will be able to meet our demand, either because of the nature of our agreement with the supplier, our limited experience with the supplier or our relative importance as a customer to the supplier. It may be difficult for us to assess its ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our supplier has generally met our demand on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to their other customers.

Moreover, if there is a disruption to our third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ relevant operations the supply of ONP-002 and its components will be delayed until such manufacturer or supplier restores the affected facilities or we or they procure alternative manufacturing facilities or sources of supply. Our ability to progress our pre-clinical and clinical programs could be materially and adversely impacted if any of the third-party suppliers upon which we rely were to experience a significant business challenge, disruption or failure due to issues such as financial difficulties or bankruptcy, issues relating to other customers such as regulatory or quality compliance issues, or other financial, legal, regulatory or reputational issues. Additionally, any damage to or destruction of our third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ facilities or equipment may significantly impair our ability to manufacture our product candidates on a timely basis.

Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for drug products and drug substance used in our product candidates, if required, may not be accomplished quickly and can take several years, if at all. Furthermore, despite our efforts, we may be unable to procure a replacement supplier or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. If we are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory approval, which could result in further delay. While we seek to maintain adequate inventory of the drug product and drug substance used in our product candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain such drug product and drug substance from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner could impede, delay, limit or prevent our development efforts, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Certain raw materials required in the manufacture and the formulation of our product candidates are derived from biological sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. Access to and supply of sufficient quantities of raw materials which meet the technical specifications for the production process is challenging, and often limited to single-source suppliers. Finding an alternative supplier could take a significant amount of time and involve significant expense due to the nature of the products and the need to obtain regulatory approvals. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of our product candidates on acceptable terms in a timely manner, at sufficient quality levels, or in adequate quantities, if at all, our ability to produce sufficient quantities of our products for clinical or commercial requirements would be negatively impacted. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of certain biologically derived substances or any raw material used in the manufacture of our products could adversely impact or disrupt manufacturing, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of such product candidates, if approved or cleared.

If Odyssey were to convert all of its Series F Convertible Preferred Stock, they would own more than a majority of our outstanding shares of common stock.

At the closing of the Odyssey transaction, we issued 8,000,000 shares of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock to Odyssey, which are convertible into our common stock on a one-for-one basis. The Series F Convertible Preferred Stock is non-voting, but if Odyssey were to convert all of its shares of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock into our common stock, they would control the vote of more than a majority of our outstanding common stock. Such a conversion would likely be considered a change of control under the rules of the NYSE American, requiring us to apply for and meet the NYSE Americans initial listing standards. We do not currently meet those standards. Accordingly, our Certificate of Designation creating the Series F Preferred Stock specifies that the remainder of the Series F Convertible Preferred shares are not convertible until the occurrence of all of the following: (i) Oragenics’ shall have applied for and been approved for initial listing on the NYSE American or another national securities exchange or shall have been delisted from the NYSE American, which Oragenics’ does not anticipate undertaking until it meets the NYSE American’s initial listing standards, and (ii) if required by the rules of the NYSE American, Oragenics’ shareholders shall have approved any change of control that could be deemed to occur upon the conversion of the Series F Preferred Stock into common stock, based on the fact and circumstances existing at such time.

The market opportunities for our concussion drug product candidate may be smaller than we believe them to be, or alternative drugs or technologies may be adopted, before our concussion drug achieve regulatory approval.

The primary area of focus for our future research and product development activities is the development of a nasally administered treatment of moderate-to-severe concussion (“mTBI”) in the acute through subacute phases, ONP-002. Our current projections of both the number of people who are or will be affected by this disease, as well as the subset of people who may be affected by this disease and who have the potential to benefit from treatment through our ONP-002 product candidate are based on estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. The number of clinical trial participants in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, potential clinical trial participants may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new clinical trial participants may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our ability to conduct the research and development necessary to complete the concussion product candidate.

If we are unable to successfully develop our product candidates, our operating results and competitive position could be harmed. Research and development involves a lengthy and complex process, and we may not be successful in our efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates. The further development and ultimate commercialization of our Neurology Assets, as well as our other product candidates, are keys to our strategy.

A key element of our business strategy is to discover, develop, validate, and commercialize a treatment product candidate for mTBI, which we aim to market globally to both public and private payers. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully complete development of or commercialize any or all of our planned future product candidates, or that they will be clinically usable. The product development process involves a high degree of risk and may take up to several years or more. Our new product development efforts may fail for many reasons, including:

Few research and development projects result in commercial products, and success in early clinical trials often is not replicated in later trials. At any point, we may abandon development of products in favor of the development or acquisition of new products, or we may be required to expend considerable resources repeating clinical studies or trials, which would adversely impact the timing for generating potential revenues from those new products. In addition, as we advance the development of new products through to the commercialization stage, we will have to make additional investments in our sales and marketing operations, which may be prematurely or unnecessarily incurred if the commercial launch of a product is abandoned or delayed.

If we are successful in producing a treatment for mTBI (concussion), we may need to devote significant resources to its scale-up and development, including for use by the U.S. government or other foreign authorities. Moreover, government involvement may limit the commercial success of our concussion product candidate.

We have not manufactured a concussion treatment to date, but if we were to do so, the economic value of such a treatment to us could be limited by such government action or inaction. Various government entities, including the U.S. government, offer, but may not continue to offer, incentives, grants and contracts to encourage the research and development of new drug technologies, which may have the effect of increasing the number of competitors and/or providing advantages to known competitors. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully establish a competitive market share for our concussion treatment product candidate.

In the event that any of the pre-clinical research or, if an IND is accepted by the FDA, the Phase II clinical trials for our concussion treatment product candidate are perceived to be successful, we may need to work toward the large-scale technical development, manufacturing scale-up and larger scale deployment of this potential treatment through a variety of U.S. government-sponsored mechanisms, such as an Expanded Access Program or an Emergency Use Authorization program. In this case we may need to divert significant resources to this program, which would require diversion of resources from our other existing product candidate programs. In addition, since the path to licensure of any concussion drug treatment is unclear there could be a negative impact on our receipt of marketing approval. Unexpected safety issues in these circumstances could lead to significant reputational damage for us and our technology platform going forward and other issues, including delays in our other programs, the need for re-design of our clinical trials and the need for significant additional financial resources.

Our product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to compete effectively may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration.

