Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

Form 10-K

(Mark One) 

OR 

​

Commission file number 001-37809 

​

NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

​

(857) 702-9600

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

​

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

​

Indicate by check mark whether 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 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, a 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.

Yes  ☐  No  ☒ 

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12(b)-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Yes  ☐  No  ☒

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $23.4 million based on the closing price on the Nasdaq Capital Market as of June 28, 2020, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value, as of April 9, 2021 was 22,171,182.  

​

​

​

Table of Contents

NEUROBO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

FORM 10-K

INDEX-

​

​

​

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance. Instead, these forward-looking statements contain information about our expectations, beliefs or intentions regarding our product development and commercialization efforts, business, financial condition, results of operations, strategies or prospects, and other similar matters. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions about future events, which are inherently subject to uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. These statements may be identified by words such as “expects,” “plans,” “projects,” “will,” “may,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “should,” “intends,” “estimates,” and other words of similar meaning.

​

Actual results could differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements. Many factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements, including those matters discussed below, as well as those listed in Item 1A. Risk Factors.

​

Other unknown or unpredictable factors that could also adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations may arise from time to time. Given these risks and uncertainties, the forward-looking statements discussed in this report may not prove to be accurate. Accordingly, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which only reflect the views of NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s management as of the date of this report. We undertake no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results or expectations, except as required by law.

​

Table of Contents

​

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

​

Our business is subject to a number of risks, as fully described in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. The principal factors and uncertainties include, among others:

​

Table of Contents

​

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Company,” “NeuroBo,” “we,” “us” or “our”) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company with four therapeutics programs designed to impact a range of indications in coronavirus, neurodegenerative and cardiometabolic disease:

We were initially established to advance NB-01 and NB-02, which were originally developed by the South Korean pharmaceutical company Dong-A ST Co., Ltd. (“Dong-A ST”). NB-01 has been in-licensed by us from Dong-A ST for

Table of Contents

exclusive worldwide rights, except for South Korea. We acquired NB-02 from Dong-A ST, and we hold the full worldwide commercial rights for NB-02.

December 2020 Acquisition of ANA Therapeutics, Inc.

 On December 31, 2020, we acquired ANA Therapeutics, Inc. (“ANA”), a privately held biotechnology company developing ANA001. The transaction was unanimously approved by each of the board of directors of the Company and ANA.

December 2019 Completion of Reverse Acquisition of Gemphire

On December 30, 2019, the Company completed a business combination (the “2019 Merger”) with Gemphire Therapeutics, Inc. (“Gemphire”) in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of July 24, 2019, as amended on October 29, 2019 (the “2019 Merger Agreement”). Gemphire was a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing Gemcabene.

Prior to completion of the 2019 Merger, Gemphire entered into a Contingent Value Rights Agreement (the “Original CVR Agreement”) with Grand Rapids Holders’ Representative, LLC, as representative of Gemphire’s stockholders prior to the 2019 Merger, (the “Holders’ Representative”), and Computershare Inc. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as the rights agents (collectively, the “Rights Agent”). Under the Original CVR Agreement, which the Company assumed in connection with the 2019 Merger, the holders of Gemphire shares at the time of the 2019 Merger (the “CVR Holders”) were entitled to receive 80% of the proceeds from the grant, sale, or transfer of rights to Gemcabene.

Amendment of Original CVR Agreement

On March 23, 2021, the Company entered into a First Amendment to Contingent Value Rights Agreement with the Holders’ Representative and the Rights Agent to amend the Original CVR Agreement (as amended, the “Current CVR Agreement”). Pursuant to the Current CVR Amendment, (i) the CVR Holders will continue to receive 80% of the proceeds from the grant, sale, or transfer of rights to Gemcabene as a treatment for cardiovascular conditions and (ii) the CVR Holders will now also receive 10% of the proceeds from the grant, sale, or transfer of rights to Gemcabene as a treatment for any indication outside of treating cardiometabolic diseases, including COVID-19.

​

Strategy

Our goal is to discover, develop and commercialize novel therapeutics designed to impact a range of indications in neurodegenerative and cardiometabolic disease and nutraceuticals for their respective health areas. The key elements of our business strategy to achieve this goal include:

​

Table of Contents

Product Candidates  

ANA001: Treatment of COVID-19 Symptoms

ANA001, NeuroBo’s lead drug candidate, is a proprietary oral niclosamide formulation and was developed as a treatment for patients with moderate COVID-19 (patients not requiring ventilators). Niclosamide is a potential oral antiviral and anti-inflammatory agent with a long history of use and well-understood safety in humans. ANA001 is currently being studied in a 60-subject Phase 2/3 clinical trial conducted at up to 20 clinical sites in the United States. . Niclosamide has demonstrated both antiviral and immunomodulatory activity with possible downstream effects on coagulation abnormalities observed in COVID-19. In preclinical research by an independent academic group published in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, niclosamide inhibited viral replication in vitro and was more potent than remdesivir in the same assay.

Specifically, studies have shown that niclosamide prevents replication of SARS-CoV-2 at very low concentrations and that the compound appears to exhibit three distinct mechanisms of action: 1) acting as a potent antiviral to a broad homology of other viruses including influenza; 2) reducing inflammation without suppressing the immune system; and 3) providing bronchodilation, which is a useful pulmonary mechanism for at-risk patients with underlying cardiovascular and/or pulmonary conditions.

As a result, the Company believes ANA001 has the potential to reduce the viral load and inflammation associated with cytokine dysregulation, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and coagulation abnormalities and thus improve time to clinical improvement as defined as hospital discharge recorded using the World Health Organization (“WHO”) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement.

Background

ANA001 is a proprietary oral niclosamide formulation and was developed as a treatment for patients with moderate COVID-19. Niclosamide is an oral antiviral and anti-inflammatory agent with a long history of safety in humans. The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) of ANA001 is niclosamide (Figure 1), a chlorinated salicylanilide with anthelmintic, antiviral, anti-inflammatory and bronchodilator activity. Niclosamide was discovered in 1958 and was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) in 1982 under New Drug Application (NDA) 018669 (Bayer Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of tapeworm infections, although it has since been voluntarily discontinued from marketing in the U.S., and all patents or applications that were originally filed by Bayer AG to cover niclosamide or its use in treating tapeworm have been expired or abandoned. Niclosamide is approved in several other countries for the treatment of tapeworm infections and is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines (World Health Organization, 2019) and has been used to safely treat thousands of patients. In the past several years, mounting evidence has accumulated that niclosamide is a multifunctional drug that is able to regulate multiple signaling pathways and biological processes, suggesting that it may be developed as a novel treatment for more than just helminthic infection. Niclosamide is being studied for a variety of clinical indications beyond its use as an anthelmintic, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, metabolic syndrome and COVID-19.

Fig. 1: Chemical structure of niclosamide.

​

Necessity to Develop a COVID-19 Therapeutic

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are single‐stranded RNA viruses that infect a wide variety of animals and primarily cause respiratory tract infections in humans. Recent outbreaks of novel CoVs, including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, have caused significant international concern and mortality. Surpassing both of these in severity and loss of life, the current outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 represents a severe public health emergency. COVID-19, the disease caused by a SARS-CoV-

Table of Contents

2, continues to spread worldwide. As of March 20, 2021, more than 123 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide, with more than 2.7 million deaths from the disease. In the United States alone, the total number of COVID-19 cases as of March 20, 2021 is more than 30 million and the total number of deaths is more than 550,000. In addition to this tremendous toll, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that patients who have recovered from COVID-19 often exhibit long-term negative impacts such as fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, joint pain and chest pain. These symptoms require extended hospitalizations, resulting in health care costs in excess of $10,000/day. Therefore, it is necessary to develop countermeasures, such as therapeutics, that can improve the outcomes for patients who become infected with COVID-19.

​

Despite widespread efforts to slow the spread of the virus, transmission is likely to continue even after a vaccine is developed, or until natural infection approaches the herd immunity threshold. On December 11, 2020, the FDA issued the first emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and older. On December 18, 2020, the FDA issued a second EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. On February 27, 2021, the FDA issued a third EUA for the Johnson & Johnson single-shot COVID-19 vaccine. Other companies are expected to submit applications to the FDA for EUA of their COVID-19 vaccines. Distribution of the vaccines has commenced, initially with front-line health-care workers receiving vaccinations to be followed by individuals deemed at high-risk of contracting COVID-19 or for severe illness from COVID-19. During the initial phases of the vaccine distribution, vaccine shortages and delays have been caused by high demand outstripping supply and challenging distribution logistics. With vaccine production ramping up and improvements to distribution logistics, experts estimate that the vaccines will be available to the general public by late spring/early summer of 2021.

​

A simple model can provide scenarios that help understand the number of infections and deaths that will occur in a naive population exposed to COVID-19. Table 1 uses the population, vaccine effectiveness and percentage of the population as inputs and calculates the exposed population and deaths (assuming a 2% mortality rate). If there is no vaccine and a 2% mortality rate, the model estimates total mortality of 6,560,000. Using the same model with a 90% effective vaccine with 90% vaccination rate and 2% mortality rate results in an exposed population of >60,000,000 and total mortality of 1,246,000. The model has several shortcomings and is unable to represent all of the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these data underscore that even in a country with widespread vaccination, there is still a significant exposed population and substantial mortality remains.

​

Table 1: Exposed population and calculated deaths based on exposed population and vaccine effectiveness¹

​

1. Source: http://www.cassbeth.com/covid-19/return-to-life/index.html

​

Even in the presence of effective vaccines, the rapid spread of COVID-19, as well as the risk of continued infection, underscores the importance of developing treatments for patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

​

Potential treatments under investigation include drugs that are already approved to treat other conditions and drugs still in development. Several classes of drugs are being investigated for potential treatments, including convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, immune modulators and antivirals. To date, two therapies have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19 (remdesivir and Dexamethasone) and three pharmaceutical treatments have received EUA from the FDA through randomized clinical trials: baricitinib + remdesivir, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail and

Table of Contents

bamlanivimab. However, on November 20, 2020 the WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients.

​

The critical need for effective treatments and the volume of urgent activity to find them underscore the tremendous potential value of an effective therapeutic. This value predominantly comes from two sources: health-related benefits and economy-related impacts. Health-related benefits include increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) that result from reducing mortality, symptom severity and duration. Potential benefits also include savings in healthcare expenditures that result from shorter hospital stays and less intensive use of healthcare resources generally.

It is important to note that each of these treatments, with the exception of dexamethasone, are delivered intravenously. This method of delivery complicates and prevents patients from taking the drug themselves in an outpatient environment.

​

In addition, with the exception of dexamethasone, none of these therapies have been shown to decrease mortality rates in COVID-19 patients. Further, the WHO has recommended against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients.

​

A study conducted at the University of Southern California showed that:

​

​

ANA001 has the potential to both reduce hospitalizations and decrease mortality, increasing the likelihood of therapeutic benefit to patients and significantly reducing healthcare expenditures.

​

Development Rationale

​

Niclosamide has broad in vitro antiviral activity (Figure 2) (Fan et al., 2019; Andersen et al., 2019; Jurgeit et al., 2012; Mazzon et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2004; Wen et al., 2007; Gassen et al., 2019) including activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Additionally, niclosamide has in vitro anti-inflammatory properties due to its inhibition of nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), two main drivers to induce the expression of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, a recent in vitro study showed that niclosamide works as a potent bronchodilator that relaxed histamine induced constriction of human bronchial rings (Miner et al., 2019).

​

​

Fig. 2: Broad antiviral activity of niclosamide (modified from Xu et al, 2020). Niclosamide has demonstrated in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Zika virus (ZIKV), Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), Ebola virus (EBOV), human rhinoviruses (HRVs), Chikungunya virus (CHIKV), human adenovirus (HAdV), and Epstein−Barr virus (EBV).

​

Antiviral Activity of Niclosamide

​

Niclosamide has broad in vitro antiviral activity (Figure 2) (Xu et al., 2020) including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (Wu et al., 2004, Wen et al., 2007, Gassen et al., 2019). SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 share 86% homology (Wilder-Smith, et al., 2020) and it is therefore reasonable to assume that niclosamide has in vitro antiviral efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.

Table of Contents

Three recent independent studies confirmed potent activity of niclosamide against SARS-CoV-2. The reported IC₅₀ values were 0.15 µM (49 ng/mL) (Figure 3A; Shi (manuscript in preparation)), 0.28 µM (92 ng/mL) (Figure 3B) (Jeon et al., 2020) and 0.17 µM (56 ng/mL) (Figure 3C) (Gassen et al., 2020) resulting in an average IC₅₀ of 0.2 µM (65 ng/mL). For comparison, the IC₅₀ values of remdesivir, chloroquine and lopinavir (other current or former drug candidates as COVID-19 therapeutics) were 11.41 μM (3,732 ng/mL), 7.28 μM (2,381 ng/mL) and 9.12 μM (2,983 ng/mL), respectively (Jeon et al., 2020) making niclosamide 57, 36 and 46 times more effective respectively. As it was shown for MERS-CoV (Gassen et al., 2019), also SARS-CoV-2 replication is reduced by niclosamide via SKP2-inhibition, thus enhancing autophagy (Gassen et al., 2020).Furthermore, it was shown that pretreating cells for 24 h with 5 µM (1,636 ng/mL) niclosamide followed by drug washout and viral infection reduced SARS-CoV-2 replication significantly and as potently as spermidine, a natural enhancer of autophagy (Figure 4) (Gassen et al., 2020). This indicates that niclosamide has potential as a prophylactic COVID-19 treatment and that serum concentrations may not need to continuously exceed in vitro inhibitory levels to be effective. In summary, these results highlight the potency of niclosamide to inhibit replication of coronaviruses, especially SARS-CoV-2.

​

​

Fig. 3: Antiviral activity of niclosamide. (A) Vero E6 cells were infected with nano luciferase reporter SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of increasing concentrations of niclosamide. At 24 h post-infection, luciferase activity was measured. Shown are mean values from triplicate experiments ± standard deviation. Modified from Shi, 2020 (manuscript in preparation). (B) Vero cells were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of increasing concentrations of niclosamide. 24 h post infection (p.i.), cells were scored by immunofluorescence for the presence of the viral N protein. Modified from Jeon et al., 2020. (C) VeroFM cells were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated with increasing concentrations of niclosamide. SARS-CoV-2 plaque forming units (PFU) were determined 48 h p.i. by plaque assay. Shown are means from triplicate experiments ± standard error of the mean. Modified from Gassen et al., 2020.

​

​

Fig. 4: Niclosamide has prophylactic properties. VeroFM cells were treated with 100 μM spermidine (spd), 5 μM niclosamide (nic) or left untreated (vehicle, veh) 24 h prior to infection with SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 genome equivalents per ml (GE) were determined by real-time RT-PCR at 24 h post infection (p.i.). Data are presented as GE/mL (left) or as fold difference (right). Modified from Gass en et al., 2020.

​

Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Niclosamide

​

COVID-19 is a cytokine release syndrome (Hirano and Murakami, 2020) that is associated – amongst others – with ARDS, a widespread inflammation in the lungs and increased blood clotting. Two transcription factors - nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) – are key drivers of cytokine release. Niclosamide was shown to inhibit them in vitro thus decreasing the production of proinflammatory cytokines.

Table of Contents

NF-κB is a transcription factor that induces the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines. In vitro experiments with U2OS cells demonstrated that niclosamide inhibited NF-kB transcription, its binding to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-induced phosphorylation of IκBα, translocation of p65 into the nucleus, and expression of NF-κB-regulated downstream genes. The IC₅₀ of niclosamide to inhibit NF-kB transcription was 0.13 µM (42.5 ng/mL) (Figure 5) (Jin et al., 2010).

​

​

Fig. 5: Niclosamide prevents TNF-induced NF-κB activation. U2OS cells were co-transfected with NF-κB–TATA-Luc and renilla luciferase reporter plasmids. 24 h later, cells were first treated with different concentrations of niclosamide and then with 0.1 nmol/L TNFα, and luciferase intensity was measured. Shown are means of the fold change ± standard error of three independent experiments. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01. Modified from Jin et al., 2010.