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of healthcare products competitive with those that we are developing. We face competition from a number of sources, such as pharmaceutical companies, including generic drug companies, biotechnology companies and academic and research institutions, many of which have greater financial resources, marketing capabilities, sales forces, manufacturing capabilities, research and development capabilities, clinical trial expertise, intellectual property portfolios, experience in obtaining patents and regulatory approvals for product candidates and other resources than us. Some of the companies that offer competing products also have a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with our target physicians, which could inhibit our market penetration efforts. In addition, certain of our product candidates, if approved, may compete with other products, for a share of some patients’ discretionary budgets and for physicians’ attention within their clinical practices.

We anticipate that, if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will face significant competition from other approved therapies and may need to compete with unregulated, unapproved, and off-label treatments. Certain of our product candidates, if approved, will present novel therapeutic approaches for the approved indications, and will have to compete with existing therapies, some of which are widely known and accepted by physicians and patients. To compete successfully in this market, we will have to demonstrate that the relative cost, safety, and efficacy of our approved products, if any, provide an attractive alternative to existing and other new therapies. Such competition could lead to a reduced market share for our product candidates and contribute to downward pressure on the pricing of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results, and prospects.

Due to less stringent regulatory requirements in certain foreign countries, there are many more products and procedures available for use in those international markets than are approved for use in the United States. In certain international markets, there are also fewer limitations on the claims that our competitors can make about the effectiveness of their products and the manner in which they can market them. As a result, we expect to face more competition in these markets than in the United States.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater resources and experience, which may negatively impact our commercial opportunities.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are subject to intense competition and rapid and significant technological change. We have many potential competitors, including major pharmaceutical companies, specialized biotechnology firms, academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial and technical resources, experience and expertise in:

Principal competitive factors in our industry include:

Large and established companies, such as Merck & Co., Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, CSL Ltd., Sanofi Pasteur, SA, Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Moderna, among others, compete in the market. In particular, these companies have greater experience and expertise in securing government contracts and grants to support their research and development efforts, conducting testing and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals to market products, manufacturing such products on a broad scale and marketing approved products.

Regardless of the disease, smaller or early-stage companies and research institutions also may prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established pharmaceutical companies. As these companies develop their technologies, they may develop proprietary positions, which may prevent or limit our product development and commercialization efforts. If any of our competitors succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities for their products sooner than we do or for products that are more effective or less costly than ours, our commercial opportunity could be significantly reduced.

In order to effectively compete, we will have to make substantial investments in development, testing, manufacturing and sales and marketing or partner with one or more established companies. We may not be successful in gaining any market share. Our technologies and neurology product candidates also may be rendered obsolete or non-competitive as a result of products introduced by our competitors to the marketplace more rapidly and at a lower cost.

We may choose not to continue developing or commercializing any of our product candidates at any time during development or after approval, which would reduce or eliminate our potential return on investment for those product candidates.

At any time, we may decide to discontinue the development or commercialization of any of our products or product candidates for a variety of reasons, including inadequate financial resources the appearance of new technologies that render our product obsolete, competition from a competing product or changes in or failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. If we terminate a program in which we have invested significant resources, we will not receive any return on our investment and we will have missed the opportunity to allocate those resources to potentially more productive uses.

If any of our product candidates are shown to be ineffective or harmful in humans, we will be unable to generate revenues from these product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through nonclinical testing and clinical trials that our products are safe and effective for use in humans. To date ONP-002 has successfully completed Phase I clinical trials but has not yet completed Phase II clinical trials. It is possible that when and if future clinical trials are conducted in humans, they will show that our ONP-002 is ineffective or harmful in humans. If ONP-002 is shown to be ineffective or harmful to humans, we will be unable to commercialize and generate revenues from sales of such product candidate.

We intend to seek licensing partners to cover a portion of the costs associated with obtaining regulatory approval for, and manufacturing and marketing of, our product candidates. If we are unable to obtain agreements with third parties to fund these costs, we will have to fund such costs ourselves or we may be unable to extract any value from these technologies.

As we continue our development of product candidates, we intend to either license these product candidates to, or partner with, one or more major pharmaceutical companies at the earliest possible time in their product development. If we do so, we intend for these licensees or partners to pay the costs associated with any remaining development work, regulatory submissions, clinical trials and the manufacturing and marketing of our product candidates. If we are unable to license our product candidates or otherwise partner with third parties, we will have to fund the costs of our clinical trials ourselves or we will be unable to extract any value from these technologies. We may also have to establish our own manufacturing facilities and find our own distribution channels. This would greatly increase our future capital requirements and we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the necessary financing to pay these costs. If we are unable to cover the associated costs or we cannot obtain financing on acceptable terms or at all, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

Our dependence on collaborative arrangements with third parties subjects us to a number of risks. These collaborative arrangements may not be on terms favorable to us. Agreements with collaborative partners typically allow partners significant discretion in electing whether or not to pursue any of the planned activities. We cannot control the amount and timing of resources our collaborative partners may devote to products based on the collaboration, and our partners may choose to pursue alternative products. Our partners may not perform their obligations as expected. Business combinations or significant changes in a collaborative partner’s business strategy may adversely affect a partner’s willingness or ability to complete its obligations under the arrangement. Moreover, we could become involved in disputes with our partners, which could lead to delays or termination of the collaborations and time-consuming and expensive litigation or arbitration. Even if we fulfill our obligations under a collaborative agreement, our partner may be able to terminate the agreement under certain circumstances. If any collaborative partner were to terminate or breach our agreement with it, or otherwise fail to complete its obligations in a timely manner, our chances of successfully commercializing our product candidates would be materially and adversely affected.

We are heavily dependent upon the ability and expertise of our management team and a very limited number of employees, and the loss of such individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

We currently have a very small management team. Our success is dependent upon the ability, expertise and judgment of our senior management. While employment agreements are customarily used as a primary method of retaining the services of key employees, these agreements cannot assure the continued services of such employees. Any loss of the services of such individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

We believe that our future success with regard to the Neurology Assets will depend significantly on the skills and efforts of Joseph Michael Redmond, our President, and other key personnel, including Jacob VanLandingham, Ph.D., one of the Company’s independent contractors. The loss of the services of any of these individuals could harm our ability to successfully pursue the development of the Neurology Assets. If any of our executive officers or key personnel left or was otherwise unable to work and we were unable to find a qualified replacement and/or to obtain adequate compensation for such loss, we may be unable to manage our business, which could harm our operating results and financial condition.

Mr. Redmond continues to serve as President and CEO of Odyssey, which may give rise to conflicts of interest. Additionally, while we expect Mr. Redmond to devote substantially all of his business time and efforts to the Company, we can make no assurance of this given his continuing role with Odyssey.