​

Signal transducers and activators of transcription (STATs) are a class of transcription factors that regulate cellular and biological processes, including immune responses and angiogenesis, by modulating the expression of specific target genes (Yu et al., 2007). Upon stimulation by cytokines such as interleukin 6 (IL-6), tyrosine residue 705 (Tyr-705) in the STAT3 SH2 domain is phosphorylated, consequently inducing STAT3 to dimerize, translocate into the nucleus, and induce its binding to specific DNA response elements of target genes (Schuringa et al., 2000). Niclosamide has been shown to inhibit activation and transcriptional function of STAT3 in vitro. HeLa cells were transfected with a luciferase reporter driven by a promoter sequence with 7 STAT3 binding sites so that luciferase becomes active upon STAT3 binding. Niclosamide prevented binding and thus the transcriptional function of STAT3 with an IC₅₀ of 0.25 μM (81.8 ng/mL) (Figure 6) (Ren et al., 2010).

​

​

Fig. 6: Niclosamide inhibits STAT3 activity. Luciferase reporter activity was evaluated after 24 h of treatment with different concentrations of niclosamide. Relative luciferase units were the ratio of the absolute activity of firefly luciferase to that of renilla luciferase. Results are representatives of three independent experiments. Modified from Ren et al., 2010.

​

​

Table of Contents

Bronchodilator Activity of Niclosamide

​

Additionally, niclosamide has been shown to have activity in vitro as a potent bronchodilator by inhibiting protein transmembrane member 16A (TMEM16A), a calcium-activated chloride channel. This ion channel is implicated in controlling both airway smooth muscle cell contraction and epithelial mucin secretion. The EC₅₀ of niclosamide to relax carbachol induced constriction of human bronchial rings was 240 ng/mL (0.7 µM) (Fig. 7) (Miner et al., 2019).

Fig. 7: Niclosamide induces relaxation of pre-contracted human bronchial rings. Human bronchial rings were contracted with carbachol and then treated with increasing concentrations of niclosamide (red curve). Modified from Miner et al., 2019.

​

Table of Contents

ANA001/Niclosamide Preclinical Development

Table 2 summarizes pharmacology and safety studies with niclosamide in various animal models.

Table 2: Pharmacology and safety studies with niclosamide

​

Safety Pharmacology Studies

​

Studies to support the initial FDA marketing approval of niclosamide in 1982 were conducted prior to establishment of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines, therefore the current standard battery of safety pharmacology studies pertaining to the central nervous,

Table of Contents

cardiovascular and respiratory systems that are recommended in the ICH S7A guideline were not conducted. However, there is a substantial amount of data from human and animal exposures to support the expected safety of the proposed clinical development program. Relevant data provided in the available literature related to safety pharmacology in the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system and gastrointestinal system are summarized in Table 3 below.

​

Table 3: Safety pharmacology studies with niclosamide

​

Bioavailability of Niclosamide in Animal Studies

​

Table 4 summarizes bioavailability (expressed as maximum serum concentration, C_max) of niclosamide upon oral administration in mice, rats, rabbits and dogs.

​

Table 4: Pharmacokinetic Data of Niclosamide After Oral Administration

​

ANA001/Niclosamide Clinical Development

​

Completed and Ongoing Clinical Studies

​

Between 1971 and 1978, niclosamide was administered to 6,365 patients under a U.S. IND. Doses were up to and including 2,000 mg/day for 7 days. There were 2,385 evaluable patients, of which 13.3% reported side effects, all of

Table of Contents

which were mild or moderate, with none requiring treatment discontinuation. These included nausea/emesis in 4.1%, abdominal discomfort/loss of appetite in 3.4%, diarrhea in 1.6%, drowsiness/dizziness/headache in 1.4%, and skin rash/pruritis in 0.3% of patients (NDA 018669 Review Documentation).

​

In addition, according to the Safety Review of Niclosamide, Pyrantel, Triclabendazole and Oxamniquine report of the WHO, there have been 84 reported adverse drug reactions related to niclosamide between 1975 and 2004 in the WHO database. They include 173 reports from 16 countries and the most common reactions are related to skin and appendages (41 reports), GI tract (37 reports), cardiovascular system (28 reports) and anaphylactic reactions (9 reports).

​

Clinical studies with niclosamide for various indications (including COVID-19) are summarized in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9.

​

Table 5: Human Studies in Healthy Volunteers

NCT = National clinical trial

​

Table of Contents

Table 6: Human Studies in Patients (Tapeworm)

​

NCT = National clinical trial

​

Table of Contents

Table 7: Human Studies in Patients (Oncology)

​

NCT = National clinical trial

​

Table 8: Human Studies in Patients (Various Indications)

NCT = National clinical trial

​

Table of Contents

Table 9: Human Studies in Patients (COVID-19)

​

NCT = National clinical trial

​

Table of Contents

Bioavailability of Niclosamide in Human Studies

​

As ANA001 is orally administered, it can be taken by hospitalized, ambulatory and non-hospitalized individuals and it can be administered in both ambulatory and acute care environments. Although niclosamide has low bioavailability, data from available literature clearly demonstrate that blood levels of niclosamide after oral administration exceed effective in vitro concentrations:

​

The lower bounds of the reported C_max values fall within the effective in vitro ranges of niclosamide as an antiviral agent (0.15-0.28 µM, 49-92 ng/mL) (Shi, 2020, manuscript in preparation; Jeon et al., 2020; Gassen et al., 2020) and an anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits NF-kB and STAT3 at 0.13 µM (42.5 ng/mL) (Ji et al., 2010) and 0.25 µM (81.8 ng/mL) (Ren et al., 2010), respectively. It is therefore anticipated that the dose regimen foreseen for the ANA clinical development program will provide sufficient systemic and intracellular drug levels for effective antiviral and anti-inflammatory activity.

​

In summary, the following characteristics support the use of niclosamide as an oral treatment for COVID-19:

​

​

Taken together, these data demonstrate the potential for ANA001 to treat COVID-19 and support its further development.

​

ANA001 Phase 2/3 Clinical Development

ANA001 is currently being tested in a U.S. Phase 2/3 study titled “A Phase 2/3 Randomized and Placebo-Controlled Study of ANA001 in Moderate COVID-19 Patients” (NCT04603924). Niclosamide has demonstrated both antiviral and immunomodulatory activity with possible downstream effects on coagulation abnormalities observed in COVID-19. These effects support the development of ANA001, an oral formulation of niclosamide, for the treatment of COVID-19. It is

Table of Contents

therefore anticipated that ANA001 will reduce viral load and inflammation associated with cytokine dysregulation, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and coagulation abnormalities and thus improve time to clinical improvement as defined as hospital discharge recorded using the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement.

​

The study consists of two parts:

​

The primary endpoints of Phase 2 are:

​

The secondary endpoints of Phase 2 are:

​

The primary endpoints of Phase 3 are:

​

The secondary endpoints of Phase 3 are:

ANA001 Development Plan through NDA

An NDA is the classical vehicle through which the FDA approves a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing in the US. However, for COVID-19 drugs and biological products (remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma), the FDA has granted EUA to make treatments during this pandemic available without having all safety and efficacy data available. NeuroBo expects data readout of the Phase 2 trial in the second or third quarter of 2021. NeuroBo will request a Type C meeting with the FDA in the third quarter of 2021 to discuss whether data justify an EUA or if data readout from the Phase 3 trial and other additional studies will be necessary for approval of ANA001 as a COVID-19 therapeutic. In case an EUA will not be issued, NeuroBo will pursue an NDA via a 505(b)(2).

​

Table of Contents

NB-01

NB-01 addresses a range of mechanisms that contribute to neuropathic pain and nerve degeneration in diabetic and other peripheral neuropathies. These include a decrease in key inflammatory markers, restoration of nerve growth factor (NGF) to normal levels, and reduction of advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Inflammation is a central factor in pain generation and other peripheral neurodegenerative diseases. NB-01 reduces levels of TNF-a and IL-6, both of which are markers of inflammation. NB-01 also reduces AGEs, which are implicated in diabetes-related complications. AGE inhibitors have been clinically tested as potential treatments for these complications. NB-01 also restores the neurotrophin NGF, which is involved in nerve growth, maintenance and repair. NB-01 has been shown in animal models to alleviate symptoms of PDN.

Background

Based on third-party research, the U.S. population with diabetes is estimated at 30.3 million people. At least half of these individuals will develop diabetic neuropathy, and up to 25% of those individuals will develop neuropathic pain. According to the industry intelligence firm GlobalData plc, as of 2018, the global PDN market was responsible for approximately $3.6 billion in annual sales, approximately $2.6 billion of which is concentrated in the U.S. The same source projects that the global PDN market will increase to approximately $7.1 billion in annual sales by 2026 with approximately $4.8 billion of such sales concentrated in the U.S. Products to address PDN make up about 60% of the market, and products to address indications such as chemotherapy-induced and post-traumatic neuropathic pain are estimated to constitute an additional 20% of the market. The market is characterized by a significant unmet need, with more than 50% of patients not adequately responding to first-line therapy and patients experiencing significant side effects with existing approved therapies.

In the U.S., there are currently only three FDA-approved treatments for PDN: pregabalin (Lyrica); duloxetine (Cymbalta) and tapentadol (Nucynta ER). Despite an established treatment protocol for PDN based on these approved therapeutics, the current treatment paradigm for patients suffers from numerous shortcomings as a result of their negative side effects associated with the available FDA-approved drug products. The first line of therapy typically consists of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) such as gabapentin and pregabalin, which are insufficient on their own in that they have been shown to exhibit only moderate efficacy accompanied by moderate to severe side effects such as somnolence and dizziness in some patients, and, even after drug treatment, 50% to 70% of patients still experience pain. If pain persists beyond treatment with AEDs, as it often does, the second line of therapy typically consists of prescriptions for anti-depressants (SNRIs and TCAs), which have been shown to reduce pain only by an additional 20% when added to AED treatment. Treatment with anti-depressants is also associated with significant drug-to-drug interactions. If pain persists beyond treatment with AEDs and anti-depressants, the third line of therapy typically consists of opiates, which are only appropriate as a short-term option and have been shown to exhibit potentially harmful addictive and habit-forming side effects. A significant number of mortalities from drug overdose have been caused by opiates. Beyond the potential side effects, the existing approved therapies for PDN are burdened by additional safety and efficacy concerns.

NB-01 Preclinical development

Extensive and comprehensive preclinical pharmacology, safety and toxicology studies have been completed with NB-01, as detailed in the table below. Among the safety and toxicology studies completed are: (i) central nervous system (CNS), cardiovascular (CV), gastrointestinal (GI), and respiratory safety in rats, mice and dogs; (ii) a single-dose 13-week and

Table of Contents

26-week oral toxicity study in rats; (iii) a single-dose 13-week and 26-week oral toxicity study in dogs; (iv) range-finding embryo fetal development studies in rats; and (v) fertility, pre-and post-natal studies in rats.

In addition, in mechanism of action studies conducted by Dong-A ST, NB-01 induced nerve regeneration in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced and db/db diabetes mouse models with a significant increase in axon diameter and thickness of myelin sheath, returning thickness and diameter to almost the naturally occurring levels. Similar results were achieved in rat models, including the streptozotocin (STC) diabetes model. NGF has been shown to be lowered in diabetes and diabetic neuropathy animal models, and the administration of NB-01 in these models shows elevation of endogenous NGF to near-normal levels. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that NB-01 has a demonstrable impact on reduction of AGEs as well as inflammatory markers (TNF-alpha and interleukin-6) which are implicated in nerve degeneration in diabetes.

Additional studies have been completed on the effect of NB-01 on thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia in mouse models, including the STZ diabetes model and genetic (db/db) diabetes model. The data from these studies have demonstrated that NB-01 alleviates both thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia relative to the control.

With respect to additional neuropathic indications, NB-01 has also been studied for its effects on rat models of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain and chronic constriction injury (CCI). In these studies, NB-01 demonstrated an analgesic effect on rats, measured by threshold of paw pressure tolerance, during treatment with paclitaxel and with CCI. In both cases, the paw pressure threshold was significantly elevated following dosing with NB-01.

NB-01 Phase 2 Clinical Development  

Completed Phase 2 trial in Korea. A 15-site, 128-subject, double blind, dose ranging, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of NB-01 in the treatment of subjects with PDN has been completed in Korea. Three doses of NB-01 were evaluated versus placebo in 128 subjects (32 per dose group), administered daily for an 8-week treatment period. The treatment groups were placebo or one of NB-01 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg, administered three times daily (TID), for a total daily NB-01 dose of 300 mg, 600 mg or 900 mg, respectively. The primary endpoint of the study was reduction in the average daily Pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score from baseline at 8 weeks. Secondary endpoints included percentage reduction in NRS at 8 weeks, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, and change from baseline in the NRS based on a daily patient diary.

Table of Contents

Completed Phase 2 trial in the United States. A 14-site, 128-subject, double blind, dose ranging, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of NB-01 in the treatment of subjects with PDN has been completed in the United States. Three doses of NB-01 were evaluated versus placebo in 128 subjects (32 per dose group), administered daily for a 12-week treatment period. The treatment groups were placebo or one of NB-01 100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg, administered three times daily (“TID”) for a total daily NB-01 dose of 300 mg, 600 mg or 900 mg, respectively. The primary endpoint of the study was reduction in the clinic visit Pain Numerical Rating Scale (“NRS”) score at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included percentage reduction in clinic visit NRS score at 12 weeks, proportion of subjects with at least 30% improvement in the clinic visit pain NRS score, proportion of responders in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (“PGI-I”) scale, and change from baseline in the NRS based on a daily patient diary.

14 U.S. sites, 128 subjects, 3 doses vs. placebo
(600mg and 300mg doses shown here)  

Results of Phase 2 U.S. Clinical Trial for NB-01

Measured as a change from baseline in NRS score over the course of 12 weeks, NB-01 was observed to be generally well tolerated in its Phase 2 study at doses ranging from 300 mg to 900 mg against placebo, as summarized in the table below.

Measured in terms of changes in the mean NRS score at week 12 in the Phase 2 study, patients treated with the 300 mg and 600 mg doses showed statistically significant improvement from baseline in pain scores. As summarized in the table below, patients treated with the 300 mg dose experienced an average 45% change from the baseline NRS score, and patients treated with the 600 mg dose experienced an average 47% change from the baseline NRS score.

Mean Change in NRS Score at Week 12 Following NB-01 Dosing

Table of Contents

During the Phase 2 study, patients in each dose group experienced a number of adverse events, including nausea and pruritus, but not at a level higher than those of subjects who received placebo.

Future Development of NB-01  

In light of the present business environment including the impact of the COVID-19 disease that emerged in December 2019 as a global threat, we have determined that any attempt to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials for NB-01, as previously announced, would be difficult if not impossible in the short or medium term. To conserve financial resources, in the first quarter of 2020 we directed our contract research organization (CRO) partners and other vendors working on the Phase 3 clinical trials of NB-01 to cease all work and we gave notice of termination of our existing contract arrangements with each of them.

​

We are currently re-evaluating alternatives to bring the NB-01 asset to the market through a different regulatory pathway. Development of NB-01 as an orphan drug is among the alternatives we are considering, and we may conduct feasibility studies to identify a rare disease relevant to NB-01. Additionally, we are considering marketing the NB-01 product line as nutraceutical (non-pharmaceutical) products. There is no assurance that we will be able to pursue either alternative for NB-01. There is no assurance that we will be able to pursue any of these alternatives for NB-01. See “We have determined to postpone the initiation of Phase 3 clinical trials of NB-01 under present circumstances, and we have terminated all of our agreements with contract research organizations related to NB-01. We may not be able to successfully develop NB-01 pursuant to other alternatives, including as an orphan drug or as a nutraceutical candidate” in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

NB-02

NB-02 is in development for the symptomatic and disease modifying treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and tauopathies. In preclinical studies, we have observed the mechanisms of action of NB-02 to include inhibition of tau phosphorylation, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition, inhibition of Ab toxicity and amyloid plaque formation, and anti-inflammatory effects.

Specifically, in both in vitro and in vivo models, NB-02 has demonstrated inhibition of AChE, as is the case with three of the current drugs on the market to treat the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. It has also demonstrated inhibition of tau phosphorylation and of amyloid plaque formation, both mechanisms believed to contribute to the progression of neurodegenerative diseases.

NeuroBo acquired NB-02 from Dong-A ST on January 18, 2018. NeuroBo has full worldwide rights to all disease indications for NB-02 from the asset acquisition and does not have further obligations in future payments to Dong-A ST however; if NeuroBo wishes to sell products using NB-02 in the Republic of South Korea, Dong-A ST is entitled to certain notice rights and rights to negotiate with respect to any distribution agreement for the sale of NB-02 in such territory.

Background

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive and chronic neurodegenerative disease characterized by memory and cognitive deterioration beyond normal aging that becomes severe enough to interfere with daily tasks. It is the most common form of dementia. AD is characterized by the loss of neurons and synapses in the cerebral cortex and certain subcortical regions. Different mechanisms have been implicated in the underlying cause of the cognitive and functional impairments observed in AD. Degeneration of the cholinergic nervous system has been shown to be closely linked to the impairment of cognitive functions. Also, neurodegeneration caused by the buildup of two structural abnormalities known as beta-amyloid (βA) plaques and hyper-phosphorylated tau protein (pTau) aggregates that leads to neurofibrillary tangle formation is thought to play a major role in the pathogenesis of AD. However, neurodegeneration in AD appears to be a multi-factorial event, in which various genetics as well as environmental risk factors may play a role sequentially and/or in parallel.

Despite the need, there is no cure for AD. Currently available treatments can only temporarily provide symptomatic relief without the ability to control disease progression. As the life expectancy increases, the prevalence of aging-

Table of Contents

associated diseases such as AD has also dramatically increased and has become a major public health concern. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the development of AD drugs that are capable of more than just relieving the symptoms. The current goal in AD therapeutics research is to search for drugs/interventions that can directly address the underlying disease processes of AD, also known as disease-modifying therapy (DMT), to delay or even prevent disease progression.

Based on the preclinical studies, NB-02 has both symptomatic relief benefits and disease modifying mechanism of action. Specifically, in in vivo studies, NB-02 was shown to up-regulate nerve growth factor (NGF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (“BNDF”) and cellular antioxidant defense system, which is indicative of neuroprotection and neuronal survival. Decrease in the accumulation of Aβ protein level and tau protein hyper-phosphorylation was also observed, which suggests NB-02 has disease modification efficacy by clearance of the toxic proteins that represent the neuropathological indices of AD. Furthermore, NB-02 was shown to reverse cognition impairment by suppressing AChE activity. The findings from these nonclinical studies collectively suggested that NB-02 could be a treatment candidate for AD via multiple mechanisms of action including cognition enhancement and disease modification.

Development Plan

NB-02 has shown considerable promise as a neuroprotective agent in preclinical studies, demonstrating a multimodal mechanism of action including inhibition of tau phosphorylation, AChE inhibition, inhibition of Ab toxicity and amyloid plaque formation, and anti-inflammatory effects. We intend to further leverage the benefits of tau modulation by NB-02 in conjunction with the other pathway effects to explore treatment of certain dementias, such as tauopathy indications. We believe that leveraging the therapeutic advantages of NB-02 will drive a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. Although NB-02 is almost ready for the submission of an IND application to the FDA, we intend to postpone the first human clinical trials until global macroeconomic conditions improve. Additionally, we are assessing whether to pursue further development of NB-02 as an orphan drug.

Gemcabene

Gemcabene is a novel, once-daily, oral therapy designed to target known lipid metabolic pathways to lower levels of LDL-C, hsCRP and triglycerides. Gemcabene shares many of the attributes of statin therapy, including broad therapeutic applications, convenient route of administration and cost-effective manufacturing process, but does not appear to increase the reporting of myalgia when added to statin therapy. Gemcabene has also shown additive LDL-C lowering in combination with stable low, moderate or high-intensity statin therapy. As described below, we licensed global rights to Gemcabene from Pfizer in April 2011. The license with Pfizer was renegotiated to April 2024.

Gemcabene was being evaluated in a Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess its efficacy safety and tolerability in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia. In January 2016, the Gemcabene Phase 2 clinical study was placed on partial clinical hold as the FDA requested 2-year rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies to be completed and submitted. The study currently remains on partial clinical hold for the treatment of dyslipidemia. NeuroBo is currently assessing the path forward for Gemcabene for the indication for COVID-19 and does not expect to direct additional resources towards Gemcabene as a cardiovascular therapy in the near term.

Background

Gemcabene's mechanism of action is multifaceted. In the liver, Gemcabene acts in two major ways to reduce levels of circulating LDL-C and triglycerides: (i) inhibition of the two metabolic pathways that synthesize precursors (i.e., cholesterol and fatty acids) of VLDL-C, LDL-C and triglycerides and (ii) stimulation of a liver mechanism known as the remnant receptor pathway that removes particles that contain cholesterol and triglycerides from the blood. Gemcabene's stimulation of this remnant receptor pathway involves enhanced removal of an LDL-C precursor known as very low-density lipoprotein remnants. With regard to Gemcabene's anti-inflammatory properties, in human clinical trials and animal studies, to date, Gemcabene has been shown to significantly reduce plasma levels of CRP. Furthermore, in preclinical studies of dyslipidemia as well as NASH, Gemcabene inhibited production of a number of known pro-inflammatory molecules (e.g., CRP, CCR2, CCR5, IL-6, TNF-alpha, MCP-1 and MIP1-beta) as well as pro-fibrotic factors (e.g., TIMP-1, MMP-2). Overall, Gemcabene's multifaceted mechanism of action provides the potential for

Table of Contents

safely addressing multiple major risk factors in a broad array of cardiometabolic patients who have an elevated risk of cardiovascular or liver disease, even when taking conventional therapies.

Clinical Experience with Gemcabene

Gemcabene has been assessed in 25 Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials. Across these trials, over 1,500 adult subjects have participated, including healthy volunteers and patients with various underlying conditions. Of these subjects, over 1,100 have been exposed to at least one dose of Gemcabene.

Across the Gemphire-sponsored clinical trials, Gemcabene was observed to be well tolerated at single doses up to 1,500 mg and multiple doses up to 900 mg/day. Safety of the subjects in these trials was evaluated by adverse event (“AE”) monitoring, clinical laboratory assessments, electrocardiograms (ECGs), physical examinations, and vital sign assessments. Across all trials, 10 Gemcabene treated healthy volunteers or patients reported a treatment-emergent severe adverse event (“SAE”), none of which were considered by the clinician to be related to Gemcabene. No deaths occurred in any of the trials. AEs reported were generally mild to moderate in intensity with the most common events being headache, weakness, nausea, dizziness, upset stomach, infection and abnormal bowel movements. Gemcabene, when compared with placebo, was not associated with an increased incidence of myalgia or liver enzyme elevations, whether as monotherapy or in combination with statin therapy. Elevated levels of liver enzymes, specifically alanine transaminase (“ALT”) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (“AST”), were observed in three patients (0.27% of Gemcabene treated subjects). These three patients had ALT or AST levels more than three times the upper limit of normal (“ULN”) returning to near baseline after cessation of treatment. Small mean increases in serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (“BUN”) have been observed in some trials. The increase in creatinine values was reversible returning to baseline within approximately four weeks of cessation of Gemcabene. No clinically meaningful changes were observed in physical examinations or vital signs, including blood pressure.

In addition, Gemcabene demonstrated promising clinical pharmacology attributes across 15 completed Company-sponsored Phase 1 trials in healthy subjects, such as once-daily dosing, no meaningful drug-drug interactions with high-intensity statins and no observed food effect. Gemcabene can be taken with or without food. Gemcabene was observed to: (i) be rapidly absorbed following oral administration with time of maximum concentration within two hours and (ii) reach maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and area under the curve over 24 hours (AUC_0-24) that were dose proportional following both single-and multiple-dose administration. Steady state concentrations were achieved within six days of repeated dose administration. Average half-life ranged from 32 to 41 hours. Gemcabene's primary route of elimination was renal. No significant drug-drug interactions (“DDIs”) were observed with digoxin, a cardiovascular drug for the treatment of atrial fibrillation or statins (atorvastatin, simvastatin and rosuvastatin) used as background therapy in patients with HoFH, HeFH and many SHTG patients.

Gemcabene has been evaluated in ten Company-sponsored Phase 2 trials across a diverse patient population. These trials explored safety, tolerability and efficacy using multiple doses of Gemcabene as monotherapy and in combination with low-, moderate- and high-intensity statins. In Company-sponsored Phase 2 trials, patients treated with Gemcabene were observed to have significantly lowered LDL-C, hsCRP and triglycerides.

Development Plan 

NeuroBo is currently exploring additional therapeutic indications for Gemcabene that may strengthen NeuroBo’s pipeline of assets to treat viral diseases, including COVID-19. NeuroBo intends to evaluate Gemcabene as a treatment for COVID-19 both as a stand-alone treatment and in combination with ANA001. NeuroBo intends to pursue the ANA001/Gemcabene combination as a new chemical entity with the FDA which, if successful, could grant NeuroBo extended patent exclusivity.

The historical development of Gemcabene is as follows. In August 2018, Gemphire announced that it had completed and submitted to the FDA the results from its two year rodent carcinogenicity studies. These studies were submitted as part of a request for the FDA to remove the partial clinical hold that prevents human studies of Gemcabene that are greater than six months in duration. In response to its submission, the FDA did not lift the hold, requested that Gemphire provide additional data, including two preclinical studies, namely, a subchronic (13 week) study of Gemcabene in PPARa knock-out mice and a study of Gemcabene in in vitro PPAR transactivation assays using monkey and canine PPAR isoforms and informed Gemphire that an End-of-Phase 2 (EOP2) meeting to reach agreement on the design of

Table of Contents

Phase 3 registration and long-term safety exposure trials for its target indications in dyslipidemia would not take place until such time, if ever, as the clinical hold is lifted.

In late 2017 and early 2018, Gemphire announced the initiation of two non-Company investigator-initiated proof-of-concept Phase 2 trials in Pediatric Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and in Familial Partial Lipodystrophy Disease (FPLD).

In August 2018, the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) halted the Pediatric NAFLD trial early due to “unanticipated problems” in the first three patients. Specifically, ALT was increased in 2 of these 3 subjects beyond baseline levels. In addition, all 3 subjects had an increase in liver fat fraction as measured by MRI PDFF. All 6 subjects treated in this study gained weight and had increased TGs during study treatment. These observations are in contrast to the totality of the evidence from other Gemcabene trials. In addition, there was evidence of non-compliance to the dosing regimen and patient non-adherence to dietary and lifestyle guidelines, as well as inconsistencies in biomarkers. The six pediatric patients that were enrolled in the study were followed for a 12 month safety monitoring period post final dose which is now complete. During this follow-on period there were no drug related adverse events reported. There was one serious non-related adverse event of hospitalization of subacute spinal cord infarction/embolism. No deaths or other SAEs were reported.

In June 2019, Gemphire reported topline data from the FPLD trial. Overall Gemcabene treatment resulted in a median change in serum triglycerides (TGs) of –19.6% for the five patients at twelve weeks (the primary endpoint) with a range of TG responses from +40.4% to –52.9% and three patients showing decreases. Gemcabene was generally well tolerated and safe. Nonsignificant fluctuations in ALT, AST, serum creatinine and eGFR were observed. Four of 5 subjects completed the study; one subject withdrew due to an AE of right quadrant pain considered related to Gemcabene. There was one SAE of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo considered unrelated to treatment.

On July 24, 2019, Gemphire announced that it had entered into the Beijing SL License Agreement pursuant to which Gemphire has granted to Beijing SL an exclusive, royalty-bearing license to develop and commercialize products containing Gemcabene for the treatment of any human disease in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

With respect to the partial clinical hold that prevents human studies of Gemcabene that are greater than six months in duration, Gemphire has completed the in vitro PPAR transactivation studies and the subchronic study of Gemcabene in PPARa knock-out mice. In May 2020, we received written communication from the FDA that the clinical development program for Gemcabene remains on a partial clinical hold.

Licensing Agreements

License Agreement with YourChoice

In connection with the acquisition of ANA, we assumed a license agreement (the “YourChoice Agreement”) between ANA and YourChoice Therapeutics, Inc. (“YourChoice”). Pursuant to the YourChoice Agreement, YourChoice granted to ANA, during the term of the YourChoice Agreement, an exclusive, worldwide, fee-bearing license derived from the licensed intellectual property throughout the world. The fees due under the YourChoice Agreement include certain single-digit royalty payments and milestone payments in the aggregate of $19.5 million. The term of the YourChoice Agreement will expire on the expiration or invalidation of the last of the licensed patents under the YourChoice Agreement.

License Agreement with Dong-A ST for NB-01

On January 18, 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Dong-A ST, a leading pharmaceutical company specializing in the discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products and biosimilars, which agreement was amended on April 18, 2018 and July 24, 2019. Dong-A ST is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea and listed on the Korean stock exchange. Under the terms of the agreement, we obtained an exclusive, royalty-bearing, worldwide (except for the Republic of Korea) license to make, use, offer to sell, sell and import products covered by certain Dong-A ST intellectual property rights in its proprietary compound designated as DA-9801 (NB-01). Our license rights cover any and all applications and markets for the therapeutic, health, nutrition or well-being

Table of Contents

of humans. We may grant sublicenses to any affiliate or third party. We are responsible for all future patent prosecution costs.

Dong-A ST retained the exclusive right to conduct clinical studies in the Republic of Korea and sell products to end users in Korea. NeuroBo grants Dong-A ST an exclusive, royalty free right and license to use, solely for Dong-A ST's commercialization of products in Korea, any inventions, designs and technology developed by us in its performance of the agreement. If Dong-A ST terminates the agreement due to a breach by us or bankruptcy event, then this technology is licensed exclusively to Dong-A ST at no charge. We will also negotiate in good faith to supply product to Dong-A ST for clinical studies and sale of products to end-users in Korea under a separate supply agreement.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop products for use in each of the United States, the European Union, Japan and the People's Republic of China. If we terminate, discontinue or suspend, for longer than 12 months, the development of any product listed as a product under development in any development plan provided to Dong-A ST (other than for reasons of force majeure or requirements of applicable law), then we are deemed in breach of this development obligation, and Dong-A ST may terminate for cause after a 60-day cure period. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize products worldwide throughout the term of the agreement.

In connection with obtaining the licenses we paid Dong-A ST total consideration of $2 million consisting of a one-time upfront license fee and shares of common stock.

We may be required to pay development milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $98 million related to publication of Phase 3 clinical trial data, the first NDA submission in any country, and NDA approval in the United States, the European Union, Japan and the People's Republic of China. We may also be required to pay sales milestone payments in a specified amount, related to the first time that aggregate net sales of products exceed specified amounts in a calendar year.

We are required to pay Dong-A ST commercial milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $80 million and a royalty between a single digit and a low double digit percentage of net sales of products. The royalty rate increases as annual net sales increase.

The term of the agreement continues on a country-by country and product-by-product basis until the later of the 12^th anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country or expiration or termination of the last valid claim within the patent rights covering the product. The royalty rate is then reduced by 30% in any country that prohibits the payment of royalties on a patent license beyond the expiration or invalidation of the last valid claim covering the product.

Either Dong-A ST or we may terminate the agreement if the other party is in material breach of the agreement and has not cured or started to cure the breach within 60 days of notice of such breach, or is subject to a bankruptcy or insolvency event. We may terminate the agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice.

We may assign our rights under the agreement in connection with a merger, consolidation, or sale of substantially all of its assets, with prior written notice to Dong-A ST, and if the successor entity agrees in writing to be bound by the agreement.

Pfizer License Agreement

In August 2018, an Amended and Restated License Agreement with Pfizer (the “Pfizer Agreement”) for the research, development, manufacture and commercialization of Gemcabene went into effect. This agreement amended and restated in full the prior license agreement with Pfizer dated April 16, 2011.

The Pfizer Agreement included milestone payments to Pfizer totaling up to $37 million upon the achievement of certain milestones, including the first NDA (or its foreign equivalent) in any country, regulatory approval in each of the United States, Europe and Japan, the first anniversary of the first regulatory approval in any country, and upon achieving certain aggregate sales levels of Gemcabene. Future milestone payments under the Pfizer Agreement, if any, would not be expected to begin for at least several years and extend over a number of subsequent years.