Prevacus, Inc., is the Company from whom Odyssey purchased the Neurology Assets in 2021. On December 5, 2022, the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) filed an Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi First Judicial District against Mississippi Community Education Center, Inc., a non-profit corporation, Nancy New, its director, Prevacus, Dr. VanLandingham its founder, and several other defendants, alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to defraud the MDHS. The MDHS is designated by Mississippi law as the State agency exclusively responsible for administering the federally-authorized and federally-funded anti-poverty (or “welfare”) program known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or “TANF.” With regard to Prevacus and Dr. VanLandingham, the complaint alleges that $2.1 million was funneled through the Mississippi Community Education Center, a nonprofit run by Nancy New, to Prevacus and PresolMD, another company founded by Dr. VanLandingham. The MDHS, among other things, is seeking to recover $2.1 million it alleges went to Prevacus and PresolMD. Prevacus and Dr. VanLandingham have denied any wrongdoing and have denied being aware that the funds received from Community Education Center, Inc. were TANF funds. When Odyssey agreed to purchase the Prevacus assets, it did not agree to assume any liability for refunding MDHS. Similarly, any such liabilities would be deemed excluded liabilities under the Company’s asset purchase agreement with Odyssey. As such, the Company does not believe it has any financial exposure related to the reimbursement of the funds paid to Prevacus and does not believe there are any grounds on which the Company could become embroiled in the foregoing legal proceedings. Dr. VanLandingham is not an Officer or Director of Oragenics but is instead an independent contractor. Nevertheless, any negative media related to foregoing legal proceedings, and in particular any negative media related to the concussion assets or Dr. VanLandingham, may negatively impact the Company’s ability to raise capital and otherwise continue the development of the Neurology Assets. Furthermore, Dr. VanLandingham’s ability to continue to assist in the development of the Neurology Assets may be negatively impacted by his need to respond to, and participate in, the foregoing legal proceedings.

We need to hire and retain additional qualified scientists and other highly skilled personnel to maintain and grow our business.

Our future success depends on our ability to identify, attract, hire, train, retain and motivate highly skilled technical, managerial and research personnel in all areas within our organization. We plan to continue to execute on our business strategy and expect to hire additional personnel to support our product development efforts. We believe that there are only a limited number of individuals with the requisite skills to serve in many of our key positions, and we compete for key personnel with other more established biotechnology companies, as well as universities and research institutions. It is often difficult to hire and retain these persons, and we may be unable to replace key persons if they leave or be unable to fill new positions requiring key persons with appropriate experience. If we fail to attract, integrate and retain the necessary personnel, our ability to maintain and grow our business could suffer significantly.

We might not be successful at acquiring, investing in or integrating businesses, entering into joint ventures or divesting businesses.

We expect to continue pursuing strategic acquisitions, investments and joint ventures to enhance or add to our skills and capabilities or offerings of services and solutions, or to enable us to expand in certain geographic and other markets. Depending on the opportunities available, we may increase the amount of capital invested in such opportunities. We may not succeed in completing targeted transactions, including as a result of the market becoming increasingly competitive, or achieve desired results of operations. Furthermore, we face risks in successfully integrating any businesses we might acquire or create through a joint venture. Ongoing business may be disrupted, and our management’s attention may be diverted by acquisition, investment, transition or integration activities. In addition, we might need to dedicate additional management and other resources, and our organizational structure could make it difficult for us to efficiently integrate acquired businesses into our ongoing operations and assimilate and retain employees of those businesses into our culture and operations. The loss of key executives, employees, customers, suppliers, vendors and other business partners of businesses we acquire may adversely impact the value of the assets, operations or businesses. Furthermore, acquisitions or joint ventures may result in significant costs and expenses, including those related to retention payments, equity compensation, severance pay, early retirement costs, intangible asset amortization and asset impairment charges, assumed litigation and other liabilities, and legal, accounting and financial advisory fees, which could negatively affect our profitability. We may have difficulties as a result of entering into new markets where we have limited or no direct prior experience or where competitors may have stronger market positions. We might fail to realize the expected benefits or strategic objectives of any acquisition, investment or joint venture we undertake. We might not achieve our expected return on investment or may lose money. We may be adversely impacted by liabilities that we assume from a company we acquire or in which we invest, including from that company’s known and unknown obligations, intellectual property or other assets, terminated employees, current or former clients or other third parties. In addition, we may fail to identify or adequately assess the magnitude of certain liabilities, shortcomings or other circumstances prior to acquiring, investing in or partnering with a company, including potential exposure to regulatory sanctions or liabilities resulting from an acquisition target’s previous activities, internal controls and security environment. If any of these circumstances occurs, they could result in unexpected legal or regulatory exposure, unfavorable accounting treatment, unexpected increases in taxes or other adverse effects on our business. In addition, we have a lesser degree of control over the business operations of the joint ventures and businesses in which we have made minority investments or in which we have acquired less than 100% of the equity. This lesser degree of control may expose us to additional reputational, financial, legal, compliance or operational risks. Litigation, indemnification claims and other unforeseen claims and liabilities may arise from the acquisition or operation of acquired businesses. For example, we may face litigation or other claims as a result of certain terms and conditions of the acquisition agreement, such as earnout payments or closing net asset adjustments. Alternatively, shareholder litigation may arise as a result of proposed acquisitions. If we are unable to complete the number and kind of investments for which we plan, or if we are inefficient or unsuccessful at integrating any acquired businesses into our operations, we may not be able to achieve our planned rates of growth or improve our market share, profitability or competitive position in specific markets or services. We also periodically evaluate, and have engaged in, the disposition of assets and businesses. Divestitures could involve difficulties in the separation of operations, services, products and personnel, the diversion of management’s attention, the disruption of our business and the potential loss of key employees. After reaching an agreement with a buyer for the disposition of a business, the transaction may be subject to the satisfaction of pre-closing conditions, including obtaining necessary regulatory and government approvals, which, if not satisfied or obtained, may prevent us from completing the transaction. Divestitures may also involve continued financial involvement in or liability with respect to the divested assets and businesses, such as indemnities or other financial obligations, in which the performance of the divested assets or businesses could impact our results of operations. Any divestiture we undertake could adversely affect our results of operations.

We may face product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability if our insurance coverage for those claims is inadequate.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. This risk exists even if a product is approved for commercial sale by the FDA and manufactured in facilities regulated by the FDA or an applicable foreign regulatory authority. Our products and product candidates are designed to affect bodily functions and processes. Any side effects, manufacturing defects, misuse or abuse associated with our product candidates could result in injury and possibly death to a patient. An inability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage on commercially reasonable terms or otherwise to protect against potential product liability claims could inhibit our business.