Table of Contents

Pfizer will also receive tiered royalties on a country-by-country basis based upon the annual amount of net sales as specified in the Pfizer Agreement until the later of: (i) five years after the first commercial sale in such country; (ii) the expiration of all regulatory or data exclusivity for Gemcabene in such country; and (iii) the expiration or abandonment of the last valid claim of the licensed patents, including any patent term extensions or supplemental protection certificates in such country. The royalty rates range from the high single digits to the mid-teens depending on the level of net sales. The royalty rates are subject to reduction during certain periods when therapeutically-equivalent generic products represent a certain market share of prescription volume in the country. Under the Pfizer Agreement, commercially reasonable efforts must be used to develop and commercialize Gemcabene.

The Pfizer Agreement will expire upon expiration of the last royalty term. On expiration (but not earlier termination), we will have a perpetual, exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free license under the licensed patent rights and related data to make, use, develop, commercialize, import and otherwise exploit the clinical product candidate Gemcabene. Either party may terminate the Pfizer Agreement for the other party's material breach following a cure period or immediately upon certain insolvency events relating to the other party. Pfizer may immediately terminate the Pfizer Agreement in the event that (i) we or any of our affiliates or sublicenses contests or challenges, or supports or assists any third party to contest or challenge, Pfizer's ownership of or rights in, or the validity, enforceability or scope of any of the patents licensed under the Pfizer Agreement or (ii) we or any of our affiliates or sublicensees fails to achieve the first commercial sale in at least one country by April 16, 2024.

License Agreement with Beijing SL

As of July 23, 2019, Beijing SL has an exclusive royalty-bearing license to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize pharmaceutical products comprising, as an active ingredient, Gemcabene in the territory comprised of mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. We retain all rights to Gemcabene outside of the territory. The parties have agreed to collaborate with respect to development and commercialization activities under the Beijing SL License Agreement through a joint steering committee composed of an equal number of representatives of Beijing SL and us.

Beijing SL will be responsible, at its expense, for developing and commercializing products containing Gemcabene in the territory, with certain assistance from us. To the extent mutually agreed to in writing, the parties will collaborate on the Phase 3 clinical trial for HoFH or other clinical trials, with us as the sponsor, and designed to enroll patients both inside and outside the territory, but Beijing SL will be responsible, at its expense, for the conduct of any such study to the extent solely in the territory. Beijing SL will be responsible for development activities, including non-clinical and clinical studies directed at obtaining regulatory approval of the licensed product in the territory. Beijing SL has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize the licensed products for each indication that receives regulatory approval in the territory and shall prepare and present a commercialization plan that shall be subject to approval by the joint steering committee.

Pursuant to the Beijing SL License Agreement, Beijing SL made an upfront gross payment of $2.5 million. Additionally, with respect to each licensed product, Beijing SL will pay (i) payments for specified developmental and regulatory milestones (including submission of a NDA to China's National Medical Product Administration, dosing of the first patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial in mainland China and regulatory approval for the first and each additional indication of a Licensed Product in the Territory) totaling up to $6 million in the aggregate and (ii) payments for specified global net sales milestones of up to $20 million in the aggregate multiplied by the ratio of the net sales of a licensed product divided by the global net sales of a licensed product, which net sales milestone payments are payable once, upon the first achievement of such milestone.

Beijing SL will also be obligated to pay tiered royalties ranging from the mid-teens to twenty percent on the net sales of all licensed products in the territory until the latest of (a) the date on which any applicable regulatory exclusivity with respect to such Licensed Product expires in such region, (b) the expiration or abandonment of the last valid patent claim or joint patent claim covering such Licensed Product in each region and (c) the fifth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such Licensed Product in such region. Future milestone payments under the Beijing SL License Agreement, if any, are not expected to begin for at least one year and will extend over a number of subsequent years.

Either party may terminate the Beijing SL License Agreement (x) with written notice for the other party's material breach following a cure period or (y) if the other party becomes subject to certain insolvency proceedings. In addition,

Table of Contents

we may terminate the Beijing SL License Agreement in its entirety if Beijing SL or its affiliates or sublicensees commence a proceeding challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of any of our patents.

The Beijing SL License Agreement contemplates that parties shall, no later than twelve months prior to the anticipated date of the first commercial sale of a licensed product, if any, negotiate in good faith and execute a commercial supply agreement, pursuant to which Beijing SL shall purchase from us, and we shall use commercially reasonable efforts to supply, Gemcabene or licensed product for clinical or commercial purposes, as applicable, until manufacturing and regulatory transfers are complete.

Manufacturing

ANA001 is a small molecule drug candidate that can be synthesized using readily available raw materials and based on conventional chemical processes. Contract manufacturers produce both the drug substance and drug product required for the preclinical studies and clinical trials of ANA001. All of the contract manufacturers have updated GMP certificates and all of the drug products are being manufactured under current good manufacturing practices (GMP), a quality system regulating CMC activities.

ANA001 capsules are manufactured under GMP to support all clinical trials. More specifically, drug substance and drug product manufacturing process and analytical method development have been optimized and updated based on ICH/FDA guidelines. There is solid stability data for both the drug substance and drug product. The current contract manufacturers have been producing, and could produce in the future, bulk drug substance and drug product for use in our preclinical studies and clinical trials on a purchase order basis.

NB-01

NB-01 is derived from two plant species native to China, Dioscorea Rhizome and Dioscoreae Nipponicae Rhizoma. Both species have been previously used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for the treatment of arthritis-related pain, muscular pain and pain related to other conditions such as Kashin-Beck disease. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a style of traditional medicine built on a foundation of more than 2,500 years of Chinese medical practice that includes various forms of herbal medicine, acupuncture, massage (tui na), exercise (qigong), and dietary therapy.

While the characterization of the full composition of NB-01 and underlying active compounds is underway, certain compounds have been identified for purposes of product screening and quality control. These include allantoin and dioscin, the chemical structures for which are shown in the figure below. Allantoin is a marker of the D. Rhizome extract and dioscin is a marker of the D. Nipponicae Rhizoma extract. Signature high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) chemical profile assays are established for both markers. These markers are used to show the drug quality profile during the manufacturing of the drug extract from the plant species and the final drug product formulation used in the human clinical studies.

NB-01 is manufactured in a highly monitored and controlled manner to ensure rigorous batch-to-batch consistency that yields a complex mixture of active compounds. NB-01 is considered a "botanical drug product" by the FDA, which defines this class of products to include plant materials, algae, macroscopic fungi, and combinations thereof. As a result, it has unique features that must be taken into account during the drug development process. Plant species used for the production of our compounds are cultivated on dedicated, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)-compliant acreage in accordance with established WHO standards for starting materials of plant or herbal origin, as recommended by FDA its guidelines for botanical drug development. Production of the drug substance from the botanical raw material involves modern harvesting and extraction processes incorporating state-of-the-art molecular biology and analytical chemistry methodologies.

Table of Contents

The manufacturing process and analytical testing methodologies have been validated and the adherence to regulatory requirements of the processes have been audited by two firms, Amarex and FDAMap, well-experienced in the review and audit of botanical drug requirements of the FDA. The drug substance, an ethanol extract of the two plant species, combined in a specific weight ratio, is manufactured in KGC Yebon, in South Korea in a GMP-compliant process, and has been audited by Amarex and FDAMap. The drug substance has completed process validation and analysis method validation, and demonstrated 36-month stability. The drug product is manufactured by Dong-A ST in South Korea in a GMP-compliant process, and is audited by Amarex and FDAMap. The final drug product has completed process validation and analysis method validation, and demonstrated 36-month stability.

NB-02

NB-02 is derived from two plant materials, Morus alba Linne and the peel of Poria cocos Wolf. NB-02 is manufactured in a highly monitored and controlled manner to ensure rigorous batch-to-batch consistency that yields a complex mixture of active compounds. NB-02 is considered a "botanical drug product" by the FDA, which defines this class of products to include plant materials, algae, macroscopic fungi, and combinations thereof. As a result, NB-02 has unique features that must be taken into account during the drug development process. Plant species used for the production of our compounds are cultivated on dedicated, GAP-compliant acreage in accordance with established WHO standards for starting materials of plant or herbal origin, as recommended by FDA its guidelines for botanical drug development. Production of the drug substance from the botanical raw material involves modern harvesting and extraction processes incorporating state-of-the-art molecular biology and analytical chemistry methodologies.

Gemcabene

Gemcabene is a small molecule drug candidate that can be synthesized as a single polymorph crystalline monocalcium salt, using readily available raw materials and based on conventional chemical processes. Contract manufacturers produce both the drug substance and drug product required for the preclinical studies and clinical trials of Gemcabene. All of the contract manufacturers have updated GMP certificates and all of the drug products are being manufactured under current good manufacturing practices (GMP), a quality system regulating CMC activities.

Gemcabene Immediate Release (IR) tablets are manufactured under GMP to support all clinical trials. More specifically, drug substance and drug product manufacturing process and analytical method development have been optimized and updated based on ICH/FDA guidelines. In addition, Gemcabene is successfully manufactured in multiple strengths of tablets under GMP: 150mg, 300mg, and 600mg. There is solid stability data for both the drug substance and drug product. The current contract manufacturers have been producing, and could produce in the future, bulk drug substance and drug product for use in our preclinical studies and clinical trials on a purchase order basis.

Competition

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Some of our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Other firms may also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient enrollment for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for our programs. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and diagnostic industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors with us, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize therapeutics that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any

Table of Contents

products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain marketing approvals for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected because in some cases insurers or other third-party payors, including government programs, seek to encourage the use of generic products. This may have the effect of making branded products less attractive, from a cost perspective, to buyers.

ANA001 and Gemcabene—COVID-19

We expect that, if approved, ANA001 and/or Gemcabene will compete with a number of drugs that are being studied for the treatment of symptoms of COVID-19. Two therapies are currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of symptoms of COVID-19 (remdesivir and Dexamethasone), and three have received EUA from the FDA (baricitinib + remdesivir, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail and bamlanivimab). We are aware of other therapies currently being studied in clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19, including favipiravir, convalescent plasma, oleandrin, ivermectin and molnupiravir.

​

With respect to ANA001, in addition to the marketed therapies, we are aware of several companies currently developing and commercializing niclosamide for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms, including Daewoong, Union Therapeutics, TFF and FirstWave.

NB-01—Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

We expect that, if approved, NB-01 will compete with currently approved drug therapies for painful diabetic neuropathy, including pregabalin, duloxetine, and tapentadol HCl. We are also aware of a number of therapies that are approved to treat other types of neuropathic pain, and that various therapies are used off-label to treat neuropathic pain. In addition to the marketed therapies, we are aware of several companies currently developing therapies for neuropathic pain, including Biogen Inc., Cara Therapeutics, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Eliem Therapeutics Inc, Immune Pharmaceuticals Inc., Novartis AG, and Xenoport Inc.

NB-02—Cognitive disease and Tauopathies

We expect that, if approved, NB-02 will compete with the currently approved therapies for management of cognitive disease including Alzheimer's disease. In Alzheimer's disease, four drugs are currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, based on AChE inhibition (three drugs) and NMDA receptor antagonism (one drug). In addition to the marketed therapies, we are aware of several companies currently developing therapies for Alzheimer's disease, including Eisai Co., Ltd., Hoffman-LaRoche, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis AG, and Avanir Pharmaceuticals, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Gemcabene —Dyslipidemia

We expect that, assuming we re-engage our effort to develop Gemcabene as a cardiovascular therapy, if approved, Gemcabene will compete with large pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. We are aware of other therapies approved to lower LDL, both statin and non-statin based therapies, as well as medications written off label to treat the disease. In addition, we are aware of other therapies to lower triglycerides. Lipid-lowering therapies currently on the market that would compete with Gemcabene, if approved, include the following:

Table of Contents

​

Several other pharmaceutical companies have other lipid-lowering therapies in development that may be approved for marketing in the United States or outside of the United States. Based on publicly available information, we believe the current therapies in development that would compete with Gemcabene include, but are not limited to, the following:

​

​

Intellectual Property

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application or a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application to which a U.S. application claims priority. In the United States, a patent's term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier filed patent. The term of a U.S. patent that covers a drug or biological product may also be eligible for patent term extension when approval from the FDA is granted, provided statutory and regulatory requirements are met. In the future, our product candidates receive approval from the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those products, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and/or other factors. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or other favorable adjustment to the term of any of its patents.

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary and intellectual property position for our product candidates, including NB-01 and NB-02, its preclinical compounds, and its core technologies will depend on our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims if granted. However, patent applications that we may file or license from third parties may not result in the issuance of patents. We also cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents. Any issued patents that we may receive in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. For example, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, patent applications were subject to a “first to invent” rule of law. Applications effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, are subject to a “first to file” rule of law.

Table of Contents

Discoveries reported in the scientific literature often lag the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. We cannot be certain that any existing application will be subject to the “first to file” or “first to invent” rule of law, that we or our licensor were the first to make the inventions claimed in our existing patent portfolio subject to the prior laws, or that we or our licensor were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions subject to the new laws. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology we have claimed in our patents or patent applications, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings and/or invalidation proceedings in the USPTO, which could result in substantial costs to us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable. In addition, because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a product candidate we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets, know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain its competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, by using confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with its employees. We also have agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of agreements or clauses requiring invention assignment, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed under those agreements.

Our ability to commercialize product candidates depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates. Our policy is to seek to protect our intellectual property position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to the technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business strategy. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

ANA001

As of December 31, 2020, our intellectual property portfolio for ANA001 included four U.S. provisional applications directed to niclosamide formulation. A PCT application and/or a non-provisional U.S. application in the U.S. to which claim priority to the U.S. provisional applications may be filed in 2021. Patent applications may be issued in the U.S. and any countries in which the Company files national phase applications of the PCT application. The patents issued from the national phase applications are estimated to expire 2041.

As described in more detail above under “Licensing Agreements – License Agreement with YourChoice,” pursuant to the YourChoice Agreement, the Company has licensed several patent applications relating to ANA from YourChoice. A PCT application to which claims priority to the U.S. provisional applications was filed in 2021. Patent applications may be issued in any countries in which the Company files national phase applications of the PCT application. The patents issued from the national phase applications are estimated to expire 2041.

NB-01 and NB-02

As of December 31, 2020, our intellectual property portfolio for NB-01 included four issued U.S. patents, comprised of one patent directed to composition of matter and three patents directed to use, and two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, comprised of one directed to composition of matter and another directed to use, and 65 granted foreign patents and one pending application, these patents are related to its NB-01 clinical programs in peripheral neuropathy and neurological conditions. The issued patents have expiration dates ranging from October 27, 2026 to June 22, 2033. The patent issuing from the application, if any, is expected to expire December 2031. The jurisdictions for the foreign patents and application include: Brazil, Canada, China, the European Patent Convention (including Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), India, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia. One patent family including some of the above patents for NB-01 is assigned to University-Industry Cooperation Group of Kyung Hee University, and is exclusively licensed from Kyung Hee University to Dong-A ST and then from Dong-A ST to us pursuant to the terms of the corresponding agreements. The other two patent families including the other above patents and patent applications for NB-01 are assigned to Dong-A ST and exclusively licensed to us.

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2020, our intellectual property portfolio for NB-02 included two issued U.S. patents, two pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 24 foreign granted patents, and 9 foreign patent applications. Patents issuing from these applications, if any, are expected to expire around 2035. The issued patents have an expiration date of December 3, 2035 and December 19, 2035. The jurisdictions for the foreign patents and applications include: Brazil, Canada, China, the European Patent Convention (including Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), India, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and Russia. All of the above patents and patent applications for NB-02 were assigned to us.

Gemcabene

As of March 22, 2021, our intellectual property portfolio relating to Gemcabene included eight issued U.S. patents, seven pending U.S. patent applications, 36 foreign-granted patents and 46 foreign patent applications directed to formulations, compositions, methods of use and methods of manufacturing. The Gemcabene intellectual property includes both owned and Pfizer-licensed issued and pending patents in the United States and foreign jurisdictions. The issued patents in the United States and foreign countries have expiration dates between July 2021 and November 2036. The patents in the United States and foreign countries that may be issued from pending applications, if any, are expected to expire between December 2031 and October 2039. The jurisdictions for the foreign countries include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Korea, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan and Thailand.

Government Regulation

Government authorities at the federal, state and local level in the United States and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture (including any manufacturing changes), packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, import and export of pharmaceutical products, such as those we are developing.