In addition, a liability claim may be brought against us even if our product candidates merely appear to have caused an injury. Product liability claims may be brought against us by consumers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our product candidates, among others. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims we will incur substantial liabilities and reputational harm. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

Although we may maintain product liability insurance coverage for clinical trials, our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all of our product liability-related expenses or losses and may not cover us for any expenses or losses we suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost, in sufficient amounts or upon adequate terms to protect us against losses due to product liability, particularly if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval. Further, a successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

We may be adversely affected by natural disasters, pandemics and other catastrophic events, and by man-made problems such as terrorism, that could disrupt our business operations and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our corporate headquarters is located in Sarasota, Florida, a hurricane zone. If a disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as enterprise financial systems, manufacturing resource planning or enterprise quality systems, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. Our contract manufacturers’ and suppliers’ facilities are located in multiple locations, where other natural disasters or similar events, such as blizzards, tornadoes, fires, explosions or large-scale accidents or power outages, and other public health emergencies could severely disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. For example, the recent COVID-19 pandemic may cause significant disruption to our business operations, the operations of our third-party contractors and suppliers and the operations of our clinical trials, including as a result of significant restrictions or bans on travel into and within the geographic areas in which our manufacturers product our product candidates or where we conduct our clinical trials. A public health emergency could also affect the operations of the FDA and other regulatory or public health authorities, resulting in delays to meetings related to planned or completed clinical trials and ultimately of reviews and approvals of our product candidates. Such disruption could impede, delay, limit or prevent our employees and third-party contractors from beginning or continuing research and development or clinical trial-related activities, which may impede, delay, limit or prevent initiation or completion of our ongoing clinical trials and pre-clinical research and ultimately lead to the delay or denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could seriously harm our operations and financial condition.

In addition, acts of terrorism and other geo-political unrest could cause disruptions in our business or the businesses of our partners, manufacturers or the economy as a whole. All of the aforementioned risks may be further increased if we do not implement a disaster recovery plan or our partners’ or manufacturers’ disaster recovery plans prove to be inadequate. To the extent that any of the above should result in delays in the regulatory approval, manufacture, distribution or commercialization of our product candidates, our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects would suffer.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited, each of which could harm our business.

As of December 31, 2023, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $153,575,836 and $137,731,183, respectively. We also accumulated U.S. federal and state research tax credits of approximately $4,169,354 as of December 31, 2023. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” the corporation’s ability to use its pre-ownership change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-ownership change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post-ownership change income and taxes may be limited. In general, an ownership change will occur when the percentage of the Corporation’s ownership (by value) of one or more “5-percent shareholders” (as defined in the Code) has increased by more than 50 percent over the lowest percentage owned by such shareholders at any time during the prior three years (calculated on a rolling basis). Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. An entity that experiences an ownership change generally will be subject to an annual limitation on its pre-ownership change tax loss and credit carryforwards equal to the equity value of the corporation immediately before the ownership change, multiplied by the long-term, tax-exempt rate posted monthly by the IRS (subject to certain adjustments). The annual limitation would be increased each year to the extent that there is an unused limitation in a prior year. In the event that it is determined that we have in the past experienced an ownership change as a result of transactions in our stock, or if we experience one or more ownership changes as a result of future transactions in our stock, then we may be limited in our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax assets to reduce taxes owed on the net taxable income that we earn. Any limitations on the ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax assets could harm our business.

The restatement of certain of our financial statements may subject us to risks and uncertainties, including the increased possibilities of legal proceedings.

On April 4, 2023, the management and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors concluded that an error impacted certain filings of the Company’s unaudited financial statements filed in 2022. The error that impacted such financials was: not properly analyzing research and development contracts. Management and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors concluded that the error had a material effect on the Company’s unaudited financial statements and that the affected unaudited financial statements should be restated and should no longer be relied upon. These filings were as follows:

The Company filed all amendments related to the Q1 2022 10-Q, Q2 2022 10-Q, and Q3 2022 10-Q with the SEC on April 14, 2023.

As a result of the restatement, we may become subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including, among others, the increased possibility of legal proceedings or a review by the SEC and other regulatory bodies. The costs of defending against such legal proceedings or administrative actions could be significant. In addition, we could face monetary judgments, penalties or other sanctions that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition, the restatements:

The occurrence or continued occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which was subsequently remediated during the year ended December 31, 2023.

The material weakness related to the review of research and development contracts. For additional information on the material weakness identified and our remedial efforts, see “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures”. The material weakness resulted in material errors in the unaudited financial statements for the three-month period ended March 31, 2022, the three- and six- month periods ended June 30, 2022, and the three- and nine- month periods ended September 30, 2022. As a result, we restated certain information contained in its previously issued unaudited interim consolidated financial statements for the Q1 2022 10-Q, Q2 2022 10-Q, and Q3 2022 10-Q. All such amendments were filed with the SEC on April 14, 2023.

Although we have completed our remediation of the material weakness, if additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting are discovered or occur in the future, our consolidated financial statements may contain misstatements and we could be required to restate our financial results. In addition, if we are unable to produce accurate consolidated financial statements in the future, our stock price, liquidity and access to the capital markets may be adversely affected and we may be unable to maintain compliance with applicable stock exchange listing requirements. Further, because of its inherent limitations, even our remediated and effective internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in our conditions, or that the degree of compliance with our policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property and Data Security and Privacy

Our limited resources and decision to pause the development of our COVID-19 vaccine candidate to focus on the development of ONP-002 may result in our breach of certain contracts.

We previously began the research and development stage for our Terra CoV-2 and NT-CoV2-1 vaccine product candidates. In connection therewith, we hold a non-exclusive, worldwide intellectual property license agreement for certain research, patent applications and biological materials relating to the use of pre-fusion coronavirus spike proteins for the development and commercialization of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. We also hold a non-exclusive license with the NRC that enables us to pursue the rapid development of next-generation vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (the “NIH License”) and its variants (the “NRC License”) and an exclusive global license with Inspirevax (the “Inspirevax License” and, together with the NIH License and NRC License, the “License Agreements”).