United States — FDA Regulation

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, 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 imposition of clinical holds, refusal by the FDA to approve pending NDAs, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development in the United States typically involves preclinical or other nonclinical laboratory and animal tests and the submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence. For commercial approval, the sponsor must submit adequate tests by all methods reasonably applicable to show that the drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended or suggested in the proposed labeling. The sponsor must also submit substantial evidence, generally consisting of adequate, well-controlled clinical trials to establish that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended or suggested in the proposed labeling. In certain cases, the FDA may determine that a drug is effective based on one clinical study plus confirmatory evidence. Satisfaction of the 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. For botanical drug products in particular, which may be heterogeneous in nature and may carry additional uncertainty about their active constituents in comparison to synthetic small-molecule drug products, one of the critical issues during drug development is ensuring that the therapeutic effect for marketed drug product batches is consistent. FDA has determined that therapeutic consistency can generally be supported by a "totality of the evidence" approach, which the agency has outlined in a 2016 guidance for industry entitled Botanical Drug Development.

Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must

Table of Contents

comply with federal requirements, including the FDA's good laboratory practice regulations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, or USDA's, regulations implementing the Animal Welfare Act. The results of nonclinical 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 nonclinical tests, such as animal studies of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

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

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations, (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice (“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 (some of which have been codified into U.S. federal regulations), and (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with the 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, at each site where a trial will be conducted for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB's requirements or may impose other conditions. Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In general, in Phase I, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human volunteers or, in some cases, patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses and, if possible, early evidence of 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. The FDA may, however, determine that a drug is effective based on one clinical trial plus confirmatory evidence. Only a small percentage of investigational drugs complete all three phases and obtain marketing approval. In some cases, the FDA may require post-market studies, known as Phase 4 studies, to be conducted as a condition of approval to gather additional information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use. Depending on the risks posed by the drugs, other post-market requirements may be imposed.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product's pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee.

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

Table of Contents

a new molecular entity, or NME, such that the 10-month and 6-month action goals for NME applications begin to run from the 60-day filing date rather than from receipt of the original NDA 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, which is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with current good manufacturing practice (GMP) regulations is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter (CRL) generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA's satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing 90% of NDA resubmissions within two to six months depending on the type of information included in response to the deficiencies identified in the CRL.

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

Fast Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

The FDA is authorized to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review designation and other accelerated approvals.

Under the Fast Track Program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate that is intended to treat a serious condition may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor's request. In addition to other benefits such as the ability to engage in more frequent interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track drug's NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and the FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, the FDA's time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

In 2012, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA. This law established a new regulatory program for products designated as “breakthrough therapies.” A product may be designated as a breakthrough therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to designated breakthrough therapies, including: holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the product sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Table of Contents

The FDA may also designate a product for priority review if it is a drug that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case- by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA's goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Under the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, the FDA may approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. The accelerated approval regulations are codified within Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as Subpart H under Part 314, the part of the FDA regulations covering applications for FDA approval to market a new drug, and as such the accelerated approval pathway is sometimes referred to as approval under “Subpart H.”

In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A drug candidate approved under Subpart H is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. Unless otherwise informed by the FDA, for an accelerated approval product an applicant must submit to the FDA for consideration during the preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements, intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval. After 120 days following marketing approval, unless otherwise informed by the FDA, the applicant must submit promotional materials at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination of the labeling or initial publication of the advertisement. The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. For example, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

Orphan Drugs

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition—generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals. The U.S. Orphan Drug Designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity and trade name, if any, of the drug and its designated use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. The first NDA applicant to receive FDA approval for a particular active ingredient to treat a particular disease with FDA orphan drug designation is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product, for that indication. During the seven-year exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same disease, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition. Among the other benefits of orphan drug designation are tax credits for certain research and a waiver of the NDA application user fee.

Nutraceutical Regulation

The FDA regulates foods, food additives, drugs and cosmetics. Unlike pharmaceutical drugs and conventional foods, nutraceuticals are regulated as “dietary supplements” under the Dietary Supplement, Health and Education Act of 1994

Table of Contents

(DSHEA) as a separate regulatory category of food. Before the DSHEA, dietary supplements were subject to the same regulatory requirements as were other foods. DSHEA amended the FDCA to create a new regulatory framework for the safety and labeling of dietary supplements. Under DSHEA, a company is responsible for determining that the dietary supplements it manufactures or distributes are safe and that any representations or claims made about them are substantiated by adequate evidence to show that they are not false or misleading. Dietary supplements do not need approval from FDA before they are marketed. Except in the case of a “new dietary ingredient,” where pre-market review for safety data and other information is required by law, a firm does not have to provide FDA with the evidence it relies on to substantiate safety or effectiveness before or after marketing a product. In addition, there is a requirement for manufacturers to register pursuant to the Bioterrorism Act with FDA before producing or selling supplements. In June 2007, FDA published regulations for Current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) for those who manufacture, package, label or hold dietary supplement products. These regulations focus on practices that ensure the identity, purity, quality, strength and composition of dietary supplements.

Congress defined the term “dietary supplement” in DSHEA as “a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients: vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs or other botanicals; a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of the ingredients listed above.” A dietary supplement is a product taken by mouth that contains a “dietary ingredient” intended to supplement the diet. The “dietary ingredients” in these products may include vitamins, minerals, herbs or other botanicals, amino acids, and substances such as enzymes, organ tissues, glandulars, and metabolites and can also be extracts or concentrates. Dietary supplements are produced in the form of tablets, capsules, softgels, gelcaps, liquids, or powders. Dietary supplements can also be in other forms, such as a nutrition bar, but if they are in another form, information on their label must not represent the product as a conventional food or a sole item of a meal or diet. Regardless of form, DSHEA places dietary supplements in a special category under the general umbrella of “foods,” not drugs, and requires the product to be labeled as a “dietary supplement.”

​

According to the FDA, a drug is an article intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent disease. While nutraceuticals are not intended to cure or treat disease, both dietary supplements and drugs are intended to affect the structure or function of the body. Dietary supplements that contain structure/function claims on their labels must bear the disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of these claims; they are not approved by FDA. Moreover, dietary supplements are supposed to enhance the diet, not be used as a conventional food or as the sole item of a meal or diet, and not supposed to be taken alone as a substitute for any food or medicine.

​

The DSHEA requires that a manufacturer or distributor notify FDA if it intends to market a dietary supplement in the U.S. that contains a “new dietary ingredient.” The manufacturer and distributor must demonstrate to FDA why the ingredient is reasonably expected to be safe for use in a dietary supplement, unless it has been recognized as a food substance and is present in the food supply. A new dietary ingredient is an ingredient marketed after October 15, 1994. There is no authoritative list of dietary ingredients that were marketed before October 15, 1994. Therefore, manufacturers and distributors are responsible for determining if a dietary ingredient is “new,” and if it is not, for documenting that the dietary supplements its sells, containing the dietary ingredient, were marketed before October 15, 1994. The DSHEA states that the manufacturer is responsible for the safety evaluation of the product. If the dietary supplement contains a new ingredient, the manufacturer must inform FDA that the new ingredient “can reasonably be expected to be safe” within 75 days of going to market. This notice must provide information that supports the manufacturer’s conclusion that the ingredient is safe. It is up to the FDA to prove that a dietary supplement is unsafe after it is marketed.

A dietary supplement is adulterated if, among other things, it or an ingredient in it presents a “significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” when used as directed or contains a new ingredient for which there is insufficient information to provide assurance that the ingredient does not present any significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. The DSHEA also has labeling requirements for dietary supplements, including requiring information on the label such as (1) name of each ingredient; (2) quantity of each ingredient; (3) total weight of all ingredients, if a blend; (4) identity of the plant part used; (5) the term “Dietary Supplement;” (6) nutritional labelling information (calories, fat, sodium, etc.).

​

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or

Table of Contents

partial waivers for submission of data, as well as deferrals for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

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. 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.

Special Protocol Assessment

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

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of certain FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public website maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigator, and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of these trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed for up to two years if the sponsor certifies that it is seeking approval of an unapproved product or that it will file an application for approval of a new indication for an approved product within one year. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the design and progress of the development programs. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. Since the NIH's Final Rule on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, both NIH and FDA have signaled the government's willingness to begin enforcing those requirements against clinical trial sponsors who fail to meet those legal obligations, with FDA releasing in late 2018 a proposal for certain procedural steps it intends to take when determining whether and how to assess civil monetary penalties against a non-compliant party.

Post-Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured, marketed or distributed pursuant to FDA approval decisions are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to FDA review and approval before they can be implemented. There also are continuing, annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and related manufacturing facilities, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture of approved drugs are required to register their facilities with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA for compliance with GMP requirements. Prescription drug distribution facilities are also subject to state licensure, including

Table of Contents

inspections, by the relevant local regulatory authority. Changes to the manufacturing process, specifications or container closure system for an approved drug are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from GMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and others involved in the drug manufacturing process. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain GMP compliance and ensure ongoing compliance with other statutory requirements the FDCA, such as the requirements for making manufacturing changes to an approved NDA.

Thus, even after new drug approval is granted, Regulatory authorities may withdraw that approval or request product recalls if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences of regulatory non-compliance include, among other things:

​

As described further below, the FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of prescription drug products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant penalties.

​

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Orange Book Listing

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. As part of the marketing application process when seeking approval for a new drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA every patent of which claims cover the applicant's product or an approved method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, approval information about the drug along with each of the applicant's listed patents is then published in the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the "Orange Book." Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, 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 reference license drug (“RLD”) and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be bioequivalent to the RLD. The FDA is responsible for determining that the generic drug is "bioequivalent" to the innovator drug, although under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if "the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug..."

Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are most often considered to be therapeutically equivalent to the RLD, are commonly referred to as "generic equivalents" to the RLD, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original RLD in accordance with state law. Specifically, upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is "therapeutically equivalent" to the RLD in the Orange Book. By operation of certain state laws and numerous health

Table of Contents

insurance programs, the FDA's designation of therapeutic equivalence in the Orange Book often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or the patient.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments also amended the FDCA to enact Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, which permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. A Section 505(b)(2) applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies, if it can establish that reliance on studies conducted for a previously-approved product is scientifically appropriate. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional trials or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product 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. With respect to listed patents, patent certification requirements, and the blocking of follow-on marketing applications for the drug product previously approved under an NDA and listed in the Orange Book—known as the reference listed drug, or RLD—505(b)(2) NDA applications and ANDAs are required under the statute and FDA's implementing regulations to follow similar procedures and are subject to similar conditions. However, only in some cases is a 505(b)(2) NDA-approved drug product determined by FDA to be therapeutically equivalent to the original innovator RLD.

As part of its own marketing application process, the ANDA/505(b)(2) applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the relevant RLD in the FDA's Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify either 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 generic product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement, certifying that its proposed ANDA or 505(b)(2) 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 ANDA/505(b)(2) applicant does not challenge the innovator's listed patents, or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA/505(b)(2) application will not be approved by the FDA 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/505(b)(2) applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of that Paragraph IV certification to the NDA sponsor and patent holders once FDA accepts the ANDA/505(b)(2) application for filing. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification, as provided for in the statute. 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/505(b)(2) NDA 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/505(b)(2) applicant.

Non-Patent Exclusivity

Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the FDA also may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. During this five years of marketing exclusivity, the FDA cannot receive any ANDA or 505(b)(2) application seeking approval of a drug that references a version of the NCE drug.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or the addition of a new indication. During this three-year period of exclusivity, the FDA cannot approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that includes the change.

Table of Contents

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

For a botanical drug, the FDA may determine that the active moiety is one or more of the principal components, or the complex mixture as a whole. This determination would affect the possibility of any five-year exclusivity as well as the ability of any potential generic competitor to demonstrate that it is the same drug as the original botanical drug. Because the agency has not promulgated specific regulations for botanical drug products and is approaching the development of such products, especially those that are composed of more complex mixtures, on a case-by-case basis, the 2016 Botanical Drug Development guidance for industry represents the best source for the FDA's current thinking on these drug products.

Patent Term Extension

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

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.

Prescription Drug Marketing Act

As part of the sales and marketing process, pharmaceutical companies frequently provide samples of approved drugs to physicians. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) imposes requirements and limitations upon the provision of drug samples to physicians, as well as prohibits states from licensing distributors of prescription drugs unless the state licensing program meets certain federal guidelines that include minimum standards for storage, handling and record keeping. In addition, the PDMA sets forth civil and criminal penalties for violations.

New Legislation and Regulations

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the testing, approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA and relevant regulatory authorities outside the United States. In addition to new legislation, regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by regulatory authorities in ways that may significantly affect our business and its product candidates. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted or whether regulations, guidance, policies or interpretations will be changed or what the effect of such changes, if any, may be.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

If we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates and launch them commercially in the United States, we may be subject to various federal and state laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Some of the laws that may affect our future ability to operate include:

Table of Contents

​

Europe/Rest of World Government Regulation

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

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

The approval process varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

In the European Union, medicinal products are subject to extensive pre- and post-marketing regulation by regulatory authorities at both the European Union and national levels. Additional rules also apply at the national level to the manufacture, import, export, storage, distribution and sale of controlled substances. In many E.U. member states the regulatory authority responsible for medicinal products is also responsible for controlled substances. Responsibility is, however, split in some member states, such as the United Kingdom. Generally, any company manufacturing or distributing a medicinal product containing a controlled substance in the European Union will need to hold a controlled substances license from the competent national authority and will be subject to specific record-keeping and security obligations. Separate import or export certificates are required for each shipment into or out of the member state.

Clinical Trials and Marketing Approval

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

Table of Contents

country's requirements and a company has received favorable ethics committee approval, clinical trial development may proceed in that country.

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

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

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

Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application by the EMA is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP), with adoption of the actual marketing authorization by the European Commission thereafter. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest from the point of view of therapeutic innovation, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease to be treated, the absence of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach, and anticipation of exceptional high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, the EMA ensures that the evaluation for the opinion of the CHMP is completed within 150 days and the opinion issued thereafter.

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

Table of Contents

Mutual Recognition Procedure

The mutual recognition procedure, or MRP, for the approval of human drugs is an alternative approach to facilitate individual national marketing authorizations within the European Union. Basically, the MRP may be applied for all human drugs for which the centralized procedure is not obligatory. The MRP is applicable to the majority of conventional medicinal products and must be used if the product has already been authorized in one or more member states.

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

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

If any E.U. member state refuses to recognize the marketing authorization by the reference member state, on the grounds of potential serious risk to public health, the issue will be referred to a coordination group. Within a timeframe of 60 days, member states shall, within the coordination group, make all efforts to reach a consensus. If this fails, the procedure is submitted to an EMA scientific committee for arbitration. The opinion of this EMA Committee is then forwarded to the European Commission for the start of the decision making process. As in the centralized procedure, this process entails consulting various European Commission Directorates General and the Standing Committee on Human Medicinal Products.

Data and Market Exclusivity in the European Union

In the European Union, NCEs qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. This data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator's data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator's data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization (MA) holder 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 NCE and the sponsor is able to gain the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company can complete a full MAA with a complete database of pharmaceutical test, preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain marketing approval of its product.

Data and Market Exclusivity in Japan

Japan has no established system for data exclusivity or marketing exclusivity. However, the Pharmaceuticals Act of Japan (PAA) provides for a re-examination system after drug approval. This system imposes an obligation on the MA holder to continue to collect clinical data after market approval during a study period. The MA holder must apply for reexamination to the Minster of Health Labor and Welfare within three months of the expiration of the study period. During the study and reexamination period no generic drug may be approved, effectively providing a form of market

Table of Contents

exclusivity. The study period is determined by the drug category. The study period for an orphan drug is 10 years from MA, the study period for an NCE is eight years from MA, and for an improvement (new indication, formulation, etc.) the study period is four to six years from MA.

Patent Term Extension in Japan

The term of a patent that covers the approved drug may be extended for the shorter of five years, or the period during which the patent could not be worked (exploited) due to obtaining regulatory approval. This period is calculated from the later of the patent registration date (grant date) or the clinical trial start date to the regulatory approval date.

Regulatory Exclusivity in China

China has a six-year regulatory exclusivity period for NCE and orphan drugs, such as NB-01, NB-02 and Gemcabene, which begins at the date of market approval.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

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

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, imposed requirements for the distribution and pricing of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries and included a major expansion of the prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D is available through both stand-alone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee.

Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval in the U.S. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payers.

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

Table of Contents

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

In the United States, Medicare covers certain drug purchases by the elderly and eligible disabled people and introduced a reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. In addition, Medicare may limit the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. Ongoing cost reduction initiatives and future laws could decrease the coverage and price that we will receive for any approved products. While Medicare beneficiaries are limited to most elderly and certain disabled individuals, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates.

​

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our product candidates are the following:

​

​

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we will receive for any approved product. Any reduction in payments from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. The ACA also continues to be the subject of significant political controversy and legal challenges, making its continued implementation uncertain.

​

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

Table of Contents

intense. As a result, barriers to entry of new products are becoming increasingly high and patients are unlikely to use a drug product that is not reimbursed by their government.

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2020, we had 7 full-time employees. Of these employees, five were engaged in research and development and two were engaged in general and administrative functions. Three of our employees are located in the United States, and four are located in South Korea. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relationships with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

NeuroBo was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in July 2017, and completed the 2019 Merger with Gemphire on December 30, 2019. Our principal executive offices are located at 200 Berkeley Street, 19th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 02116. Our website address is www.neurobopharma.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this report.

​

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of the risks and uncertainties set forth below, as well as in any amendments or updates reflected in subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). In assessing these risks, you should also refer to other information contained in this report, including our financial statements and related notes.

​

Risks Related to our Operations and to Development, Marketing, Commercialization and Regulation of Our Product Candidates  

We have incurred losses since inception, we anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future and there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern for the full one-year period following the date of this report. We require additional financing to accomplish our long-term business plan and failure to obtain necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our operations.

We have experienced net losses and negative cash flows from operating activities since our inception and have an accumulated deficit of $66.5 million as of December 31, 2020. It is possible we will never generate revenue or profit.

As of December 31, 2020, we had cash and cash equivalents of $10.1 million. Operating at the level of scientific activity described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Statements and Results of Operations – Overview - Recent Developments” we expect that our cash and cash equivalents will be adequate to fund operations through into the fourth quarter of 2021. Accordingly, we will need to raise additional capital to fund continued operations at the current level beyond 2021. We have some ability to reduce costs further in 2021 by further curtailing the level of scientific activity planned for 2021, thereby potentially lengthening our operational window into the first quarter of 2022.

Although we are exploring financing opportunities and carefully monitoring the capital markets, we do not yet have any commitments for additional financing and may not be successful in our efforts to raise additional funds. There can be no assurances that additional financing will be available to us on satisfactory terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise sufficient additional capital (which is not assured at this time, particularly as a result of recent depressed capital market conditions), our long-term business plan may not be accomplished, and we may be forced to cease, reduce, or delay operations. For more information about our liquidity and capital resources, see Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”  

The foregoing factors individually and collectively raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern for the full one-year period following the date of this report. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Statements and Results of Operations – Overview - Recent Developments – Going Concern” and “Going Concern” under Note 1 to our audited financial statements which are included elsewhere in this report. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may cause others to choose not to deal

Table of Contents

with us due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, investors could lose all or part of their investment in our Company.

​

Our pursuit of potential therapeutic and prophylactic treatments for COVID-19 is at an early stage and subject to many risks. We may be unable to receive approval for any of our COVID-19 product candidates a timely manner, if at all, and our COVID-19 product candidate may never be approved.

​

We may experience difficulties or delays in enrolling patients in clinical trials due to the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic or other reasons. Many of the risks related to the development of these product candidates are beyond our control, including risks related to clinical development, the regulatory submission process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights and manufacturing delays or difficulties. We may be unable to produce an efficacious and/or approved product for the treatment of patients with early COVID-19 in a timely manner, if at all.

​

The results of preclinical studies from our COVID-19 product candidates may not be predictive of the results of clinical trials, and the results of any early-stage clinical trials we commence may not be predictive of the results of the later-stage clinical trials. There can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials for our COVID-19 product candidates, or any other of our product candidates, will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development. In addition, the interpretation of the data from our clinical trials of ANA001 or Gemcabene by FDA and other regulatory agencies may differ from our interpretation of such data and the FDA or other regulatory agencies may require that we conduct additional studies or analyses. Any of these factors could delay or prevent us from receiving regulatory approval of ANA001 or Gemcabene and there can be no assurance that our product candidate will be approved in a timely manner, if at all.

​

If the COVID-19 outbreak is effectively contained or the risk of coronavirus infection is diminished or eliminated before we can successfully develop and manufacture our product candidate, the commercial viability of such product candidate may be diminished or eliminated. We are also committing financial resources and personnel to the development of this product candidate which may cause delays in or otherwise negatively impact our other development programs, despite uncertainties surrounding the longevity and extent of coronavirus as a global health concern. Our business could be negatively impacted by our allocation of significant resources to a global health threat that is unpredictable and could rapidly dissipate or against which our treatment, if successfully developed, may not be effective. In addition, other parties are currently producing therapeutic and vaccine candidates for COVID-19, which may be more efficacious or may be approved prior to our product.

​

The regulatory pathway for ANA001 and Gemcabene is continually evolving, and may result in unexpected or unforeseen challenges.

​

The speed at which parties are acting to create and test many therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19 is unusual, and evolving or changing plans or priorities within the FDA, including those based on new knowledge of COVID-19 and how the disease affects the human body, may significantly affect the regulatory timeline for our product candidates. Results from ongoing clinical trials and discussions with regulatory authorities may raise new questions and require us to redesign proposed clinical trials, including revising proposed endpoints or adding new clinical trial sites or cohorts of subjects. Any such developments could delay the development timeline for our product candidates and materially increase the cost of the development for such candidates.

​

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that one or more government entities may take actions that directly or indirectly have the effect of abrogating some of our rights or opportunities. If we were to develop a treatment for COVID-19, the economic value of such a therapeutic treatment to us could be limited.

​

Various government entities, including the U.S. government, are offering incentives, grants and contracts to encourage additional investment by commercial organizations into preventative and therapeutic agents against coronavirus, 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 COVID-19 therapeutic treatment, if any.

​

Table of Contents

Even if we obtain favorable clinical results, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or successfully commercialize ANA001 or Gemcabene.

​

We are not permitted to market ANA001 or Gemcabene in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA, or in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from such countries. As a condition to submitting an NDA to the FDA for ANA001, we must complete our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trial, conduct and complete further Phase 3 clinical trials, and any additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials required by the FDA. To date, we have only completed the Phase 1 Single Ascending Dosing (SAD) study. ANA001 may not be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, ANA001 may not receive regulatory approval even if it is successful in clinical trials. Obtaining approval of an NDA is a complex, lengthy, expensive and uncertain process that typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, the policies or regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval, may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. Our development activities could be harmed or delayed by a partial shutdown of the U.S. government, including the FDA. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate and it is possible that ANA001 will never obtain regulatory approval. The FDA may delay, limit or deny approval of ANA001 for many reasons, including, among others:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In addition, similar reasons may cause the EMA or other regulatory authorities to delay, limit or deny approval of ANA001 outside the United States. Any of these factors, many of which are beyond our control, could jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and successfully market ANA001.

Alternatively, even if we obtain regulatory approval, that approval may be for indications or patient populations that are not as broad as we intend or desire or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. We may also be required to perform additional, unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or be subject to additional post marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of a product or the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) for a product, which could impose restrictions on its distribution. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Gemcabene was being evaluated in a Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess its efficacy safety and tolerability in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia. In January 2016, the Gemcabene Phase 2 clinical study was placed on partial clinical hold as the FDA requested 2-year rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies to be completed and submitted. The study currently remains on partial clinical hold for the treatment of dyslipidemia.

Table of Contents

NeuroBo is currently assessing the path forward for Gemcabene for the indication for COVID-19. As a result, there is a significant uncertainty around our development of Gemcabene as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

​

We have determined to postpone the initiation of Phase 3 clinical trials of NB-01 under present circumstances and we have terminated all of our agreements with contract research organizations related to NB-01. We may not be able to successfully develop NB-01 pursuant to other alternatives, including as an orphan drug or as a nutraceutical candidate.

​

NB-01 has successfully completed two Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trials for PDN. However, in light of the present business environment including the impact of the COVID-19 disease that emerged in December 2019 as a global pandemic, we have determined that any attempt to conduct Phase 3 clinical trials for NB-01, as previously announced, would be difficult if not impossible in the short or medium term. To conserve financial resources, in the first quarter of 2020 we directed our contract research organization (“CRO”) partners and other vendors working on the Phase 3 clinical trials of NB-01, including Syneos Health, to cease all work and we gave notice of termination of our existing contract arrangements with each of them.

We are currently re-evaluating alternatives to bring the NB-01 asset to the market through a different regulatory pathway. Development of NB-01 as an orphan drug is among the alternatives we are considering, and we may conduct feasibility studies to identify a rare disease relevant to NB-01. Additionally, we are considering marketing the NB-01 product line as nutraceutical (non-pharmaceutical) products. There is no assurance that we will be able to pursue either alternative for NB-01.

Our ability to successfully develop NB-01 as an orphan drug would be subject to the following additional risks, among others:

​

Our ability to successfully develop NB-01 as a nutraceutical product would be subject to the following risks, among others:

​

​

We may not be able to successfully obtain regulatory or marketing approval for, or successfully commercialize, any of our product candidates.

​

Although we currently have no drug product for sale and may never be able to develop marketable drug products, our business depends heavily on the successful clinical development (for our pharmaceutical drug products), regulatory approval and commercialization of our drug candidates.

​

The clinical trials of our product candidates are, and the manufacturing and marketing of our product candidates will be, subject to extensive and rigorous review and regulation by government authorities in the United States and in other countries where we intend to test and, if approved, market any product candidate. Before obtaining regulatory approvals

Table of Contents

for the commercial sale of any product candidate as a pharmaceutical product, we must successfully meet a number of critical developmental milestones, including:

​

​

​

The time necessary to achieve these developmental milestones for any individual product candidate is long and uncertain, and we may not successfully complete these milestones for any product candidates that we may develop.

​

We have not yet completed development of any product candidate. Moreover, both NB-01 and NB-02 are considered a “botanical drug product” by the FDA, which results in the drug candidate having unique features that must be taken into account during the drug development process. Botanical drug products may be heterogeneous in nature and may carry additional uncertainty about their active constituents in comparison to synthetic small-molecule drug products. Accordingly, the FDA may impose additional requirements on us in order to confirm that the final formulation of NB-01 or NB-02 is able to demonstrate the necessary therapeutic consistency to support the marketing of a safe and effective commercial drug product. The complexities of developing botanical drug products may increase the time and costs associated with the development of our product candidates.

​

In August 2018, the FDA, following submission of a two-year carcinogenicity study, requested additional preclinical studies, including a 13-week PPAR-alpha knockout mouse study with Gemcabene. The FDA stated that there could be no progression to the EOP2 meeting or commencement of the Phase 3 trials, which require more than 6 months of drug exposure, until the partial clinical hold was lifted. This request delayed the timeline for the EOP2 meeting and start of a Phase 3 trial by more than one and a half years. It is possible that the FDA may request additional studies and information prior to lifting the hold which would significantly delay the time and cost to initiating Phase 3 trials and future development of Gemcabene. If the FDA decisions further delay our clinical plans, this could jeopardize our ability to commercialize Gemcabene by April 2024, as required by the Pfizer Agreement. Finally, we cannot assure you that the partial clinical hold will ever be lifted, in which case Gemcabene will never receive NDA approval or be commercialized.

​

We are continuing to test and develop our product candidates and may explore possible design or formulation changes to address safety, efficacy, manufacturing efficiency and performance issues to the extent any arise. The design of a clinical trial may be able to determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced or completed. There is no assurance that we will be able to design and complete a clinical trial to support marketing approval. Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to multiple interpretations and analyses. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have experienced significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier trials.

​

We may not be able to complete development of any product candidates that demonstrate safety and efficacy and that will have a commercially reasonable treatment and storage period. If we are unable to complete development of NB-01, NB-02, Gemcabene or any other product candidates that we may develop, we will not be able to commercialize and earn revenue from them.

​

Table of Contents

The regulatory review and approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time-consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, including pursuant to the guidelines applicable to NB-01 and NB-02 as botanical drug products, and the guidelines applicable to Gemcabene, our business will be substantially harmed.

​

Of the large number of drugs in development in the United States, only a small percentage receive FDA regulatory approval and are commercialized in the United States. We are not permitted to market NB-01, NB-02, Gemcabene or any other product candidate as a pharmaceutical drug in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA, or in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from such countries or jurisdictions, such as the marketing authorization application, or MAA, in the European Union from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA.

​

Successfully completing clinical trials and obtaining approval of an NDA is a complex, lengthy, expensive and uncertain process, and the FDA, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority, may delay, limit or deny approval of an NDA for many reasons, including, among others:

​

​

Further, the FDA has specific requirements and technical standards for botanical drugs, with which we will be obliged to comply in the clinical development of NB-01 and NB-02 as pharmaceutical drugs, including with respect to the quality and therapeutic consistency standards for the product candidate that will be used in clinical trials. We cannot assure you that it will be able to meet the standards to which it will be held for these purposes.

​

The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may also require more information, including additional nonclinical or clinical data to support approval, which may delay or prevent approval and our commercialization plans, or cause us to abandon the development program. Even if we obtain regulatory approval, our product candidates may be approved for fewer or more limited indications than we request, such approval may be contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or we may not be allowed to include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of such product candidate.

Our profits from Gemcabene sales will be limited pursuant to our CVR obligations, and we therefore, may, at any time and in our sole and absolute discretion, discontinue any and all further efforts to develop, divest or otherwise monetize Gemcabene, particularly as a treatment for cardiovascular conditions.

We do not have any further obligation to develop Gemcabene, or to expend any funds or efforts with respect to Gemcabene, to fund, (i) a toxicity study, (ii) a related FDA submission designed to result in the release of the partial clinical hold with respect to Gemcabene, (iii) preparation for an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA, and (iv) consulting costs for up to four former Gemphire employees to support such activities. The expected cost of such activities is based on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be inaccurate.

Table of Contents

Our profits from Gemcabene sales will be limited pursuant to our CVR obligations. Under the terms of the Current CVR Agreement, CVR holders are entitled to (i) 80% of the Gross Consideration (as defined in the Current CVR Agreement) received from the grant, sale or transfer of rights to Gemcabene as a treatment for cardiovascular conditions and (ii) 10% of the Gross Consideration (as defined in the Current CVR Agreement) received from the grant, sale or transfer of rights to Gemcabene as a treatment for any indication outside of treating cardiometabolic diseases, including COVID-19.

​

The Phase 2a clinical trial of Gemcabene in Pediatric NAFLD was terminated by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) of the principal investigator following the occurrence of unanticipated problems. This trial termination and the unanticipated problems could have negative impacts on the clinical development of Gemcabene.

​

On August 10, 2018, the DSMB at Emory University School of Medicine overseeing the non-company, investigator-led open label Phase 2a proof-of-concept trial evaluating Gemcabene in pediatric patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (“NAFLD”) recommended that the trial be terminated due to unanticipated problems. Data on the first three patients who underwent 12 weeks of treatment showed that all three experienced an increase in liver fat content, as measured by MRI-PDFF. Two of the three patients also demonstrated increases in ALT; however, their baseline ALT levels were elevated prior to receiving Gemcabene. The increase in liver fat was deemed an unanticipated problem by the trial investigator because it was an unexpected consistent pattern of worsening of the disease, rather than improvement, creating risk to the patients, which the investigator believed was likely due to the drug. Six subjects had received study medication when the study was halted. Additional data that came to light subsequently showed that during the trial none of the three patients were fully compliant with taking Gemcabene and their life styles could have potentially impacted the findings. Subjects were instructed to self-administer the test-agent daily; however, compliance was significantly compromised as assessed by return of unused tablets and measurement of blood drug levels. All six subjects gained weight and had increased TGs during study treatment. In support of non-compliance, these findings are inconsistent with other Gemcabene trials, and as such, the risk for increased liver fat with Gemcabene treatment is unknown at this time. The six subjects who received Gemcabene were followed in a 12-month safety monitoring period post final-dose, which is now complete. During this follow-on reporting period there were no drug related adverse events reported. There was one serious non-related adverse event of hospitalization of subacute spinal cord infarction/embolism. No deaths or other SAEs were reported.

​

We cannot assure you that the unanticipated problems observed in the pediatric NAFLD trial will not be seen in future trials nor that serious adverse events (SAEs) will not occur in future trials. We also cannot assure you that the unanticipated problems observed in the pediatric NAFLD trial will not result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities requesting additional analyses of previously completed clinical trials, including the three Phase 2b trials in dyslipidemia completed in 2017 and 2018.

​

If Gemcabene is associated with adverse effects or undesirable side effects in preclinical testing or clinical trials or has characteristics that are unexpected in preclinical testing or clinical trials, Gemcabene could be less attractive to potential collaborators.

​

Product candidates may cause undesirable side effects that could delay or prevent their marketing approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any, including marketing withdrawal.

​

Undesirable side effects caused by any of our product candidates that we may develop or acquire could cause us or the FDA or other regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt our clinical trials and could result in more restrictive labels or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities of such product candidates. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. In such an event, our 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 our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. In addition, any drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

​

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. With a limited number of patients, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number

Table of Contents

of patients exposed to the product candidate. If our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar drugs) after such approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

​

​

​

We believe that any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidates and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates, if approved, and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues.

​

Delays in our clinical trials may lead to a delay in the submission of marketing approval applications and jeopardize our ability to potentially receive approvals and generate revenues from the sale of our products.

​

We may experience delays in clinical trials. We do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin or enroll subjects on time, need to be redesigned or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or terminated for a variety of reasons, such as:

​

Table of Contents

​

Any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

​

The development of NB-01 is dependent upon securing sufficient quantities of Dioscorea Rhizome and Dioscoreae Nipponicae Rhizoma, which are two plant species native to China.

​

The therapeutic components of our product candidate, NB-01, consists of Dioscorea Rhizome and Dioscoreae Nipponicae Rhizoma, which are cultivated in China and Korea. We currently secure these components exclusively from Dong-A ST. Our current supply agreement with Dong-A ST expires on September 28, 2023, unless extended by our mutual agreement with Dong-A ST. There can be no assurances that Dioscorea Rhizome and Dioscoreae Nipponicae Rhizoma will continue to grow in sufficient quantities to meet commercial supply requirements or that the countries from which we can secure Dioscorea Rhizome and Dioscoreae Nipponicae Rhizoma will continue to allow the exportation of these components. In the event we are no longer able to obtain these products from Dong-A ST, or in sufficient quantities, we may not be able to produce our proposed products and our business will be adversely affected.

​

Further, because Dioscorea Rhizome and Dioscoreae Nipponicae Rhizoma are imported from China and Korea, any trade policies or rules that impose conditions or restrictions on the importation of natural products from those regions may restrict or prevent the timely delivery of these products to us, which would adversely affect our business. We may also have difficulty importing these products as a result of the recent COVID-19 pandemic. See the risk factor below entitled “Our business is subject to risks arising from epidemic diseases, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic.”

​

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

​

The development and commercialization of new products is highly competitive. Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our objective is to develop and commercialize new products with superior efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety. In many cases, the products that we commercialize will compete with existing, market-leading products.

​

Many of our potential competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and in manufacturing pharmaceutical products. 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. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and have collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product that we develop obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing products before, or more effectively than, we do. In addition, any new product that competes with an approved product must demonstrate compelling advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety in order to overcome price competition and to be commercially successful. If we are not able to compete effectively against potential competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

​

Table of Contents

NB-01 and NB-02

​

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy and for the symptomatic and disease modifying treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and tauopathies. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach and others are based on entirely different approaches. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

​

NB-01 has been in clinical development for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. We are also developing NB-02 for the symptomatic and disease modifying treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and tauopathies. For painful diabetic neuropathy, there are no products currently marketed for disease modification, although there are products available to treat painful diabetic neuropathy. For Alzheimer's disease, current symptomatic treatments have limited effectiveness and no disease-modifying therapy is currently available. Some of the currently approved drug therapies are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Many of these approved drugs are well-established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products.

​

Gemcabene —Dyslipidemia

​

For Gemcabene, the lipid-lowering therapies market is highly competitive, dynamic and dominated by the sale of statin treatments including the cheaper generic versions of statins. Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain a share of the market for our planned indications. Other pharmaceutical companies may develop lipid-lowering therapies for the same indications that compete with Gemcabene, if approved, that do not infringe the claims of our patents, pending patent applications or other proprietary rights, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Lipid-lowering therapies currently on the market that would compete with Gemcabene, if approved, are referenced in “Item 1—Business—Competition—Gemcabene—Dyslipidemia” above.

​

This means that there is significant competition for investigational sites and patients to enroll in clinical studies. Additionally, since some drug candidates may be further along in development, approval of such drug candidates could lead to the FDA and other global health authorities to request and/or require changes to ongoing or future clinical trial designs that could impact timelines and cost.

​

The biomarkers and pathogenesis of NASH are less understood than the dyslipidemia market and for that reason there are many mechanisms of action under investigation to better understand how to effectively treat the disease. Currently accepted diagnosis of NASH is confirmed through a liver biopsy which is invasive, time consuming and costly. Future growth and evolution of the NASH market may rely on development of less invasive technologies to increase diagnoses rates to broaden the drug treated patient population. Several companies have late stage assets (Phase 3 or outcomes studies) well under way with projected market approval dates in NASH as soon as 2020/2021. For NASH, the market is currently evolving with no approved therapies for the indication across the globe. Current thought leader opinions are pointing to a multiple mechanistic approach to effectively treat NASH.

​

Several pharmaceutical companies have NASH therapies in development that may be approved for marketing in the United States or outside of the United States. Based on publicly available information, we believe the current therapies in development that would compete with Gemcabene in NASH include but are not limited to:

​

Table of Contents

​

ANA001

​

We expect that, if approved, ANA001 will compete with a number of drugs that are being studied for the treatment of symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to widely distributed vaccines designed to stop the spread of COVID-19, which could adversely affect the addressable population for ANA001, two therapies are currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of symptoms of COVID-19 (remdesivir and Dexamethasone), and three have received EUA from the FDA (baricitinib + remdesivir, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail and bamlanivimab). We are aware of other therapies currently being studied in clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19, including favipiravir, convalescent plasma, oleandrin, ivermectin and molnupiravir.

​

In addition to the marketed therapies, we are aware of several companies currently developing and commercializing niclosamide for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms, including Daewoong, Union Therapeutics, TFF and FirstWave. Approved therapies and additional therapies that may be approved in the near term could significantly and adversely affect the market opportunity for ANA001.

Our commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among hospitals, physicians, patients and healthcare payors.

​

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates that we may develop or acquire in the future, the product may not gain market acceptance among hospitals, physicians, health care payors, patients and the medical community. Market acceptance of any of our product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval depends on a number of factors, including:

​

Table of Contents

​

There may be delays in getting our product candidates, if approved, on hospital or insurance formularies or limitations on coverages that may be available in the early stages of commercialization for newly approved drugs. If any of our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve market acceptance among hospitals, physicians, patients or health care payors, we will not be able to generate significant revenues, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Even if we are able to commercialize a future pharmaceutical drug candidate, the profitability of such product candidate will likely depend in significant part on third-party reimbursement practices, which, if unfavorable, would harm our business.

​

Our ability to commercialize a drug successfully will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if coverage is available, whether the level of reimbursement will be adequate. Assuming we obtain coverage for our product candidates, if approved, by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Patients are unlikely to use a product candidate, if approved, unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover all or a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, coverage and adequate reimbursement is critical to new product acceptance. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

​

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which a product candidate is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers its costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for a new product, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost medicines and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of

Table of Contents

medicines from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. However, no uniform policy requirement for coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors in the United States. 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 products to each payor separately with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

​

Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have an adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

​

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of any product candidate that we may develop.

​

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials and will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any product that we may develop including any nutraceuticals. Product liability claims might be brought against us by patients, healthcare providers or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with any of our products or future product candidate during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. For example, we may be sued on allegations that a product candidate caused injury or that the product is otherwise unsuitable. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, including as a result of interactions with alcohol or other drugs, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts.

​

Nutraceuticals are classified as food ingredients, dietary supplements, or natural health products, and, in most cases, are not necessarily subject to pre-market regulatory approval in the United States. However, if we pursue nutraceutical products, we may, in the future, be subject to various product liability claims, including, among others, claims alleging inadequate instructions for use or inadequate warnings concerning possible side effects and interactions with other substances.

​

If we cannot successfully defend against claims that our product caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

​

​

We do not currently maintain clinical trial insurance coverage for clinical trials. Even if we obtain such insurance in the future, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to obtain or maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

​

Table of Contents

If we or our third-party manufacturers fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have an adverse effect on the success of our business.

​

Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, by us and our third-party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States and abroad governing laboratory procedures and the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers' procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Although we maintain workers' compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Compliance with applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

​

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities to market and sell our product candidates, if they are approved for such marketing, we may be unable to generate any revenue.

​

In order to market and sell our product candidates in development, we currently intend to build and develop our own sales, marketing and distribution operations. Although our management team has previous experience with such efforts for pharmaceutical products, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in building these operations. The establishment and development of our own commercial sales and marketing teams to discuss any products we may develop will be expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch.

​

If we decide to pursue NB-01 as a nutraceutical product, its success will depend significantly on sales and marketing activities. None of our management team has experience with nutraceutical marketing. Accordingly, our future ability to achieve sales and profits for NB-01 as a nutraceutical product would depend on our ability to attract, train, retain and motivate qualified personnel with sales and marketing expertise. There is a risk that we will be unable to attract, train, retain or motivate such qualified personnel, both near term or in the future, and the failure to do so may severely damage our prospects.

​

If we are unable to establish adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be able to generate product revenue and may not become profitable. We will also be competing with many companies that currently have extensive and well-funded sales and marketing operations. If any of our product candidates are approved, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

​

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or to selectively enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

​

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to other third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to sell some of our product candidates if and when they are approved.

​

There are risks involved both with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and with entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have

Table of Contents

prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

​

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

​

​

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of these product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

​

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval could be subject to marketing restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products.

​

Any pharmaceutical product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the medicine. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing and/or promotion.

​

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

​

​

Any product marketed as a nutraceutical could also be subject to FDA review or adverse action and we could be forced to remove such product from the market.

​

Table of Contents

We or any potential collaborator may never receive regulatory approval to market our product candidates outside of the United States.

​

The activities associated with the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical drugs are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, other regulatory agencies in the United States and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates will prevent us or any potential collaborator from commercializing our product candidates as pharmaceutical drugs. We have not received regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates in any jurisdiction, and we do not expect to obtain FDA or any other regulatory approvals to market any of our product candidates for the foreseeable future, if at all. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is expensive, often takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved.

​

We may seek to avail ourselves of mechanisms to expedite and/or reduce the cost for development or approval of any of our product candidates or product candidates we may pursue in the future, such as fast track designation or orphan drug designation, but such mechanisms may not actually lead to a faster or less expensive development or regulatory review or approval process.

​

We may seek fast track designation, priority review, orphan drug designation, or accelerated approval for any other product candidate we may pursue in the future. For example, if a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply for FDA fast track designation. However, the FDA has broad discretion with regard to these mechanisms, and even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for any such mechanism, it cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we obtain fast track or priority review designation or pursue an accelerated approval pathway, we may not experience a faster and/or less costly development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw a particular designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

​

A breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for our product candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

​

We may seek a breakthrough designation from FDA for some of our product candidates. Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The receipt of a breakthrough therapy designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to other drugs and does not assure ultimate approval of the designated product candidate by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that the products no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

​

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

​

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. See the section titled “Item 1—Business—Government Regulation” above.

​

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. New legislation or regulations may adversely affect the potential for our products as nutraceuticals. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals, if any, of our product candidates may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA's approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing conditions and other requirements.

Table of Contents

​

If we fail to maintain orphan drug exclusivity for Gemcabene for HoFH, we will have to rely on data and marketing exclusivity for HoFH that is not based on an orphan drug designation, if any, and on our intellectual property rights.

​

In the United States, we have obtained orphan drug designation for Gemcabene for the treatment of HoFH. We may submit an application to the FDA for other orphan drug designations for Gemcabene such as for the treatment of TG greater than approximately 750 mg/dL (F) or familial partial lipodystrophy under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, defined, in part, as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 in the United States.

​

In the United States, the company that first obtains FDA approval for a designated orphan drug for the specified rare disease or condition receives orphan drug marketing exclusivity for that drug for a period of seven years. This orphan drug exclusivity prevents the FDA from approving another application, including a full NDA, to market the same drug for the same orphan indication, except in very limited circumstances. For purposes of small molecule drugs, the FDA defines "same drug" as a drug that contains the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and is intended for the same use as the drug in question. A designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

​

The EMA grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that may offer therapeutic benefits for life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 people in the European Union. Orphan drug designation from the EMA provides ten years of marketing exclusivity following drug approval, subject to reduction to six years if the designation criteria are no longer met.

​

Even if we are able to obtain and maintain orphan drug exclusivity for Gemcabene for HoFH, the designation may not effectively protect it from competition for HoFH because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Moreover, even with an orphan drug designation, the FDA can subsequently approve a different formulation of the same API for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later formulation of the API is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care.

​

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

​

In some countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of its product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

​

Our relationships with healthcare providers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings, among other penalties and consequences.

​

Healthcare providers and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions and obligations under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations are noted in the section “Item 1—Business—Government Regulation” above.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business

Table of Contents

practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to it, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

​

We are subject to U.S. and certain foreign export and import controls, sanctions, embargoes, anti-corruption laws, and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Compliance with these legal standards could impair its ability to compete in domestic and international markets. We can face criminal liability and other serious consequences for violations which can harm its business.

​

We are subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the countries in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties for clinical trials outside of the United States to sell our products abroad and/or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals. We have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors, and other partners, even if it does not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. Our violations of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences.

​

Our ability to use our NOLs to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

​

In general, under Section 382 of Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a corporation that undergoes an "ownership change" is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its carryforwards to offset future taxable income. Our existing NOL carryforwards, or NOLs, may be subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, including in connection with the 2019 and 2020 Mergers. Future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in further ownership changes under Section 382 of the Code. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing and any future NOLs could expire or otherwise be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities.

​

We believe that we have undergone an ownership change as a result of the 2019 and 2020 Mergers. We have begun, but not completed, a preliminary study to confirm whether an ownership change has occurred as a result of the 2019 and 2020 Mergers, but have not conducted a study to assess whether there have been multiple ownership changes since inception due to the significant complexity and cost associated with such a study.

​

Tax matters, including the changes in corporate tax rates, disagreements with taxing authorities and imposition of new taxes could impact our results of operations and financial condition.

​

We are subject to income and other taxes in the United States and our operations, plans and results are affected by tax and other initiatives. On December 22, 2017, comprehensive changes to the Code were signed into law, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”). The Tax Act included significant changes that could materially impact the taxation of corporations, like us, including among other things, changes to the corporate income tax rate, limitation of the tax deduction for interest expense to business interest income plus 30% of adjusted taxable income (except for certain small businesses), immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and modifying or repealing many business deductions and credits (including changes to the orphan

Table of Contents

drug tax credit and changes to the deductibility of research and experimental expenditures that will be effective in the future). The Tax Act also included a limitation of the deduction for net operating losses (“NOLs”) generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of current year taxable income and the general elimination of carrybacks of NOLs generated in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017. However, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) signed into law on March 27, 2020, provided that NOLs generated in a taxable year beginning in 2018, 2019, or 2020, may now be carried back five years. In addition, the 80% taxable income limitation is temporarily removed, allowing NOLs to fully offset net taxable income. Notwithstanding the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of the Tax Act and any future tax reform is uncertain and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected. The impact of the Tax Act and any future tax reform on holders of our common stock is likewise uncertain and could be adverse.

​

We are also subject to regular reviews, examinations, and audits by the IRS and other taxing authorities with respect to our taxes. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, if a taxing authority disagrees with the positions we have taken, we could face additional tax liability, including interest and penalties. There can be no assurance that payment of such additional amounts upon final adjudication of any disputes will not have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position.

​

We also need to comply with new, evolving or revised tax laws and regulations. The enactment of or increases in tariffs, or other changes in the application or interpretation of the Tax Act, or on specific products that we may ultimately sell or with which our products compete, may have an adverse effect on our business or on our results of operations.

​

Inadequate funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

​

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

​

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, upon completion of the 2019 and 2020 Mergers and in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

​

Federal legislation and actions by state and local governments may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States, including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could adversely affect our operating results.

​

We may face competition for our product candidates, if approved, from cheaper alternatives sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. The Medicare Modernization Act contains provisions that may change U.S. importation laws and expand pharmacists' and wholesalers' ability to import cheaper versions of an approved drug and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. These changes to U.S. importation laws will not take effect unless and until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the changes will pose no additional risk to the public's health and safety and will result in a significant reduction in the cost of products to consumers. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has so far declined to approve a reimportation plan. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if enacted,

Table of Contents

could decrease the price we receive for any product we may develop and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.

​

Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties

​

We have relied and will rely on third-party clinical research organizations (CROs) to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

​

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon CROs and clinical data management organizations to monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. Although we control only certain aspects of their activities, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We also rely on third parties to conduct our preclinical studies in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice, or GLP, requirements and the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 requirements. We, our CROs and our clinical trial sites are required to comply with regulations and current Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, and comparable foreign requirements to ensure that the health, safety and rights of patients are protected in clinical trials, and that data integrity is assured. Regulatory authorities ensure compliance with GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors and trial sites. If we, any of our CROs or our clinical trial sites fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials or a specific site may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications.

​

Our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing clinical and preclinical programs. If CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual obligations or meet expected timelines or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

​

We rely on third parties to manufacture our product candidates and preclinical and clinical drug supplies.

​

We have no experience manufacturing our product candidates on a large clinical or commercial scale and have no manufacturing facility. We are currently dependent on Dong-A ST as our sole third party manufacturer for the manufacture of NB-01. We rely completely on third parties to supply and manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies for Gemcabene and ANA001, and we intend to rely on third parties to produce commercial supplies of these product candidates.

​

We do not own or operate facilities for the manufacture of NB-01 or Gemcabene. We currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We currently work exclusively with Dong-A ST as the sole manufacturer for the production of NB-01 and rely completely on third parties to supply and manufacture our preclinical and clinical drug supplies for Gemcabene and ANA001. To meet our projected needs for clinical supplies to support our activities through regulatory approval and commercial manufacturing, Dong-A ST or our other third party providers will need to provide sufficient scale of production for these projected needs. If any issues arise in the manufacturing and we are unable to arrange for alternative third-party manufacturing sources, we are unable to find an alternative third party capable of reproducing the existing manufacturing method or we are unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely manner, we may not be able to complete development of our product candidates, or market or distribute them.

​

In addition, under FDA's guidelines for botanical drug products, the harvesting and processing of the botanical raw materials that are the basis of our product candidates must be done in compliance with Good Agricultural and Collection

Table of Contents

Processes, or GACPs. We are relying on Dong-A ST and other third parties to ensure that their practices comply with applicable GACPs.

​

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured our product candidates and preclinical and clinical drug supplies, including:

​

​

If third-party manufacturers do not successfully carry out their contractual obligations or meet expected timelines or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates.

​

We may engage in future acquisitions or in-licenses of technology that could disrupt our business, cause dilution to the combined organization's stockholders and harm our financial condition and operating results.

​

While we currently have no specific plans to acquire any other businesses or in-license any additional products or technology, we may, in the future, make acquisitions or licenses of, or investments in, companies, products or technologies that we believe are a strategic or commercial fit with its current product candidates and business or otherwise offer opportunities for us. In connection with these acquisitions or investments, the combined organization may:

​

​

We also may be unable to find suitable acquisition or license candidates and we may not be able to complete acquisitions or licenses on favorable terms, if at all. If we do complete an acquisition or license, we cannot assure you that it will ultimately strengthen our competitive position or that it will not be viewed negatively by customers, financial markets or investors. Further, future acquisitions or licenses could also pose numerous additional risks to our operations, including:

​

​

We may not be able to complete one or more acquisitions or effectively integrate the operations, products or personnel gained through any such acquisition without a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Table of Contents

We may form or seek strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.

​

We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our products and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any strategic alliance or collaboration may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. Our likely collaborators include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our products or any future product candidate. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators' abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.

​

Collaborations involving or product candidates or any future product candidate pose the following risks to us:

​

Table of Contents

​

If future collaboration partners fail to develop or effectively commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidate for any of these reasons, such product candidate may not be approved for sale and our sales of such product candidate, if approved, may be limited, which would have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

​

If we are not able to establish new collaborations on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

​

We may selectively seek additional third-party collaborators for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenue from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators' abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

​

We may be restricted under existing collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

​

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate, reduce or delay our development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay our potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidate or bring it to market and generate product revenue.

​

Our employees, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, principal investigators, CROs and consultants may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, to comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee or third-party misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity, such as employee training, may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending such action or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Table of Contents

​

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

​

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property rights, our competitive position could be harmed.

​

We depend on our ability to protect our proprietary technology. We rely on trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark laws, and confidentiality, licensing and other agreements with employees and third parties, all of which offer only limited protection. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. Where we have the right to do so under our license agreements, we seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and products that are important to our business.

​

The patent positions of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally are highly uncertain, involve complex legal and factual questions and have in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patents, including those patent rights licensed to us by third parties, are highly uncertain.

​

The steps we have taken to police and protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to preclude misappropriation of our proprietary information or infringement of our intellectual property rights, both inside and outside the United States. The rights already granted under any of our currently issued patents and those that may be granted under future issued patents may not provide us with the proprietary protection or competitive advantages that we are seeking. If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficient, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or superior to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be adversely affected.

​

With respect to patent rights, we do not know whether any of our pending patent applications for any of our product candidates will result in the issuance of patents that protect our technology or products, or which will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Our pending applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and until a patent issues from such applications. Further, the examination process may require us or our licensors to narrow the claims, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained. Although our license agreement with Dong-A ST includes a number of issued patents that are exclusively licensed to us, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, issued patents that we own or have licensed from third parties may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in the loss of patent protection, the narrowing of claims in such patents, or the invalidity or unenforceability of such patents, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection for our technology and products. Protecting against the unauthorized use of our patented technology, trademarks and other intellectual property rights is expensive, difficult and may, in some cases, not be possible. In some cases, it may be difficult or impossible to detect third party infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, even in relation to issued patent claims, and proving any such infringement may be even more difficult.

​

Laws and rulings by U.S. courts make it difficult to predict how patents will be issued or enforced in the biotechnology industry.

​

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. There have been numerous changes to the patent laws and to the rules of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, which may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was signed into law in 2011, includes a transition from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first- to-file" system, and changes the way issued patents are challenged. Certain changes, such as the institution of inter partes review proceedings, came into effect on September 16, 2012. Substantive changes to patent law associated with the America Invents Act may affect our ability to obtain patents, and, if obtained, to enforce or defend them in litigation or post-grant proceedings, all of which could harm our business.

​

Table of Contents

Furthermore, the patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Two cases involving diagnostic method claims and "gene patents" have been decided by the Supreme Court. On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., or Prometheus, a case involving patent claims directed to measuring a metabolic product in a patient to optimize a drug dosage amount for the patient. According to the Supreme Court, the addition of well-understood, routine or conventional activity such as "administering" or "determining" steps was not enough to transform an otherwise patent ineligible natural phenomenon into patent eligible subject matter. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO issued guidance indicating that process claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea that do not include additional elements or steps that integrate the natural principle into the claimed invention such that the natural principle is practically applied and the claim amounts to significantly more than the natural principle itself should be rejected as directed to non-statutory subject matter. On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., or Myriad, a case involving patent claims held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. relating to the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Myriad held that isolated segments of naturally occurring DNA, such as the DNA constituting the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, is not patent eligible subject matter, but that complementary DNA, which is an artificial construct that may be created from RNA transcripts of genes, may be patent eligible.

​

We cannot assure you that our current patent protection and our efforts to seek patent protection for our technology and products will not be negatively impacted by the decisions described above, rulings in other cases or changes in guidance or procedures issued by the USPTO.

​

Moreover, although the Supreme Court has held in Myriad that isolated segments of naturally occurring DNA are not patent-eligible subject matter, certain third parties could allege that activities that we may undertake infringe other gene-related patent claims, and we may deem it necessary to defend against these claims by asserting non-infringement and/or invalidity positions, or pay to obtain a license to these claims. In any of the foregoing or in other situations involving third-party intellectual property rights, if we are unsuccessful in defending against claims of patent infringement, we could be forced to pay damages or be subjected to an injunction that would prevent us from utilizing the patented subject matter. Such outcomes could harm our business.

​

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

​

In jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection, competitors may use our intellectual property to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where it is more difficult to enforce a patent as compared to the U.S. competitor products may compete with our product candidates, if approved, or any future product candidate in jurisdictions where we do not have issued or granted patents or where we issued or granted patent claims or other intellectual property rights are not sufficient to prevent competitor activities in these jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, make it difficult to enforce patents and such countries may not recognize other types of intellectual property protection, particularly that relating to pharmaceuticals. This could make it difficult for us to prevent the infringement of its patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally in certain jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert its efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

​

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we, or our licensors, encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we, or any of our licensors, are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

​

Table of Contents

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

​

In addition to the possibility of litigation relating to infringement claims asserted against us, we may become a party to other patent litigation and other proceedings, including inter partes review proceedings, post-grant review proceedings, derivation proceedings declared by the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign countries, regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or future technologies or product candidates or products. The cost to us of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace.

​

Competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our intellectual property, including patents that may issue to or be licensed by us. As a result, we may be required to file claims in an effort to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Any such claims could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us, including claims alleging that we infringe their patents or other intellectual property rights. This can be prohibitively expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming, and even if we are successful, any award of monetary damages or other remedy we may receive may not be commercially valuable. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that our asserted intellectual property is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our intellectual property does not cover its technology. An adverse determination in any litigation or defense proceedings could put our intellectual property at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

​

If the breadth or strength of our patent or other intellectual property rights is compromised or threatened, it could allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products or result in our inability to commercialize our technology and products without infringing third-party intellectual property rights. Further, third parties may be dissuaded from collaborating with us.

​

Interference or derivation proceedings brought by the USPTO or its foreign counterparts may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patent applications, and we may also become involved in other proceedings, such as re-examination proceedings, before the USPTO or its foreign counterparts. Due to the substantial competition in the pharmaceutical space, the number of such proceedings may increase. This could delay the prosecution of our pending patent applications or impact the validity and enforceability of any future patents that we may obtain. In addition, any such litigation, submission or proceeding may be resolved adversely to us and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management.

​

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Moreover, intellectual property law relating to the fields in which we operate is still evolving and, consequently, patent and other intellectual property positions in our industry are subject to change and are often uncertain. We may not prevail in any of these suits or other efforts to protect its technology, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially valuable. During the course of this type of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for the combined organization's common stock could be significantly harmed.

​

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

​

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates, and to use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology, including interference and various post grant proceedings before the USPTO or non-U.S.

Table of Contents

opposition proceedings. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future.

​

As a result of any such infringement claims, or to avoid potential claims, we may choose or be compelled to seek intellectual property licenses from third parties. These licenses may not be available on 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 likely would be nonexclusive, which would mean that our competitors also could obtain licenses to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product candidate or technology or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations if, as a result of actual or threatened infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses of the relevant intellectual property on acceptable terms. Further, if we attempt to modify a product candidate or technology or to develop alternative methods or products in response to infringement claims or to avoid potential claims, we could incur substantial costs, encounter delays in product introductions or interruptions in sales. Ultimately, such efforts could be unsuccessful.

​

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

​

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock and negatively impact our ability to raise additional funds. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

​

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

​

We may be subject to damages resulting from claims that our employees or we have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

​

Our employees and consultants have been previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we are not aware of any claims currently pending against us, we may be subject to claims that these employees, or we have, inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information or intellectual property of the former employers of our employees. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying money claims, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to commercialize product candidates, which would adversely affect our commercial development efforts.

​

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

​

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technologies and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract

Table of Contents

manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality, non-competition, non-solicitation, and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to assign to us any inventions developed in the course of their work for us. However, we cannot guarantee that we have executed these agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or that the agreements we have executed will provide adequate protection. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to seek patent protection on technology relating to our product candidates or obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. As a result, we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they bring against us, to determine ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Monitoring unauthorized disclosure is difficult and we do not know whether the procedures that we have followed to prevent such disclosure are or will be adequate. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States may be less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of the technology or information that we protect as trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to, or independently developed by, a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

​

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

​

Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO, and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other requirements during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

​

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

​

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

​

Table of Contents

​

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

​

Risks Related Operations, Employee Matters and Managing Growth  

​

Our business is subject to risks arising from epidemic diseases, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

​

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 disease, which has been declared by the World Health Organization to be a pandemic, has spread across the globe and is impacting worldwide economic activity. A pandemic, including COVID-19, or other public health epidemic poses the risk that we or our employees, contractors, suppliers, and other partners may be prevented from conducting business activities for an indefinite period of time, including due to spread of the disease within these groups or due to shutdowns that may be requested or mandated by governmental authorities. While it is not possible at this time to estimate the impact that COVID-19 could have on our business, the continued spread of COVID-19 and the measures taken by the governments of countries affected could disrupt the supply chain and the manufacture or shipment of both drug substance and finished drug product for our product candidates for preclinical testing and clinical trials and adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations. We often attend and present updates at various medical and investor conferences throughout the year. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused, and is likely to continue to cause, cancellations or reduced attendance of these conferences and we may need to seek alternate methods to present clinical updates and to engage with the medical and investment communities. The spread of COVID-19 may also slow potential enrollment of clinical trials and reduce the number of eligible patients for our clinical trials. The COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation measures may also have an adverse impact on global economic conditions which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition and our potential to conduct financings on terms acceptable to us, if at all. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our results will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning the severity of the virus and the actions to contain its impact.

​

We currently have a limited number of employees and our future success depends on our ability to retain our executive officers and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

​

Because of the specialized scientific nature of our business, we rely heavily on our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and managerial personnel. We are highly dependent upon current members of our management team. Our employment relationships with our senior executives are at-will and do not prevent management from terminating their employment with us at any time by providing the requisite advance notice. We intend to increase our technical and management staff as needs arise and supporting resources become available, but the loss of one or more of our senior executive officers could be detrimental to us if we cannot recruit suitable replacements in a timely manner. The competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical field is intense and as a result, we may be unable to continue to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business or to recruit suitable replacement personnel.

​

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

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had 7 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, or as a result of any future acquisitions, we will need additional managerial, operational, development, sales, marketing, financial and other resources. Our management, personnel and systems currently in place will not be adequate to support our future growth. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on our employees, including:

​

​

Table of Contents

As our operations expand, we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners, suppliers and other third parties. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative, research and development, and sales and marketing personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing the Company.

​

We intend to market our product candidates outside of the United States, and if we do, we will be subject to the risks of doing business outside of the United States.

​

Because we intend to market our product candidates, if approved, outside of the United States, our business is subject to risks associated with doing business outside of the United States. Accordingly, our business and financial results in the future could be adversely affected due to a variety of factors, including:

​

​

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

​

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and future contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we are not aware of any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

​

Furthermore, any unplanned event, such as flood, fire, explosion, tornadoes, earthquake, extreme weather condition, medical epidemics, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize the facilities, may have an adverse effect on our ability to operate the business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or interruption of our business operations.

​

We rely significantly on information technology and any failure, inadequacy, interruption or security lapse of that technology or loss of data, including any cyber security incidents, could compromise sensitive information related to our business, prevent us from accessing critical information or expose us to liability which could harm our ability to operate our business effectively and adversely affect our business and reputation.

​

In the ordinary course of our business, our contract research organizations and other third parties on which we rely collect and store sensitive data, including legally protected patient health information, personally identifiable information about our employees, intellectual property, and proprietary business information. We manage and maintain our