Under the License Agreements we must use reasonable commercial efforts to bring to market a vaccine product candidate covered by our licenses, which means we must adhere to an existing commercial development plan and existing performance benchmarks. Additionally, we are obliged to pay to the licensors certain minimum annual royalties, certain benchmark-related royalties and royalties based upon a share of any net sales of our vaccine product candidate, following regulatory approval and the first commercial sale. Additionally, among other obligations, we must provide regular written reports to the licensors on the development status of our vaccine product candidate and pay for our pro rata share of the NIH’s patent prosecution-related expenses and fees. Moreover, we must use reasonable commercial efforts to develop, manufacture, and commercialize the vaccine product candidate, to manufacture the vaccine product candidate substantially within the United States and or Canada and provide the United States and Canadian public with reasonable access to the vaccine, if approved for commercialization by the FDA and Canadian regulatory agencies.

Due to our limited resources and recent acquisition of the Neurology Assets, which we believe hold great promise, we have chosen to pause our vaccine product candidates. It is uncertain when, if ever, we will recommence the research and development of our vaccine product candidates as it will require significant additional financing. We may not be able to obtain the additional financing on terms acceptable to us, or at all. As a result, we may be unable to meet our obligations under the License Agreements, which may be terminated, and we may be unable to proceed with the development of our vaccine product candidates in the future.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our intellectual property license agreements, we could lose our license rights that are important to our vaccine and development of our vaccine product candidates.

The License Agreements impose various royalties and other obligations on us as well as development plans. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensors may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we may not be able to develop or market the affected product candidate. The License Agreements may be terminated in the event of a breach. The loss of such rights could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

We cannot prevent Inspirevax, the NRC or NIH (the “licensors”) or other companies related to our vaccine program development, including our competitors, from licensing the same intellectual property and biological materials related to vaccine products that we have licensed or from otherwise duplicating our business model and operations related to vaccine products. 

Our vaccine License Agreements (except our Inspirevax License) are nonexclusive licenses, and we are not permitted to sublicense the intellectual property or biological materials covered by the license. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the Licensors have not previously licensed, or that the Licensors will not, in the future, license the intellectual property or biological materials to other biotechnology companies, including those who intend to develop a vaccine product candidate for SARS-CoV-2, some or all of the nonexclusive intellectual property and biological materials available to us under the License Agreements. Moreover, we do not currently own any exclusive rights or licenses necessary to fully develop our NT-CoV2-1 vaccine product candidate, and such rights or licenses, if in existence, could be held by our competitors or used by other third parties to otherwise directly compete against us. If our competitors or others have or acquire exclusive rights or licenses that they could enforce against us, then we may be required to alter our products, pay licensing fees or cease activities. If our products conflict with rights or licenses of others, third parties could bring legal actions against us or our collaborators, licensees, suppliers or customers, claiming damages and seeking to enjoin manufacturing and marketing of the affected products. If these legal actions are successful, in addition to any potential liability for damages, we could be required to obtain a license in order to continue to manufacture or market the affected products. We may not prevail in any legal action and a required license under the patent may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, while we may develop, acquire or license the additional technologies necessary to the development of our vaccine candidate we cannot assure you that we will be able to develop, acquire or license such technologies or that alternatives will be sufficient to enable development of our NT-CoV2-1 vaccine product candidate or to prevent others from competing with us and developing substantially-similar products.

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

We or the Licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in the licensed patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or the Licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing the intellectual property covered by the License Agreements or our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our license or the Licensors’ ownership, as applicable, of the licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as our right to use intellectual property that is important to our product candidate development and commercialization. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

The United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Further, recent United States Supreme Court rulings have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Moreover, patent law and protection in foreign countries, particularly developing countries, may be insufficient or otherwise unclear in its efficacy to protect our intellectual property. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the scope and value of patents, once obtained.

For our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, also known as the America Invents Act, or 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. The USPTO is currently developing regulations and procedures to govern the administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA. It is not clear what other, if any, impact(s) the AIA will have on the operation of our business. Moreover, the AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business. One 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 who files a patent application with the USPTO after such date but prior to us may therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we were the first to invent. This “first-inventor-to-file” system will require us both to remain cognizant, going forward, of the timing between invention and filing of a patent application.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are those that (i) limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and (ii) provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. Such changes apply to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued prior to March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings, as compared to the evidentiary standard applied in U.S. federal courts, necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially present evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to find a claim invalid, notwithstanding that the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate a claim first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt opportunistically to use USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims.

Depending on decisions by the United States Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our and our licensors’ abilities to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents we and our licensors or partners may obtain in the future.

If we are unable to protect our trademarks or other intellectual property from infringement, our business prospects may be harmed.

We have applied for trademark protection for trademarks in the United States, the European Union and China. Although we take steps to monitor the possible infringement or misuse of our trademarks, it is possible that third parties may infringe, dilute or otherwise violate our trademark rights. Any unauthorized use of our trademarks or other intellectual property rights could harm our reputation or commercial interests. Moreover, our License Agreements do not commit to defend any declaratory judgment action alleging the invalidity of any of the licensed patent rights covered by the license, nor does the NIAID commit to commence legal actions against third parties alleged to infringe upon those licensed patent rights. Our enforcement against third-party infringers or violators may be unduly expensive and time-consuming, and any remedy obtained may constitute insufficient redress relative to the damages we may suffer.

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

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection insufficient to guard against such infringement. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals. In such instances, we may be unable to enjoin or otherwise prevent infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights, generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could (i) result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, (ii) put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and (iii) provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, certain countries in Europe and certain developing countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may be unable to seek adequate remedies to address infringement and/or material diminishment of the value of our patents, which could limit our potential revenue opportunities in such jurisdictions. Accordingly, our efforts to establish or enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from our intellectual property. Finally, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time-consuming and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market, and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot guarantee that engaging in such actions and using such technologies will not infringe existing or future patents. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields relating to our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that others may assert that our product candidates, technologies or methods of delivery or use infringe their patent rights. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various drugs, biologics, drug delivery systems or their methods of use, and which of these patents may be valid and enforceable. Thus, due to the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods.

In addition, our product candidates or proprietary technologies may infringe patents owned and/or filed by third parties, or third parties may allege such infringement. Because (i) some patent applications in the United States may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, (ii) patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing and (iii) publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our own and in-licensed issued patents or our pending applications. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our product candidates or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our own and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to those owned or in-licensed to us, we or, in the case of in-licensed technology, the licensor may have to participate, in the United States, in an interference proceeding to determine priority of invention.

We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates or proprietary technologies infringe such third parties’ intellectual property rights, including litigation resulting from filing under Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Such lawsuits can be costly and could adversely affect our operating results and divert the attention of managerial and technical personnel, even if we do not infringe such patents or the patents asserted against us are later invalidated. A court may, however, decide that we are infringing the third party’s patents and order us to cease the activities covered by the patents. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us to pay for such third-party damages for having violated the other party’s patents.

As a result of patent infringement claims, or to avoid potential claims, we may choose or be required to seek licenses from third parties. These licenses may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would likely obligate us to pay license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property, or such rights might be restrictive and limit our present and future activities. Ultimately, we or a licensee could be prevented from commercializing a product or forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms.

In addition to possible infringement claims against us, we may become a party to other patent litigation and other proceedings, including interference, derivation, re-examination or other post-grant proceedings declared or granted by the USPTO, and similar proceedings in foreign countries, regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or future products.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, generally. To date, no litigation asserting infringement claims has ever been brought against us. If a third-party claims that we infringe its intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including:

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could harm our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Because we rely on certain third-party licensors and partners, and will continue to do so in the future, if one of our licensors or partners is sued for infringing a third party’s intellectual property rights, our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects could suffer in the same manner as if we were sued directly. In addition to facing litigation risks, we have agreed to indemnify certain third-party licensors and partners against claims of infringement caused by our proprietary technologies, and we have entered or may enter into cost-sharing agreements with some our licensors and partners that could require us to pay some of the costs of patent litigation brought against those third parties whether or not the alleged infringement is caused by our proprietary technologies. In certain instances, these cost-sharing agreements could also require us to assume greater responsibility for infringement damages than our technology alone would otherwise suggest.

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

Competitors may infringe upon our intellectual property, including our patent applications or the patents of our licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Such proceedings and/or litigation can be expensive – particularly for a company of our size – and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable or may refuse to enjoin the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover its technology or that the factors necessary to grant an injunction are not satisfied. An adverse determination in such a case could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, interpreted narrowly or amended such that they fail to cover or otherwise protect our product candidates. Moreover, such adverse determinations could subject our patent applications to the risk that they will not issue, or issue with limited and potentially inadequate scope to cover our product candidates.

Interference, derivation, or other proceedings brought at the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority or patentability of inventions with respect to our patent applications or those of our licensors or potential partners. Litigation or USPTO proceedings brought by us may fail or may be invoked against us by third parties. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential partners, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that we may, intentionally or incidentally, disclose some of our confidential results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

If our intellectual property rights do not adequately protect our products or product candidates, or if third parties claim we are infringing their intellectual property rights, others could compete against us more directly or we could be subject to significant litigation. Such results could prevent us from marketing our products or product candidates and hurt our profitability.

Our product candidates are protected by patents and patent applications. Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain patents or rights to patents, protect trade secrets, operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others, and prevent others from infringing on our patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights. We will be able to protect our intellectual property from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that it is covered by valid and enforceable patents, trademarks and licenses. Patent protection generally involves complex legal and factual questions and, therefore, enforceability of patent rights cannot be predicted with certainty. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. Thus, any patents that we own or license from others may not provide adequate protection against competitors. In addition, any future patent applications may fail to result in patents being issued. Also, those patents that are issued may not provide us with adequate proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar product candidates. Moreover, the laws of certain foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States.

In addition to patents and trademarks, we rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how. We seek protection of these rights, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection or adequate remedies for violation of our rights in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential and proprietary information. Failure to protect our proprietary rights could seriously impair our competitive position.

In the event of an infringement or violation, we may face litigation and may be prevented from pursuing product development or commercialization. We may receive in the future notice of claims of infringement of other parties’ proprietary rights. We may not have the financial resources to defend against claims of infringement by other parties or to prosecute third parties for infringement of our intellectual property. Infringement or other claims could be asserted or prosecuted against us in the future, and it is possible that past or future assertions or prosecutions could harm our business.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of cybersecurity/information systems risk.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our manufacturers and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, ransomware, unauthorized access, natural disasters, fire, explosions or large-scale accidents, power outages or surges, terrorism, successful breaches, employee malfeasance, or human or technological error, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. In addition, our systems safeguard important confidential personal data regarding our subjects. If a disruption event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our drug development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Security breaches and other disruptions to our information technology systems or those of the vendors on whom we rely could compromise our information and expose us to liability, reputational damage, or other costs.

In the ordinary course of our business, we and our current and future strategic partners, vendors, contractors, and consultants collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and data about our clinical participants, suppliers and business partners and personally identifiable information. The secure maintenance of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. Some of this information represents an attractive target of criminal attack by malicious third parties with a wide range of motives and expertise, including nation-states, organized criminal groups, “hacktivists,” patient groups, disgruntled current or former employees and others. Our ongoing operating activities also depend on functioning information technology systems. Cyberattacks are of ever-increasing levels of sophistication, and, despite our security measures, our information technology systems and infrastructure and those of our vendors and partners are not immune to such attacks or breaches.

Any such attack could result in a material compromise of our networks, and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost, rendered, permanently or temporarily, inaccessible. Furthermore, we may not promptly discover a system intrusion. Attacks could have a material impact on our business, operations or financial results. Any access, disclosure or other loss of information, whether stored by us or our partners, or other cyberattack causing disruption to our business, including ransomware, could result in reputational, business, and competitive harms, significant costs related to remediation and strengthening our cyber defenses, legal claims or proceedings, government investigations, liability including under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, and increased insurance premium, all of which could adversely affect our business. We also may need to pay a ransom if a “ransomware” infection prevents access or use of our systems and we may face reputational and other harms in addition to the cost of the ransom if an attacker steals certain critical data in the course of such an attack.

We may incur costs of addressing a cybersecurity incident.

Cybersecurity incidents have increased in number and severity recently and it is expected that these trends will continue. Should we be affected by such an incident, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences, which may include:

Risks Related to Government Regulations

Our product candidates are subject to substantial government regulation, including the regulation of nonclinical testing and clinical trials. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate revenues.

The production and marketing of products which may be developed from our Neurology Assets, or otherwise, and our research and development, nonclinical testing and clinical trial activities are subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities. Most of the product candidates we are developing must undergo rigorous nonclinical testing and clinical trials and an extensive regulatory approval process before they can be marketed in the United States or internationally.

If we fail to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we may have to cease further development. Clinical trials on our product candidates are expected to take several years to fully complete. The commencement or completion of nonclinical studies or clinical trials can be delayed or prevented for a number of reasons, including:

Clinical trials also may be delayed or terminated as a result of ambiguous or negative interim results. In addition, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the FDA, the IRBs at the sites where the IRBs are overseeing a trial, or a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, overseeing the clinical trial at issue, or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including:

We cannot assure you that clinical trials will demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of any of our product candidates or will otherwise satisfy regulatory requirements. Our nonclinical studies or clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, there may be inconsistencies between early clinical trial results and results obtained in later clinical trials, and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials. Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in nonclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain FDA approval for their products. If we are unable to resolve the FDA’s concerns, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for these product candidates.

The pre-marketing approval process can be particularly expensive, uncertain and lengthy, and a number of products for which FDA or other governmental regulatory approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved for marketing. In addition to testing and approval procedures, extensive regulations also govern marketing, manufacturing, distribution, labeling, and record-keeping procedures. If we do not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, such violations could result in warning letters, non-approval, suspensions of regulatory approvals or ongoing clinical trials, civil penalties and criminal fines, product seizures and recalls, operating restrictions, injunctions, and criminal prosecution.

We may encounter such delays and rejection of our product candidates by the FDA or other regulatory authority may also adversely affect our business. Such delays or rejection may be encountered due to, among other reasons, government or regulatory delays, lack of efficacy during clinical trials, unforeseen safety issues, or changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development. More stringent regulatory approval processes in product clearance and enforcement activities could result in our experiencing longer approval cycles, more uncertainty, greater risk, and higher expenses. Even if regulatory approval of a product is granted, this approval may entail limitations on uses for which the product may be labeled and promoted. It is possible, for example, that we may not receive FDA approval to market products based on our licensed, patented product candidates for different indications or to market updated products that represent extensions of our basic product candidates. In addition, we may not receive FDA approval to export our products based on our licensed, patented product candidates in the future, and countries to which products are to be exported may not approve them for import.

From time to time, legislative or regulatory proposals are introduced that could alter the review and approval process relating to our product candidates. It is possible that the applicable regulatory authority will issue additional regulations further restricting the sale of our product candidates. Any change in legislation or regulations that govern the review and approval process relating to our future product candidates could make it more difficult and costlier to obtain approval for new products based on our product candidates, or to produce, market, and distribute such products if approved.

We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our concussion candidate, or other early-stage product candidates under applicable regulatory requirements. The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have substantial discretion in the approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of product candidates. The delay, limitation or denial of any regulatory approval would adversely impact commercialization, our potential to generate revenue, our business and our operating results.

We are not permitted to market any of our current product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA or BLA from the FDA. We are also not permitted to market any of our current product candidates in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from the applicable regulatory authorities of such countries. Failure to obtain such regulatory approvals will delay or prevent us from commercializing any of our current or future product candidates.

To gain approval to market a new product such as ONP-002, we must provide the FDA and/or foreign regulatory authorities with, among other things, extensive pre-clinical and clinical data that adequately demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the drug in its intended indication and information to demonstrate the adequacy of the manufacturing methods to assure the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The development and approval of new drug product candidates involves a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, including in Phase 3 clinical development, even after promising results in earlier pre-clinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, observations during clinical trials regarding safety or efficacy, such as previously unreported adverse events. Success in pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure success in later clinical trials, and the results of clinical trials by other parties may not be indicative of the results in trials we may conduct. Further, different results may be achieved depending upon whether the “per protocol”, or PP, analysis is used to report data results or whether the “modified intent-to-treat,” or MITT, approach is used. Accordingly, regardless of the outcome of any Phase 2 trials, any Phase 3 trials we may conduct may not be successful.

The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have substantial discretion in the drug approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of product candidates for many reasons. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory body may:

Any delay, limitation or denial of any regulatory approval would adversely impact commercialization, our potential to generate revenue, our business, and our operating results.

Delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials may result in additional costs and delays in our ability to generate significant revenues and may delay or prevent our receipt of any regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize our planned and future products.

We may not be able to initiate, or continue, or complete in a timely fashion clinical trials for ONP-002 or our other product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States.

Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and impede our ability to obtain additional financing.

Any product candidates that we commercialize will be subject to ongoing and continued regulatory review.

Even after we achieve U.S. regulatory approval for a product candidate, if any, we will be subject to continued regulatory review and compliance obligations. For example, the FDA may impose significant restrictions on the approved indicated uses for which our product candidates may be marketed or on the conditions of approval. A product candidate’s approval may contain requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and surveillance, including Phase 4 clinical trials or a REMS to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. We will also be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review with respect to, among other things, the manufacturing, processing, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for our product candidates. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, continued compliance with the FDA’s good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements and good laboratory practice requirements, which are regulations and guidelines the FDA would apply to all of our product candidates in clinical and pre-clinical development, along with any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, and continued compliance with the FDA’s cGMP requirements pursuant to which manufacturing facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA. To the extent that a product candidate is approved for sale in other countries, we may be subject to similar restrictions and requirements imposed by laws and government regulators in those countries.

If we, our product candidates, or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The regulations, policies or guidance of the FDA and other applicable government agencies may change and new or additional statutes or government regulations may prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or further restrict or regulate post-approval activities. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are not able to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our product candidates, which would materially and adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability.

Our product candidates may cause serious or undesirable side effects or possess other unexpected properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of approved labeling or result in post-approval regulatory action.

Unforeseen side effects from any of our product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after marketing such product. Undesirable side effects caused by product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, modify, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities. Results of clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Additionally, if we or others identify undesirable side effects, or other previously unknown problems, caused by our product candidates after obtaining U.S. or foreign regulatory approval or other products with the same or related active ingredients, a number of potentially negative consequences could result, including:

Any of the above events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates.

We may also be subject to healthcare laws, regulation and enforcement and our failure to comply with those laws could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

Certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We are subject to regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the recently enacted ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback statute and certain criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

Achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly. In addition, any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws or regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could materially and adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and CROs may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and CROs may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these persons could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or unauthorized activity that violates laws or regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities; manufacturing standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with such laws or regulations, and serious harm to our reputation. In addition, federal procurement laws impose substantial penalties for misconduct in connection with government contracts and require certain contractors to maintain a code of business ethics and conduct. If any such actions are instituted against us, we may have to terminate employees or others involved and the impact of such termination can result in our experiencing delays and additional costs associated with replacing the services being provided. If we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our operating results.

Even if our current product candidates or any future product candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of health care payers, physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by health care payers, physicians and patients for approved indications, and may not be commercially successful. The degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our current or future product candidates are approved for use but fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption necessary for commercial success, our operating results and financial condition will be adversely affected, which may delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and continue our operations.

If we are unable to achieve and maintain coverage and adequate levels of reimbursement for any of our product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, or any future products we may seek to commercialize, their commercial success may be severely hindered.

As to any of our product candidates that become available by prescription only, our success will depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product from third-party payors. Patients who are prescribed medicine for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. The availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. If any of our product candidates fail to demonstrate attractive efficacy profiles, they may not qualify for coverage and reimbursement. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our prescription-only products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

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

Moreover, third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, although private third-party payors tend to follow Medicare, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

Further, we believe that future coverage and reimbursement will likely be subject to increased restrictions in both the United States and in international markets. Third-party coverage and reimbursement for any of our product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval may not be available or adequate in either the United States or international markets, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

We cannot assure you that we will continue to be listed on the NYSE American.

Our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE American (formerly the NYSE MKT) on April 10, 2013, and we are subject to certain NYSE American continued listing requirements and standards. On December 19, 2022, we received notice of a non-compliance from the NYSE American due to our share price being too low. We subsequently effected a one for sixty reverse stock split on January 20, 2023 and received notice on February 1, 2023 from the NYSE American that we had regained compliance. However, we currently are not in compliance with the NYSE American’s continued listing requirements and standards due to our current stockholder’s equity, which is below the NYSE American’s minimum requirement. We anticipate receiving a new notice of a non-compliance from the NYSE American. We will need to raise additional capital to regain compliance, of which there can be no assurances. We may also incur costs that we have not previously incurred for expenses for compliance with the rules and requirements of the NYSE American. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to continue to satisfy the requirements of the NYSE American’s continued listing standards. A delisting of our common stock from the NYSE American could negatively affect the price and liquidity of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital in the future.

The issuance of additional equity securities by us in the future would result in dilution to our existing common shareholders.

Our Board of Directors has authority, without action or vote of our shareholders, to issue all or a part of our authorized but unissued shares, except where shareholder approval is required by law or the rules of any exchange on which our shares are listed. Any issuance of additional equity securities by us in the future could result in dilution to our existing common shareholders. Such issuances could be made at a price that reflects a discount or a premium to the then-current trading price of our common stock. In addition, our business strategy may include expansion through internal growth by acquiring complementary businesses, acquiring or licensing additional products or brands, or establishing strategic relationships with targeted customers and suppliers. In order to do so, or to finance the cost of our other activities, we may issue additional equity securities that could result in further dilution to our existing common shareholders. These issuances would dilute the percentage ownership interest of our existing common shareholders, which would have the effect of reducing their influence on matters on which our shareholders vote and might dilute the book value of our common stock. For example, our outstanding shares of common stock at December 31, 2022 was 2,024,657, due to additional common stock issuances related to capital raises, incentive compensation, and the acquisition of the Odyssey Neurology Assets, at December 31, 2023 our outstanding shares of common stock was 3,080,693. Furthermore, if Odyssey or the holders of Preferred Shares Series A and B convert their preferred shares into common stock an additional 7,511,220 shares of common stock could be issued resulting in dilution to our existing common shareholders.

Our financial results could vary significantly from quarter to quarter and are difficult to predict.

Our operating results could vary significantly from quarter to quarter due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. In addition, we may not be able to predict our future revenues or results of operations. We base our current and future expense levels on our internal research and development plans and forecasts, and our operating costs vary to the extent of our research and development and the planning for and conduct of clinical trials. As a result, we may incur significant or unanticipated expenses associated with our research and development efforts of our product candidates under development. In addition to other risk factors discussed in this section, factors that may contribute to the variability of our quarterly results include:

As a result of these and other factors, our quarterly and annual operating results could be materially adversely affected. Moreover, our operating results may not meet the expectations of research analysts or investors, in which case the price of our common stock could decrease significantly.

Our Series A and Series B preferred stock, if not converted into common stock, has a distribution and liquidation preference senior to our common stock in liquidation, which could negatively affect the value of our common stock and impair our ability to raise additional capital.

On May 10, 2017, and on July 25, 2017, we issued an aggregate of 12,000,000 shares of convertible preferred stock, designated as the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to the certificate of designation and rights filed by us with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, with an aggregate original purchase price and initial liquidation preference of $3.0 million. Each share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock was issued for an amount equal to $0.25 per share, which we refer to as the original purchase price. On March 9, 2018, and August 26, 2022, certain holders of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock elected to convert to common stock and, as a result of such conversions, 5,417,000 shares of Series A Preferred remain outstanding.

On November 8, 2017, we issued 6,600,000 shares of convertible preferred stock, designated as the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to the certificate of designation and rights filed by us with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, with an aggregate original purchase price and initial liquidation preference of $3.3 million. Each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock was issued for an amount equal to $0.50 per share, which we refer to as the original purchase price. On August 26, 2022, a certain holder of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock elected to convert to common stock and, as a result of such conversion, 4,050,000 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock remain outstanding.

Our Series A and Series B preferred stock, if not converted into common stock, will also be senior to our common stock in distribution and liquidation if such shares are not converted into common stock, which could negatively affect the value of our common stock and impair our ability to raise additional capital.

The conversion of our Series A Preferred Stock, Series B Preferred Stock, Series F Preferred Stock, and the exercise of currently outstanding warrants could result in significant dilution to the holders of our common stock.

The holders of our Series A Preferred Stock, Series B Preferred Stock, and Series F Preferred Stock may convert their shares of preferred stock into shares of common stock. As of December 31, 2023, we had outstanding: (i) 5,417,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock outstanding, which are convertible into 9,028 shares of common stock and (ii) 4,050,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock, which are convertible into 13,500 shares of common stock, and (iii) 7,488,692 shares of Series F Preferred Stock, which are convertible into common stock on a one-to-one basis. In addition to our outstanding shares of preferred stock, as of December 31, 2023, there were currently outstanding warrants to purchase 275,990 shares of our common stock. The conversion of our Series A Preferred Stock, Series B Preferred Stock, and Series F Preferred Stock; as well as the exercise of our outstanding warrants will result in significant dilution to existing common shareholders and could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities.

Certain provisions of our articles of incorporation, bylaws, executive employment agreements and stock option plan may prevent a change of control of our company that a shareholder may consider favorable.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation, bylaws, executive employment agreements and stock option plan may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company that a shareholder may consider favorable. These provisions include: