Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Annual Report or Report) contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements contained in this Annual Report other than statements of historical facts, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, objectives of management and expected market growth, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “target,” “potential,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “continue,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements about:

These forward-looking statements are only predictions. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, so you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in one or more of our forward-looking statements we make in this Annual Report. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and operating results. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report, particularly in Part I, Item 1A, titled “Risk Factors,” that could cause actual future results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements in this Annual Report do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments we may make.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statement in this Annual Report, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. 

PART I

All brand names or trademarks appearing in this Annual Report are the property of their respective holders. Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to “Vistagen,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation. All references to future quarters and years in this Annual Report refer to calendar quarters and calendar years, unless reference is made otherwise.

Overview

We are a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company aiming to transform the treatment landscape for individuals living with anxiety, depression and other central nervous system (CNS) disorders. We are advancing therapeutics with the potential to be faster-acting, and with fewer side effects and safety concerns, than those currently available for treating anxiety, depression and multiple CNS disorders. Our pipeline includes six clinical-stage product candidates, including five investigational agents belonging to a new class of neuroactive drugs known as pherines, in addition to AV-101, an oral prodrug of an antagonist of the glycine site of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR). Pherines, which are administered as nasal sprays, are designed with an innovative rapid-onset mechanism of action that activates chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity and can selectively and beneficially impact key neural circuits in the brain without requiring systemic uptake or direct activity on CNS neurons. AV-101 inhibits the activity of the ion channel of the NMDAR but does not block it, unlike some approved NMDAR antagonists having significant side effects.

Our CNS product candidates are set forth below. Each has an innovative potential mechanism of action (MOA), has been safe and well-tolerated in all clinical studies to date, and has therapeutic potential in multiple CNS markets.

Our goal is to develop and commercialize, on our own and with multiple global and regional strategic partners, innovative therapies for anxiety, depression, and other CNS indications where current treatment options are inadequate to meet the needs of millions of patients in the U.S. and worldwide. First and foremost, we are passionate about transforming mental health care and redefining what is possible in the treatment of anxiety and depression disorders – One Mind at a Time™.

Our Product Candidates

Pherine Product Candidates

Five of our product candidates – fasedienol (PH94B), itruvone (PH10), PH15, PH80 and PH284 – belong to a new class of synthetic neuroactive steroids referred to as pherines. Pherines, administered in ultra-low microgram level doses as odorless and tasteless nasal sprays, are designed to selectively engage chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity and induce rapid-onset pharmacologic and behavioral benefits. Specifically, each of our pherine product candidates is a distinct chemical entity that selectively modulates particular areas of the brain, such as the limbic amygdala (the main fear and anxiety center of the brain), the hypothalamus, the hippocampus, the locus ceruleus, and the prefrontal cortex. We believe each of our pherine product candidates has the potential to be a fast-acting therapy for one or more CNS disorders, including social anxiety disorder (fasedienol), major depressive disorder (itruvone), cognitive impairment (PH15), vasomotor syndrome (hot flashes) due to menopause, as well as migraine headaches (PH80) and disorders related to appetite loss (cachexia) (PH284), all without requiring apparent systemic uptake or binding to classic abuse liability receptors or steroidal hormone receptors.

Fasedienol Nasal Spray

Fasedienol (PH94B) is a synthetic investigational pherine from the androstane family in Phase 3 clinical development in the U.S. for treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD). When administered intranasally in microgram doses, fasedienol activates receptors of peripheral nasal chemosensory neurons connected to subsets of neurons in the olfactory bulbs that, in turn, connect to neurons in the limbic amygdala involved in the pathophysiology of SAD and potentially other anxiety and mood disorders. Fasedienol is pharmacologically active without requiring apparent systemic uptake and distribution of the compound to the brain to achieve its rapid-onset and short duration of anxiolytic effects.

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD).   Based on the 2021 National Health and Wellness Survey, over 25 million adults or 10% of the adult population in the U.S. have experienced SAD. SAD can be viewed as a series of acute, socially stressful events in which patients exhibit excessive fear of embarrassment, humiliation, scrutiny, evaluation, or rejection by others (Liebowitz, Gorman, Fyer, & Klein, 1985). The avoidance, fear, or anxious anticipation of these situations interferes significantly with the person’s daily routine, having a marked impact on occupational functioning and social life. The disorder has a lifetime prevalence estimated at up to 13%, with onset typically in the mid-teens or earlier, and is diagnosed slightly more frequently in females than males. In the absence of anxiety-provoking social or performance events, generally, patients with SAD are asymptomatic.

SAD typically does not resolve naturally, oftentimes leading to alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder (MDD) as sequalae. A key psychotherapy mechanism by which individuals with SAD overcome this condition, or lessen their symptoms, is believed to be by exposing themselves to feared or avoided situations. This is the basis of cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) for SAD. However, it is difficult for most individuals with SAD to even consider entering stressful, anxiety‑provoking social or performance situations, preventing initiation of CBT as a  psychotherapeutic approach with its gradual increase in exposure to stress, which is necessary for successful CBT.

The three antidepressants currently FDA-approved for treatment of SAD exert their therapeutic effect by gradually and over time reducing the anxiety and physical symptoms that SAD patients experience when they find themselves in feared or avoided situations. Once these products begin to produce a clinical therapeutic benefit, usually at least three to six weeks following the start of daily systemic dosing, the approved treatments for SAD may work by controlling anxiety when SAD patients enter stressful, anxiety-provoking situations. However, these products require long-term daily maintenance dosing, regardless of whether the patient actually experiences social anxiety on a given day, and chronic treatment is typically associated with a range of bothersome side effects, such as gastrointestinal symptoms, agitation, sleep disturbances, weight changes, and sexual dysfunction.

Fasedienol and SAD.   We believe fasedienol allows individuals affected by SAD to enter stressful or previously avoided social or performance situations with fewer or less severe symptoms when they have been pre-treated with fasedienol. A key and substantial difference between fasedienol and each of the three antidepressants approved by the FDA for the treatment of SAD is that fasedienol is used only on an as-needed basis prior to or during a socially stressful situation because of its rapid-onset pharmacological effect. Nor does fasedienol require systemic uptake and chronic daily maintenance dosing. Hence, fasedienol has the potential to reduce the wave of anxiety usually experienced by SAD patients when in a feared situation and is designed to be used on an as-needed basis prior to or during these stressful or often-avoided social or performance situations. Through more frequent exposure to socially stressful events, SAD subjects gain new insight about their social and performance situations and begin to cognitively separate the negative physiological symptoms of anxiety from specific anxiety-provoking events. By engaging in new situations previously avoided as a result of less severe and frequent waves of anxiety following treatment, subjects experience increased confidence, leading to an overall reduction in SAD illness severity, decreased burden of disease, improved workplace productivity, educational attainment, and satisfaction with social life.

Fasedienol does not exert effects on certain cellular receptors that are associated with known drug abuse potential (for example, dopamine, nicotinic, and opiate receptors) when activated by some other pharmaceutical compounds. It also does not produce agonistic or antagonistic effects on GABA_A α1/β2/γ2 ion channels. Fasedienol is pharmacologically active without requiring apparent systemic uptake and distribution to achieve its rapid-onset and short duration of anxiolytic effects.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated fasedienol as a Fast Track product candidate, and we are currently developing fasedienol for the treatment of anxiety symptoms in adult subjects with SAD.

Fasedienol’s MOA via Olfactory-Amygdala Circuit

The proposed MOA of fasedienol is fundamentally differentiated from all currently approved anti-anxiety medications, including the three antidepressants approved by the FDA for the treatment of SAD, as well as all benzodiazepines and beta blockers, which, although not FDA-approved for the treatment of SAD, are prescribed for treatment of SAD on an off-label basis. Pre-clinical and Phase 2 clinical studies completed to date suggest that fasedienol has the potential to achieve rapid-onset anti-anxiety effects without systemic uptake or transport into the brain, significantly reducing the risk of side effects and other safety concerns such as potential drug-drug interactions, abuse, misuse and addiction associated with certain other systemic pharmaceuticals that act directly on the CNS and are sometimes prescribed for anxiety disorders.

SAD Phase 1 Studies.   Fasedienol’s rapid-onset and short-acting properties are supported by Phase 1 clinical trials conducted in healthy male and female subjects. In these trials, fasedienol was intranasally administered to subjects via a noninvasive nasal spray device, and changes in bioelectric transmucosal potentials of the nasal septum chemosensory epithelium were measured. These trials demonstrated that: (i) the nasal chemosensory epithelium has receptors that are selective for fasedienol, and (ii) fasedienol produces an immediate local electrogram response (i.e., EVG or EGNR), as illustrated by electrograms recorded from the surface of the sensory neuroepithelial lining of the vomeronasal organ. Additional studies evaluated the effect of fasedienol on the EVG amplitude and duration. Collectively, these studies show that fasedienol produces a short-duration electrogram response at the level of the peripheral receptor sites. Systemic exposure to fasedienol was evaluated following escalating doses of fasedienol in healthy female subjects. No measurable plasma concentrations of fasedienol were observed in the blood samples taken following the two highest single intranasal doses of 4.8 and 19.2 μg. In all samples (taken at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and one hour after dosing), the levels were below the level of detection of 0.1 ng/mL. For exploration, a more sensitive research bioanalytical method (non-validated) was used on a selection of samples. Using this method, with a limit of quantitation of 0.025 ng/mL, no fasedienol could be detected. A study was conducted in human subjects to establish the bioavailability of fasedienol administered intranasally and repeatedly with the maximal therapeutic dose. However, it was not possible to characterize the actual bioavailability of fasedienol due to the absence of quantifiable concentrations of fasedienol in plasma.  With respect to fasedienol’s safety profile, the totality of nonclinical data and clinical data in over 800 human subjects exposed to fasedienol to date continue to demonstrate that fasedienol appears to be safe and is well-tolerated, as well as the lack of abuse potential of fasedienol.

SAD Phase 2 Studies

Positive Phase 2 Results in Public Speaking and Social Interaction-Induced Stressors in a Clinical Setting.   Phase 2 development of fasedienol began with a two-part public speaking and social interaction challenge study. In this published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial (n=91) conducted at three clinical sites, 91 adult female subjects diagnosed with SAD underwent a placebo-only baseline public speaking and social interaction challenges in a clinical setting followed a week later by a randomized placebo-controlled treatment period and intranasal administration of fasedienol. Fasedienol (1.6 μg) was administered intranasally 15 minutes prior to both the public speaking and social interaction challenge simulations. The two challenges were separated by a 30-minute rest period. The primary outcome measure was the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS). Peer-reviewed results published in the American Journal of Psychiatry (Monti, et al., Am. J. Psychiatry (2014) 171:675-682) showed statistically significant results for reducing anxiety during a public speaking performance and during social interactions in a clinical setting. During the public speaking challenge, subjects randomized to treatment with fasedienol (n = 45) showed a 26.7-point improvement in mean SUDS scores following the treatment visit with fasedienol as compared to the SUDS scores during the baseline visit (placebo treatment). In comparison, subjects randomized to treatment with placebo (n = 46) showed an improvement of only 14.0 points in mean SUDS scores compared to baseline. The fasedienol treatment group’s improvement in the public speaking challenge significantly exceeded that of the placebo group’s improvement (t = 3.16, p = 0.002).

Mild or moderate adverse events were infrequent and did not differ significantly between the fasedienol and placebo groups. No severe or serious adverse events were reported.

Positive Phase 2 Results in a Real-World Setting.  A second peer-reviewed Phase 2 study of fasedienol in SAD was published in the Journal of Depression and Anxiety (Monti, et al., Depress Anxiety (2016); 33: 1081–1089). In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study that included both adult males and females 18 to 65 years of age, subjects self-administered fasedienol or placebo nasal spray on an as-needed basis, just prior to stressful, anxiety-provoking encounters in their daily lives, up to four times a day. Following two weeks of treatment, the subjects were crossed over to the other nasal spray for another two weeks. The primary efficacy measure in the study was the SUDS and the secondary efficacy measure was the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). The LSAS was created by Dr. Michael Liebowitz and was the primary efficacy endpoint in all Phase 3 registration trials for the three antidepressants approved by the FDA for treatment of SAD. Dr. Liebowitz was the Principal Investigator of this Phase 2 study of fasedienol.

The change from baseline SUDS scores was significantly greater for all subjects while taking fasedienol compared with the placebo group. The average change from baseline SUDS score was 15.6 points for all subjects while on PH94B and 8.3 points while on placebo (paired t-test = 3.09; p = 0.006; effect size 0.658). The LSAS was recorded at weekly visits. Looking between groups at just the group treated first with fasedienol for two weeks, fasedienol showed a positive trend in the LSAS scores (p = 0.07, Cohen’s d = 0.812, change from baseline 23.3 vs 8.2 points fasedienol vs placebo, respectively). Interestingly, subjects receiving fasedienol first also had a significantly greater decrease in their avoidance score on the LSAS as compared to those who received placebo first (p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 1.078). After the crossover, fasedienol showed less of an effect as compared to placebo, likely due to a confidence carryover effect from treatment with fasedienol during the previous two weeks. Importantly, self-administration of fasedienol on an as‑needed basis prior to anxiety-provoking encounters in a real-world setting was accompanied by a persistent change in overall SAD symptoms, reduction in fear and anxiety, and less frequent avoidance, as measured by the LSAS over the course of fasedienol usage. Notably, the amount of separation between fasedienol and placebo at the end of the first two weeks on the LSAS in this study was comparable to what was observed in the registration trials for the current FDA-approved antidepressants after 12 weeks. A large effect size (0.78) and trend to significance (p = 0.083) in favor of fasedienol also was observed when comparing overall the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score means for fasedienol and placebo during the first two weeks of treatment. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) ratings also showed improvement for fasedienol after two weeks of treatment (p = 0.024).

No drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the study. All adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate and the frequencies of their occurrence did not differ meaningfully between active and placebo treatments.

We believe this multiple-administration, placebo-controlled assessment Phase 2 study conducted in a real-world setting outside a clinical environment indicates the potential for cumulative functional improvement with longer use of fasedienol, while still being used on an as-needed basis, as subjects are increasingly able to engage in previously difficult social and performance situations in their daily lives more frequently and with less fear and anxiety.

SAD Phase 3 Studies

PALISADE-1.  In May 2021, we initiated our PALISADE Phase 3 Program for fasedienol in SAD with PALISADE-1, a single-administration assessment Phase 3 public speaking challenge clinical study of fasedienol for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. Following discussions with the FDA in mid-2020 during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we agreed to design PALISADE-1 in a manner substantially similar to the single-administration assessment Phase 2 public speaking challenge study of fasedienol, which involved self-administration of only a single dose of fasedienol by subjects randomized to the treatment arm. All subjects were given an anxiety-provoking public speaking challenge, conducted only in a clinical setting, and their change in a Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) score was determined.

In July 2022, we announced top line results from PALISADE-1. Although the safety and tolerability of fasedienol in PALISADE-1 were favorable and consistent with previously reported results from previous clinical trials, PALISADE-1 did not achieve its primary efficacy endpoint, as measured by change from baseline using the SUDS as compared to placebo. We believe the following hypotheses are potential explanations for the unexpected outcome in PALISADE-1: (i) the study was conducted during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, introducing significant systemic variability in terms of changing social dynamics, subject stress, study site and contract research organization (CRO) personnel turnover and mask wearing regulations; (ii) given the foregoing, the public speaking challenge study design may not have been scalable to a large Phase 3 study, particularly during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic; and (iii) some subjects in the study may have had reduced potential to respond to fasedienol due to impaired olfactory cell function potentially caused by the COVID-19 virus, nasal swab testing for COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza, and/or heavy cannabis use, smoking or vaping.

PALISADE-2.   In October 2021, near the end of the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we initiated PALISADE-2, which involved the same clinic-based, single-administration assessment public speaking challenge study design and use of the SUDS as the primary efficacy endpoint as PALISADE-1. In July 2022, after receiving top line results from PALISADE-1, we paused recruitment and enrollment in PALISADE-2 to allow independent third-party biostatisticians to conduct an interim analysis of available data from subjects randomized in PALISADE-2 up to the date we paused the study. In September 2022, based on their review of unblinded data from the 140 subjects who had completed PALISADE-2, the independent third-party biostatisticians recommended that we continue PALISADE-2 as planned, without revealing the underlying data to us.

Although the results of the interim analysis of PALISADE-2 indicated that continuation of the study would not be futile, after considering the expense, time, and challenges associated with PALISADE-1, as well as the potential methodological complexities involved in resuming PALISADE-2, we closed the PALISADE-2 study. Topline results from the 140 subjects who completed PALISADE-2 are expected in the second half of 2023.

PALISADE Open Label Study.   The PALISADE Open Label Study (OLS) was a Phase 3, open-label safety trial designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple, as-needed administrations (up to four times a day) of fasedienol in adults with SAD. The PALISADE OLS also evaluated the change from baseline in monthly standard clinical measurements and behavioral assessment scales (LSAS, Clinician Global Impression of Improvement scale (CGI-I) and Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGI-C)) in response to anxiety-provoking social situations in daily‑life after the administration of fasedienol. The key exploratory efficacy endpoint in the study included evaluation of the change from baseline on the LSAS, which measures SAD patients’ response to anxiety-provoking social and performance situations experienced in their daily lives. Following the completion of PALISADE-1, we terminated the PALISADE OLS early, solely for strategic business reasons, and not due to any safety concerns with fasedienol.

Safety and tolerability of fasedienol were assessed and summarized during monthly visits from baseline to end of treatment in AEs, laboratory values, 12‑lead electrocardiograms (ECGs), physical examinations, and vital sign assessments following exposure to fasedienol. Long-term administration of 3.2 µg of fasedienol, as-needed up to four times per day, was safe and well-tolerated, with no new safety findings or trends identified, regardless of the number of doses administered by each subject (safety population: n=481). Headache was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) (17.0%), and, except for COVID-19 TEAEs (11.4%) which were not considered related to fasedienol, no other TEAE occurred in more than 5.0% of subjects. Over 30,000 doses of fasedienol were administered by patients during the study, with a mean duration of four months and a maximum study duration of over ten months.

The final data set from PALISADE OLS demonstrates clinically meaningful functional improvement, as measured by the LSAS, and total LSAS scores, in both men and women, continued to decline in consecutive months during the study, as follows:

For subjects who continued in the study, total LSAS scores continued to decline from baseline, with improvements observed each month on the LSAS through nine months. The continued improvement in LSAS scores is indicative of the therapeutic potential of multiple, patient-tailored, as-needed administrations of fasedienol over time to help patients build confidence to engage in anxiety-provoking social and performance situations in their daily lives more frequently and with less fear and anxiety.

In addition, the CGI-I results indicated 43% of the 218 patients assessed after three months were “much” or “very much” improved, and PGI-C results indicated 44% of the 218 patients assessed after three months considered themselves “much” or “very much” improved.

FDA Feedback on Path Forward; FEARLESS-1.   We believe data from approximately 400 subjects in the PALISADE OLS over a period of one month and beyond, combined with the data from the previous Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of fasedienol after two weeks of use, as discussed above, demonstrate the potential for fasedienol to achieve robust overall reduction in symptoms of SAD and improvement in severity of the disorder over time, as measured by the LSAS. These data also appear to suggest that studies involving multiple administrations of fasedienol over time on an as-needed basis, up to four times per day, when subjects experience daily, real-life, socially stressful situations may most accurately reflect the true efficacy of fasedienol in patients with SAD and represent the actual way in which they would use fasedienol, if approved. Utilizing the LSAS as the primary efficacy outcome measure in our next Phase 3 study is consistent with the pivotal registration trials for all three currently approved treatments for SAD. As those studies indicate, the LSAS is capable of measuring a drug’s efficacy in patients with SAD due to its ability to capture patient feedback on fear and anxiety regarding various social situations, as well avoidance of such situations. Hence, we believe using the LSAS as the primary efficacy endpoint for our further Phase 3 development of fasedienol has the potential to demonstrate its efficacy and true impact on patients’ lives.

In the first quarter of calendar 2023, we met with the FDA to discuss next steps in our Phase 3 development plan for fasedienol in SAD, which plan includes, among other things, conducting, on our own or  with collaborators, a multiple-assessment, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study of fasedienol in adults in a real-world setting, using the LSAS as the primary efficacy outcome measure to evaluate the efficacy of fasedienol over time in patients with SAD to support a potential fasedienol New Drug Application (NDA). Positive feedback from the FDA at this meeting confirmed the acceptable use of the LSAS as a primary efficacy endpoint. Accordingly, we are positioned to finalize key components of FEARLESS, our potential NDA-enabling Phase 3 development program for fasedienol for treatment of SAD.

Unlike the PALISADE Phase 3 studies, which involved assessment of only a single, self- administered dose of fasedienol in a clinic-based public speaking challenge using the SUDS as the primary outcome measure, our FEARLESS program will assess multiple administrations of fasedienol, on a patient-tailored as-needed basis, up to six times per day, in a real-world setting over a multiple week period, with the LSAS as the primary efficacy endpoint, consistent with the FDA’s three precedent-setting approvals of antidepressants for treatment of SAD. Dr. Michael R. Liebowitz, a Columbia University psychiatrist, former director and founder of the Anxiety Disorders Clinic at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and current Managing Director of The Medical Research Network LLC in New York City, is the innovator of the LSAS and will be the Principal Investigator for our FEARLESS program in SAD.

Exploratory Phase 2A Study in AjDA and Future Development Opportunities.    During the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a small exploratory Phase 2A clinical study of fasedienol designed to assess its therapeutic potential in adults experiencing adjustment disorder with anxiety (AjDA). Adjustment disorder (AjD) occurs within three months of exposure to a stressor as evidenced by marked distress that is out of proportion to the socially or culturally expected reactions to the stressor, or that represents significant impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of daily functioning. Our small exploratory study in AjDA is believed to be the first ever randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2A study in the U.S. aimed at exploring the pharmacological treatment of AjDA, and the first clinical trial that evaluated the effects of a fixed dosing regimen of fasedienol, involving intranasal administration of 3.2 µg of fasedienol four times per day over four weeks. A total of 71 subjects were screened for the study, 41 were randomized, 7 discontinued, and 34 completed four weeks of treatment. The study, which was not designed to achieve statistical significance, did not demonstrate a clinically significant difference between fasedienol and placebo as measured on the clinician-rated Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A). Site variances and both a high drug response rate and high placebo response rate were observed, likely related to the various aspects of AjDA that make it a challenging indication to study. The study of AjDA is complicated because the disorder is, by definition, temporary and self-resolving, making it difficult to identify the cause of clinical improvement or whether placebo played a role in any improvement observed. AjDA is a temporary stress reaction. The stress reaction typically starts within three months of an identifiable stressful situation, but because the disorder is directly linked to a stressor, once the stressor ends, the anxiety reaction may also end, with or without treatment.

Fixed dosing of fasedienol four times per day, over four weeks, was well tolerated, with no appreciable differences in TEAEs between fasedienol and placebo. All reported TEAEs were of mild or moderate severity, with no severe or serious TEAEs reported during the study. Headache was the most commonly reported TEAE, reported by 3 subjects (15.8%) on fasedienol and 2 subjects (9.1%) on placebo.

Despite the methodological challenges inherent in the exploratory Phase 2A study in AjDA, we believe fasedienol builds resilience against anxiety and reduces the cognitive and physical paralysis that occurs during moments of heightened anxiety and stressful situations. Results of the AjDA study may provide support for an as-needed fasedienol dosing approach over time as the preferred mode of treatment.

We may also have potential opportunities to explore the development of fasedienol for other anxiety-related disorders, including postpartum anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and procedural anxiety.

Itruvone Nasal Spray

Itruvone (PH10) is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine from the pregnane family with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for depression disorders. Itruvone, which is administered as a nasal spray at microgram-level doses, is designed to engage and activate chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity, which are connected to neural circuits in the brain that produce antidepressant effects. Specifically, in a manner similar to fasedienol, itruvone’s proposed MOA involves the regulation of the olfactory-amygdala neural circuits believed to increase activity of the limbic-hypothalamic sympathetic nervous system and increase the release of catecholamines. Importantly, unlike all currently approved oral antidepressants (ADs) and rapid-onset ketamine-based therapy, including both intravenous ketamine and intranasal ketamine (esketamine), we believe itruvone does not require systemic uptake and distribution of the compound to the brain to produce rapid-onset of antidepressant effects. In all clinical studies completed to date, itruvone has been well-tolerated and has not caused psychological side effects (such as dissociation and hallucinations) or other safety concerns that may be associated with ketamine-based therapy.

 

Major Depressive Disorder.    Depression is a serious medical illness and a global public health concern that can occur at any time over a person's life. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting over 250 million people. Statistics reported by the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIMH) indicate that approximately 21 million adults in the U.S., or approximately 8.4% of all adults in the U.S., had at least one major depressive episode in 2020. While most people will experience a depressed mood at some point during their lifetime, MDD is different. MDD is the chronic, pervasive feeling of utter unhappiness and suffering, which impairs daily functioning. In typical depressive episodes, an individual experiences depressed mood, loss of interest and enjoyment, and reduced energy leading to diminished activity and impaired daily functioning for at least two weeks and often much longer. Symptoms of MDD also may include diminished pleasure in activities, changes in appetite that result in weight changes, insomnia or oversleeping, psychomotor agitation, loss of energy or increased fatigue, feelings of worthlessness or inappropriate guilt, difficulty thinking, concentrating or making decisions, and thoughts of death or suicide and attempts at suicide. MDD is the psychiatric diagnosis most commonly associated with suicide.

For many people, depression cannot be controlled for any length of time without treatment. Current oral antidepressants have modest efficacy, substantial lag of onset of action, and considerable side effects. Approximately two out of every three depression sufferers do not receive adequate therapeutic benefits from their initial treatment with a standard antidepressant, and the likelihood of achieving remission of depressive symptoms declines with each successive treatment attempt. Even after multiple treatment attempts with current antidepressants, approximately one-third of depression sufferers still fail to find an adequately effective therapy. In addition, this trial and error process and the systemic effects of the various antidepressants involved may increase the risk of patient tolerability issues and serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behaviors in certain groups. Inadequate response to current treatments is among the key reasons MDD is one of the leading public health concerns in the United States, creating a significant unmet medical need for new agents with fundamentally different mechanisms of action and safety profiles.

MDD Clinical Studies.   In a peer-reviewed, published exploratory Phase 2A clinical study (n=30), itruvone, self-administered at a daily dose of 6.4 micrograms, was well-tolerated and demonstrated significant (p=0.022) rapid-onset antidepressant effects, which were sustained over an 8-week period, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HAM-D-17), without side effects or safety concerns that may be caused by certain oral antidepressants or intravenous or intranasal ketamine-based therapy. With its potential for rapid-onset activity at a 6.4 microgram-level dose that we believe does not require systemic uptake to achieve sustained antidepressant effects, as well as a safety profile in studies completed to date that is differentiated from current therapeutics, we believe itruvone has transformative potential an innovative stand-alone treatment for MDD and potential opportunities for development in multiple additional depression disorders, including postpartum depression, treatment-resistant depression, and suicidal ideation.

In January 2023, we launched a small U.S. single center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study to investigate the safety and tolerability of itruvone in healthy adult subjects (n=12). The study was designed to confirm the favorable safety profile of itruvone established in three previous clinical studies conducted in Mexico, including the Phase 2 study noted above, as well as facilitate our plans for Phase 2B development of itruvone in the U.S. as a fast-acting stand-alone treatment for MDD. In June 2023, we announced positive data from this study. There were no reported SAEs or discontinuations due to adverse events in the trial. Two AEs were reported during the treatment period, fatigue and headache, which occurred in the same subject. Both AEs resolved without sequelae and were mild in severity. Following itruvone administration, there were no clinically significant findings in ECGs, vital signs, and laboratory parameters. Overall, itruvone was well-tolerated and continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile.

The FDA has granted Fast Track designation for development of itruvone as a potential adjunctive treatment for MDD.

PH80 Nasal Spray

PH80 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for both vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) due to menopause and migraine headaches. PH80, which is administered as a nasal spray at microgram-level doses, engages and activates chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity, which are connected to neural circuits in the brain that modulate neural circuits in the basal forebrain associated with the control of body temperature, as well as premonitory and aura symptoms of migraines.

PH80 for Acute Management of Vasomotor Symptoms (Hot Flashes) due to Menopause.    Approximately 60% to 80% of women entering menopause suffer from hot flashes and associated symptoms lasting up to ten years, according to the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health. Menopausal symptoms are triggered by hormonal fluctuations that develop at the onset of menopause and affect areas of the brain involved in the control of core body temperature. Sudden changes in core body temperature result in hot flashes, sweating, reddening of the face and upper thorax, rapid heartbeat and general feelings of discomfort that can have an impact on the quality of life.

In a small exploratory Phase 2A clinical study (n=36), PH80 showed a profile compatible with the acute management of menopausal hot flashes. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled exploratory Phase 2A study was designed to explore the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intranasal administration of PH80 for the acute management of vasomotor symptoms hot flashes due to menopause. In the study, PH80 nasal spray containing PH80 in a dose of 0.8 micrograms/50 microliters (0.8 µg/50 µL) was self-administered by subjects intranasally, two sprays in each nostril (total dose = 3.2µg) up to four times daily, as-needed for four consecutive weeks. One additional dose was allowed at night if subjects were awakened by hot flashes. Through the course of the study, subjects recorded the number, severity, disruption in function, and sweating related to hot flashes. PH80 was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events, and the adverse event profiles were comparable between PH80 and placebo. All 36 subjects completed four weeks of treatment and no subject discontinued participation in the study as a result of TEAEs.

PH80 induced significant reduction in the daily number of hot flashes compared to placebo at the end of the first week of treatment, and the improvement was maintained through each treatment week until the end of the four-week treatment period. At baseline, subjects reported a mean daily number of hot flashes of 7.7 (PH80, n=18) and 8.0 (placebo, n=18). After one week of treatment, the number of hot flashes dropped to 2.8 (PH80) and 6.4 (placebo) (p<.001), and after four weeks of treatment the number of hot flashes dropped to 1.5 (PH80) and 5.1 (placebo) (p<.001). PH80 treatment also significantly reduced the severity, disruption in function, and sweating related to hot flashes during the treatment period as compared with placebo.

We are currently preparing, on our own or with collaborators, to submit an U.S. IND for a Phase 2B clinical study of PH80 as a treatment for hot flashes due to menopause.

PH80 for Acute Treatment of Migraine Headaches.     Migraine headaches are a common and debilitating neurological disorder experienced by approximately 4% to 9% of men and 11% to 25% of women, according to the American Headache Society. A migraine is characterized by unilateral, pulsating headaches of moderate to severe intensity lasting four to 72 hours. Symptoms are aggravated by routine physical activity and are associated with nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. Usually, migraine headaches are preceded by premonitory symptoms (fatigue neck discomfort, gastrointestinal symptoms and mood changes, and these are followed by an aura of sensory and language disturbance (Headache, 58: 4-16, 2018. American Headache Society).

PH80 initiates neural impulses in the olfactory bulb transmitted by pathways that rapidly affect the function of multiple structures in the brain, including the amygdala and hypothalamus that have been linked to the pathology of migraine. Due to its MOA and a small proof of concept study, we believe PH80 may have therapeutic potential to relieve premonitory and aura symptoms of migraines.

PH15 Nasal Spray

Cognitive impairment has many potential causes, including mental fatigue, and is often associated with hypersomnia or excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS).  EDS is commonly caused by sleep-related disorders such as sleep apnea, circadian rhythm disorder, or narcolepsy but may also be caused by psychiatric disorders, neurological conditions, or medications.  In the U.S., it is estimated that 12.7% of adults, or approximately 30 million people suffer from EDS (Ford et al, 2015).

PH15 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments to improve cognitive impairment caused by mental fatigue and potentially other disorders. Early functional MRI studies in human volunteers at Stanford University revealed that intranasal administration of PH15 induced rapid activation of brain areas related to cognition (Sobel et al, Brain, 1999). In a small double blind, placebo-controlled study Phase 2 study of human subjects who were sleep deprived to induce mental fatigue, intranasal PH15 showed rapid and significant improvement in cognitive and psychomotor performance and improvement of reaction time that was better than the effect of a placebo and 400 mg of oral caffeine. We are currently evaluating the path forward to submitting an U.S. IND for a Phase 2 clinical study, on our own or with collaborators, and the appropriate indication for demonstrating improvement of cognitive function.

PH284 Nasal Spray

PH284 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for the loss of appetite associated with chronic disorders such as cancer. Cachexia is a serious but under recognized consequence of many chronic diseases with body mass loss of >10% and a prevalence of 5 to 15 %. We believe PH284 may have therapeutic potential for improving subjective feelings of hunger in patients with cachexia.  We are currently evaluating the path forward to submitting an U.S. IND for cachexia, on our own or with collaborators, and the appropriate patient populations for demonstrating increase in appetite and weight gain in a second Phase 2 study.

AV-101

AV-101 (4-Cl-KYN) is a novel, oral prodrug that targets the NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor), an ionotropic glutamate receptor in the brain. Abnormal NMDAR function is associated with numerous CNS diseases and disorders. The active metabolite of AV-101, 7-chloro-kynurenic acid (7-Cl-KYNA), is a potent and selective full antagonist of the glycine binding site of the NMDAR that inhibits the function of the NMDAR. Unlike ketamine and many other NMDAR antagonists, 7-Cl-KYNA is not an ion channel blocker. In clinical and nonclinical testing completed to date, AV-101 has demonstrated good oral bioavailability and an excellent pharmacokinetic (PK) profile. No binding of AV-101 or 7-Cl-KYNA to off-site targets was identified by an extensive receptor screening study. Moreover, in all clinical trials completed to date, AV-101 has been safe and very well-tolerated with no psychological side effects or safety concerns and no treatment-related serious adverse events that are often observed with classic channel-blocking NMDAR antagonists such as ketamine and amantadine. Nonclinical results also indicate that chronic administration of 4-Cl-KYN induces hippocampal neurogenesis, a hallmark of drugs that have antidepressive effects, and increases endogenous levels of KYNA, which also is a functional NMDAR glycine site antagonist.

Based on observations and findings from preclinical studies, we believe AV-101 has the potential to become a new oral treatment alternative for multiple CNS disorders. We are currently preparing for Phase 2A development of AV-101, on our own or with collaborators,  as a treatment for one or more neurological disorders involving the NMDAR receptor.  Multiple studies have shown AV-101 to be safe and well-tolerated, and a range of preclinical studies indicate potential in multiple indications, including levodopa-induced dyskinesia, neuropathic pain, seizures, MDD, and suicidal ideation.

The FDA has granted Fast Track designation for development of AV-101 as a potential adjunctive treatment for MDD and as a non-opioid treatment for neuropathic pain.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect the proprietary know-how and technology that we believe is important to our business, including seeking and maintaining patents intended to cover our product candidates and related pharmaceutical compositions, their therapeutic methods of use, including treatment and prognostic methods, as well as processes for their manufacture, and any other aspects of our discoveries and inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business.

We may also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We also utilize know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection in appropriate markets, and endeavor to timely file patent applications for new commercially valuable inventions.

To protect our rights to our proprietary technology, we require all employees, as well as our external collaborators, consultants and CROs when feasible, to enter into agreements that require disclosure and assignment to us of ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions made by these employees, consultants, and CROs in the course of their service to us.

We plan to continue to expand our intellectual property estate by filing patent applications directed to pharmaceutical compositions, methods of use, including treatment and patient selection, formulations, nasal administration devices, and manufacturing processes created or identified from the ongoing development of our product candidates.

Patents

We own and have licensed granted patents and pending patent applications in the U.S. and in certain foreign countries. These patent properties include, but are not limited to:

Fasedienol (PH94B) for the treatment of social anxiety disorder:

The granted U.S. patents related to fasedienol to treat social anxiety disorder will nominally expire either in 2025 or 2028, respectively, and foreign patents will nominally expire in 2026, subject to patent term extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

Fasedienol (PH94B) for the treatment of adjustment disorder:

Patents that may be granted on these applications related to fasedienol to treat adjustment disorder will nominally expire in 2041, subject to patent term extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

Itruvone (PH10) for the treatment of depression:

The U.S. and foreign patents related to itruvone to treat depression nominally expire in 2033, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

PH80 for the treatment of menopausal hot flashes:

Granted U.S. patent and corresponding foreign patents related to the treatment of menopausal hot flashes. The U.S. and foreign patents related to PH80 to treat menopausal hot flashes nominally expire in 2029, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

PH80 for the treatment of migraine:

The U.S. and foreign patents that may be granted on these patent applications related to PH80 to treat migraine nominally expire in 2040, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

PH15 for the improvement of psychomotor and cognitive performance:

U.S. and foreign patents that may be granted on these applications related to PH15 to improve psychomotor and cognitive performance will nominally expire in 2044, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

AV-101

The U.S. and foreign patents related to AV-101 nominally expire between 2034 and 2040, depending on the particular subject matter claimed in each patent, subject to extensions that may be available on a country-by-country basis, including in the U.S.

Patent Term

The base term of a U.S. patent is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest-filed non-provisional patent application from which the patent claims priority. The term of a U.S. patent can be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates the owner of the patent for administrative delays at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In some cases, the term of a U.S. patent is shortened by a terminal disclaimer that reduces its term to align with that of a related patent.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our drug candidates, if any, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA (testing phase), plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application (approval phase). The FDA may reduce this patent term restoration period if it finds that an applicant did not act with due diligence during the testing phase or the approval phase. Only one patent related to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and an application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The U.S. PTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, if circumstances permit, we intend to apply for extension or restoration of patent term for our applicable patents, if any, to extend patent life beyond their base expiration dates depending on the length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Some foreign jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, also have patent term extension provisions, which allow for extension of the term of a patent that covers a drug approved by the applicable foreign regulatory agency. In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extension on patents covering those products, their methods of use, and/or methods of manufacture.

Data Exclusivity

Some of our products may also be entitled to certain data exclusivity (that is not patent-related) under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its related regulations. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to obtain approval for an NDA for a new chemical entity (NCE). An NCE is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule responsible for the pharmacological action of the drug substance. During the data exclusivity period, an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company may not be approved by the FDA for another drug containing the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovator drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data that served as the basis of granting the original NDA.

However, an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA application may be submitted to the FDA for evaluation after four years from the original NDA approval if the innovator NDA holder does not have a patent covering the product listed with the FDA Orange Book or if the application contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA Orange Book. The FDCA also provides three years of data exclusivity for a full NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. Three-year exclusivity prevents the FDA from approving ANDAs and 505(b)(2) applications that rely on the information that served as the basis of granting the new full or supplemental NDA. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the active moiety for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the nonclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, we may rely on trade secrets to develop and maintain our competitive position. We protect trade secrets, if any, and also know-how, by establishing confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and partners. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of an individual’s or entity’s employment or other contractual relationship with us must be kept confidential during and after the relationship. These agreements also generally provide that all relevant inventions resulting from work performed for us or relating to our business and conceived or completed during the period of employment or assignment, as applicable, shall be our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary information by third parties.

Trademarks

The Company also owns a registered trademark in the U.S. for “VISTAGEN,” for “biotechnology services” in international class 42, which was renewed in 2021. We have a U.S. registration application pending for VISTAGEN in international class 10 for “human and veterinary preparations for medical uses.”

Strategic Transactions and Relationships

Given the depth of clinical development across our CNS pipeline, as well as new potential to elevate additional preclinical candidates from our pherine platform, we are pursuing multiple strategic development and commercialization partnerships, both global and regional, across our clinical-stage pipeline to efficiently unlock the full value of our product candidate portfolio. We believe regional and global partnerships designed to amplify our internal activities can efficiently accelerate key development timelines and regulatory milestones for our product candidates.  

In addition, we believe that our highly selective outsourcing of certain research, development, legal, manufacturing and regulatory activities gives us flexible access to a broad range of capabilities and expertise at a lower overall cost than developing and maintaining such capabilities and expertise internally on a full-time basis. In particular, we retain third parties for certain legal, accounting, manufacturing, nonclinical development, clinical development and regulatory affairs support.

We have entered into, and plan to seek multiple additional global and regional strategic collaborations and relationships focused on development and/or commercialization of our product candidates in key pharmaceutical markets worldwide, including the U.S.

Commercial Agreements

We have customary clinical supply agreements with multiple contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) and customary agreements with multiple CROs to assist us with advancement and management of our nonclinical, including manufacturing, and clinical development programs. Each of our commercial agreements is non‑exclusive, and we have no material contractual obligations under such agreements, except to the extent we order supplies or request services to be performed under specific work orders that we generate with such third-parties from time to time.

Material License Agreements

Exclusive License and Collaboration Agreement with AffaMed Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly EverInsight Therapeutics, Inc.)

In June 2020, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement (the EverInsight License Agreement) with EverInsight Therapeutics Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (EverInsight), pursuant to which we granted EverInsight an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize PH94B for multiple anxiety-related disorders in Greater China (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), South Korea and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) (collectively, the Territory). Subsequent to entering into the EverInsight License Agreement, in October 2020, EverInsight merged with AffaMed Therapeutics, Inc., which as a combined, complementary entity is focusing on developing and commercializing therapeutics to address ophthalmologic and CNS disorders in Greater China and beyond. Accordingly, we refer to EverInsight and the EverInsight License Agreement as AffaMed and the AffaMed Agreement, respectively. We retained development, manufacturing and commercialization rights for fasedienol in the rest of the world.

Under the terms of the AffaMed Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $5.0 million in August 2020. We may also receive up to an additional $172 million in milestone payments upon AffaMed’s achievement of certain developmental, regulatory and sales milestone events related to PH94B. In addition, we are entitled to receive certain royalties on net sales, if any, of fasedienol in the Territory following receipt of any required regulatory approval. However, AffaMed’s, achievement of any of such developmental, regulatory and sales milestone events, or commercial sales of fasedienol in the Territory, cannot be guaranteed. AffaMed has the right to sublicense to affiliates and third parties in the Territory. AffaMed is responsible for all costs related to developing, obtaining regulatory approval of and commercializing fasedienol in the Territory. A joint development committee has been established between the Company and AffaMed to coordinate and review the development, manufacturing and commercialization plans with respect to PH94B in the Territory. Unless earlier terminated due to certain material breaches of the contract, or otherwise, the AffaMed Agreement will expire on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis until the latest to occur of expiration of the last valid claim under a licensed patent of fasedienol in such jurisdiction, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity in such jurisdiction or ten years after the first commercial sale of fasedienol in such jurisdiction.

Manufacturing and Supply

Manufacturing of the drug substance and drug product for our product candidates is performed by CMOs who must comply with current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) regulations. Our product candidates are comprised of synthetic small molecules that are manufactured through a series of organic chemistry steps starting with commercially available organic chemical raw materials. We do not currently own or operate, nor do we plan to own or operate, manufacturing facilities for the production of our drug substance and drug product candidates for nonclinical, clinical or commercial use. We conduct manufacturing and analytical testing activities under individual project work orders with independent CMOs to supply all of our nonclinical and clinical trial needs. We conduct periodic quality audits of each of the CMO’s facilities to ensure that they are fully compliant with cGMPs. We believe that all of our existing CMOs are, or will be, capable of providing sufficient quantities of both drug substance and drug product to meet our nonclinical and clinical development needs. New CMOs may be added to our supply chain strategy in the future to ensure that our nonclinical, clinical and, subject to NDA approval, commercial manufacturing and testing needs are met.

By design, we do not currently have any fixed contractual arrangements in place with any CMOs, for either long-term supply or redundant supply, of drug substance or drug product for our drug product candidates. If our product candidates are approved for commercial distribution, we intend to execute long-term commercial supply agreement(s) with our CMOs to produce our future commercial supplies on our behalf. We plan to mitigate potential commercial supply risks for any products that are approved in the future through inventory management and through exploring additional back-up manufacturers, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S., to provide drug substance and/or drug product.

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. The large size and expanding scope of the CNS markets, especially the high unmet need in large and growing global markets for anxiety and depression disorders, make them attractive therapeutic areas for biopharmaceutical businesses. While we believe that our employees and consultants, scientific knowledge, technology, and development experience provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Several of these entities have robust drug pipelines, readily available capital, and large and established research and development and commercial organizations. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Many 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. 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. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Small or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, tolerability, convenience, price, the level of branded and generic competition, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third‑party payers.

Currently there is no FDA-approved acute treatment of anxiety for adults with SAD with the proposed mechanism of action of fasedienol, and we are aware of no company developing a potential treatment of anxiety for adults with SAD that is a nasal spray and involves the same mechanism of pharmacological action as fasedienol. We are aware of several companies that are developing therapies targeting acute treatment in the SAD market, including, among others, Bionomics, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and Receptor Life Sciences, Ananda Scientific, EmpowerPharm and PureTech. In addition, we may face competition to fasedienol for treatment of anxiety in adult and adolescent patients with SAD from generic antidepressants as well as off-label use of generic benzodiazepines and generic beta blockers even though no drug in either of such generic drug classes has been systematically developed for treatment of SAD and thus no drug in either of such generic drug classes has been FDA-approved for the treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. Although there are three oral antidepressants approved by the FDA for the treatment of SAD, such drugs do not achieve rapid-onset therapeutic effects and are associated with undesirable side effects. Cognitive behavioral therapy is also an important treatment approach to SAD that may be used along with or instead of pharmacological treatments, including antidepressants, benzodiazepines, beta blockers, fasedienol and other drug candidates in clinical development.

Patients with MDD are typically treated with a variety of oral antidepressant medications or oral atypical antipsychotics. These treatments often include generic antidepressants such as: fluoxetine (Prozac), previously marketed by Eli Lilly and Company; sertraline (Zoloft) and venlaxafine (Effexor), both previously marketed by Pfizer, Inc.; and paroxetine (Paxil) and bupropion (Wellbutrin), both previously marketed by GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK). Treatments may also include currently marketed proprietary branded medications indicated for MDD such as: Trintellix, which is marketed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc and H. Lundbeck A/S; Viibryd and Vraylar, which are marketed by Abbvie; and Rexulti which is marketed by Otsuka America. Although currently there are no FDA-approved therapies for MDD with the mechanism of pharmacological action of itruvone, we are aware of numerous companies that are developing and commercializing therapies targeting the MDD market, including, among others, Axsome Therapeutics, Sage Therapeutics, Relmada Therapeutics, Xenon, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Johnson & Johnson, Usona Institute, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sirtsei Pharmaceuticals. Additionally, with respect to MDD, we expect that PH10 and AV-101 will have to compete with a variety of non-pharmacological alternatives for treatment of MDD, such as psychotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy.

We are still assessing our competition for PH80 for the treatment of hot flashes due to menopause and for migraine headaches, PH15 to improve cognitive impairment and PH284 for the loss of appetite.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state, and local level, and in other countries and supranational regions, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import, and export of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. In addition, healthcare regulatory bodies in the United States and around the world impose a range of requirements related to the payment for pharmaceutical products, including laws intended to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of healthcare dollars. This includes, for example, requirements that manufacturers of pharmaceutical products participating in Medicaid and Medicare comply with mandatory price reporting, discount, rebate requirements, and other cost control measures, as well as anti-kickback laws and laws prohibiting false claims. Some states also have enacted fraud, waste, and abuse laws that parallel (and in some cases apply more broadly than) federal laws, and in some cases price transparency requirements. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Further, healthcare is an active area of governmental scrutiny, and it is reasonable to expect that the requirements may become more stringent within the foreseeable future.

FDA Regulation

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and its implementing regulations. The process required by the FDA before product candidates may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:

Preclinical Studies and IND Submission

The testing and approval process of product candidates requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of drug substance chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, and drug product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Such studies must generally be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s GLP regulations. Prior to commencing the first clinical trial with a product candidate, an IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests and preclinical literature, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, and proposed clinical study protocols, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND.

An IND becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30‑day time period, notifies the applicant of safety and/or product quality concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during trials due to safety concerns or noncompliance. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirements that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial, as well as review and approval of the study by an IRB. Investigators must also provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, and a statistical analysis plan. A protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. In addition, an IRB at each study site participating in the clinical trial or a central IRB must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial, informed consent forms, and communications to study subjects before a study commences at that site. An IRB considers, among other things, whether the risks to individuals participating in the trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits and whether the planned human subject protections are adequate. The IRB must continue to oversee the clinical trial while it is being conducted.

Once an IND is in effect, each new clinical protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted for FDA review, and to the IRB for approval. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must also be submitted at least annually to the FDA and the IRB and more frequently if serious adverse events or other significant safety information is found.

Information about certain clinical trials, including a description of the study and study results, must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on their clinicaltrials.gov website.

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group regularly reviews accumulated data and advises the study sponsor regarding the continuing safety of trial subjects, enrollment of potential trial subjects, and the continuing validity and scientific merit of the clinical trial. The data safety monitoring board receives special access to unblinded data during the clinical trial and may advise the sponsor to halt the clinical trial if it determines there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or on other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials (and their active pharmaceutical ingredients) is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the U.S. are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDCA.

In general, for purposes of NDA approval, human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined.

The FDA may also require, or companies may conduct, additional clinical trials for the same indication after a product is approved. These so-called Phase 4 studies may be required by the FDA as a condition of approval of the NDA, to be satisfied after approval. The results of Phase 4 studies can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information. In addition to the above traditional kinds of clinical trial data required for the approval of an NDA, the 21st Century Cures Act provides for potential FDA use of different types and sources of data in regulatory decision-making, such as patient experience data, real-world evidence for already approved products, and, for appropriate indications sought through supplemental marketing applications. Implementation of this law and related initiatives is still in progress and we do not know the extent to which we may in the future be able to utilize these types and sources of data. In the case of a 505(b)(2) NDA, which is a marketing application in which sponsors may rely on investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted, some of the above described studies and preclinical studies may not be required or may be abbreviated. Bridging studies may be needed, however, to demonstrate the applicability of the studies that were previously conducted by other sponsors to the drug that is the subject of the marketing application.

Clinical trials at any phase may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Regulatory authorities, an IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the FDA’s or the IRB’s requirements, if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to the subjects, or based on evolving business objectives or competitive climate.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

During the development of a new drug, a sponsor may be able to request a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) the purpose of which is to reach agreement with the FDA on the Phase 3 clinical trial protocol design and analysis that will form the primary basis of an efficacy claim as well as preclinical carcinogenicity trials and stability studies. An SPA may only be modified with the agreement of the FDA and the trial sponsor or if the director of the FDA reviewing division determines that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the drug was identified after the testing began. An SPA is intended to provide assurance that, in the case of clinical trials, if the agreed‑upon clinical trial protocol is followed, the clinical trial endpoints are achieved, and there is a favorable risk‑benefit profile, the data may serve as the primary basis for an efficacy claim in support of an NDA. However, SPA agreements are not a guarantee of an approval of a product candidate or any permissible claims about the product candidate. In particular, SPAs are not binding on the FDA if, among other reasons, previously unrecognized public health concerns arise during the performance of the clinical trial, other new scientific concerns regarding the product candidate’s safety or efficacy arise, or if the sponsoring company fails to comply with the agreed upon clinical trial protocol.

NDA Submission, Review by the FDA, and Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical and preclinical testing, the results of product development, including chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information, non-clinical studies, and clinical trial results, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are all submitted to the FDA, along with the proposed labeling, as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. In most cases, the submission of an NDA is subject to a substantial application user fee, authorized every five years by Congress under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). User fees must be paid at the time of the first submission of the application, even if the application is being submitted on a rolling basis, and if approved, program fees must be paid on an annual basis. Product candidates that are designated as orphan drugs, which are further described below, are not subject to application user fees unless the application includes an indication other than the orphan indication.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) an NDA or supplement to an NDA for a new active ingredient, indication, dosage form, dosage regimen, or route of administration must contain data that are adequate 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 product is safe and effective. A sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (PSP) within 60 days of an End-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical studies or other clinical development programs. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

The FDA may require submission of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks of the drug. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, and elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, or other risk minimization tools. An assessment of the REMS must also be conducted at set intervals. Following product approval, a REMS may also be required by the FDA if new safety information is discovered and the FDA determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug continue to outweigh the risks of the drug.

Once the FDA receives an NDA, it will determine within 60 days whether the application as filed is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review (with this decision often referred to as the NDA being “accepted for filing.”). If the FDA determines that the NDA is not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review, the application must be resubmitted with additional information requested by the FDA. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in‑depth substantive review of the NDA.

The FDA has agreed to a set of performance goals and procedures under PDUFA to review 90% of all applications within ten months from the 60-day filing date for its initial review of a standard NDA for a New Molecular Entity (NME). For non-NME standard applications, the FDA has set the goal of completing its review of 90% of all applications within ten months from the submission receipt date. Such deadlines are referred to as the PDUFA date. The PDUFA date is only a goal, thus, the FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may also be extended if the FDA requests, or the NDA sponsor otherwise provides, substantial additional information or clarification regarding the submission.

The FDA may refer an application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved, and applications for new molecular entities are generally discussed at advisory committee meetings unless the FDA determines that this type of consultation is not needed under the circumstances.

An advisory committee is typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, which review, evaluate, and make a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions and typically follows such recommendations.

The FDA reviews applications to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the manufacturing methods and controls are adequate to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, safety, potency, and purity. Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured, referred to as a Pre‑Approval Inspection. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities, including contract manufacturers and subcontractors, are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA the FDA will inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

The approval process is lengthy and difficult, and involves numerous FDA personnel assigned to review different aspects of the NDA, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional preclinical, CMC, or other data and information. Uncertainties can be presented by reviewers’ ability to exercise judgment and discretion during the review process. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than an applicant interprets the same data.

After evaluating the NDA and all related information, including the advisory committee recommendation, if any, and inspection reports regarding the manufacturing facilities and clinical trial sites, the FDA may issue an approval letter, or, in some cases, a Complete Response Letter (CRL). If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter; withdraw the application; or request an opportunity for a hearing. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval in its current form and describes all of the specific deficiencies that the FDA identified in the NDA. A CRL generally contains a statement of specific conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the NDA and may require additional clinical or preclinical testing in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes; or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. The FDA has the goal of reviewing 90% of application and efficacy supplement resubmissions in either two or six months (from receipt) for a Class 1 or Class 2 resubmission, respectively. For non-efficacy supplements (i.e., labeling and manufacturing supplements), FDA’s goal is to review the supplement within the same length of time (from receipt) as the initial review cycle (excluding an extension caused by a major amendment of the initial supplement).

Even with the submission of additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval. If and when the issues identified in a CRL have been addressed and resolved to the FDA’s satisfaction, the FDA may issue an approval letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug for specific indications and with specific prescribing information which was reviewed in connection with the NDA.

Even if the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a boxed warning, require that post‑approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety and efficacy after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may also not approve label statements that are necessary for successful commercialization and marketing.

After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval. The FDA may also withdraw the product approval if compliance with the pre‑ and post‑marketing regulatory standards are not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. Further, should new safety information arise, additional testing, product labeling, or FDA notification may be required.

Types of Marketing Applications

Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A section 505(b)(2) NDA is an application in which the applicant, in part, relies on investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). An ANDA is an application for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics, and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product. Limited changes must be pre‑approved by the FDA via a suitability petition. ANDAs are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include preclinical and clinical data to establish safety and efficacy. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug through in vitro, in vivo, or other testing. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a subject’s bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug and, under state substitution laws, may be substituted at the pharmacy for the reference listed drug.

505(b)(2) Approval Process

Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, provides an alternate regulatory pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved drug products. Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch‑Waxman Act amendments, and 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 or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. The applicant may rely, in part, upon the FDA’s prior findings of safety and effectiveness for an approved product that acts as the reference listed drug or on published scientific literature, in support of its application. The FDA may also require 505(b)(2) applicants to perform additional studies or measurements to support the changes from the reference listed drug as well as bridging studies to the reference listed drug. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, applicants are required to identify to the FDA patents that contain claims that are directed to the applicant’s product and/or method(s) of use. Upon approval of an NDA, each of the identified patents is then listed in Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also known as the Orange Book.

An applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of a drug listed in the Orange Book or a 505(b)(2) NDA referencing a drug listed in the Orange Book must make patent certifications to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug or method of use that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) the patent has expired; (3) the date on which the patent has expired and approval will not be sought until after the patent expiration; or (4) in the applicant’s opinion and to the best of its knowledge, the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. The last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA approval cannot be made effective until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through a paragraph IV certification or if the applicant is not seeking approval of a patented method of use. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or does not indicate that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application approval will not be made effective until all of the listed patents claimed by the referenced product have expired.

If the competitor has provided a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the competitor must also send notice of the paragraph IV certification to the holder of the NDA for the reference listed drug and the patent owner within 20 days after the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA holder or patent owner may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a paragraph IV certification notice prevents the FDA from making the approval of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application effective until the earlier of 30 months from the date of the lawsuit, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the applicant or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the automatic 30‑month stay.

In practice, where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owners often take action to trigger the automatic 30‑month stay, resulting in patent litigation that may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation.

Regulatory Exclusivity

Regulatory exclusivity provisions under the FDCA can also delay the submission or the approval effective date of certain applications. Regulatory exclusivity can provide the holder of an approved NDA protection from new competition in the marketplace for the innovation represented by its approved drug. Five years of exclusivity are available for NCEs. An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion excluding those appended portions of the molecule that cause the drug to be an ester, salt, including a salt with hydrogen or coordination bonds, or other noncovalent derivatives, such as a complex, chelate, or clathrate, of the molecule, responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the NCE exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA application by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. An ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, however, may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a paragraph IV certification is filed.

Three years of exclusivity are available to the holder of an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation or indication for a drug product that contains an active moiety that has been previously approved, when the application contains reports of new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, conducted by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. Changes in an approved drug product that affect its active ingredient(s), strength, dosage form, route of administration or conditions of use may be granted this exclusivity if a new clinical investigation (NCI) was essential to approval of the application containing those changes. During the NCI exclusivity period, FDA may not approve an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA by another company for the condition of the new drug’s approval. NCE and NCI exclusivities will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Pediatric exclusivity is a regulatory exclusivity in the United States that provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory and statutory exclusivity, including the non‑patent exclusivity periods described above as well as applicable patent terms. This six‑month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the required time frames, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent protection cover the drug are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot make an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application approval effective as a result of regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. Moreover, pediatric exclusivity attaches to all formulations, dosage forms, and indications for products with existing marketing exclusivity or patent life that contain the same active moiety as that which was studied.

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for the development of drugs intended to treat rare diseases or conditions, which generally are diseases or conditions affecting less than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or affecting more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug available in the United States will be recovered from United States sales. If a product receives FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is generally entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug designation also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical study costs, tax advantages, and application user‑fee waivers.

Special FDA Expedited Review and Approval Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, Priority Review and Breakthrough designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of certain drug products that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs or present a significant improvement over existing therapy. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if the product will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy, safety, or public health factors. If Fast Track designation is granted, drug sponsors may be eligible for more frequent development meetings and correspondence with the FDA.

In addition, if an applicant obtains “rolling review,” the FDA may accept and initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application submission is complete, although it is not guaranteed that FDA will commence review before the application submission is complete, and the timing of the review depends on a number of factors including availability of review personnel at the FDA, and competing agency priorities among other things. The applicant must provide, and the FDA must agree to, a schedule for the remaining information after the initial section of the NDA.

In some cases, a Fast Track designated product may be eligible for Accelerated Approval or Priority Review.

The FDA may grant an NDA Priority Review designation for drugs that are intended to treat serious conditions and, if approved, would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. A Priority Review designation means that the goal for the FDA is to review an NDA within six months of receipt, rather than the standard review of ten months under current PDUFA guidelines, of the 60‑day filing date for NMEs and within six months of the submission receipt date for non‑NMEs. Products that are eligible for Fast Track designation may also be considered appropriate to receive a Priority Review.

Moreover, under the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) enacted in 2012, a sponsor may request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, 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 drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for the Fast Track designation features as described above, intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase 1 trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative, cross‑disciplinary review.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Post‑approval Requirements

Any product manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, as well as other federal and state agencies, including, among other things, requirements related to manufacturing, recordkeeping, and reporting, including adverse experience reporting, drug shortage reporting, and other periodic reporting; drug supply chain security surveillance and tracking requirements; product sampling and distribution; advertising; marketing; promotion; certain electronic records and signatures; licensure in certain states for the manufacturing and distribution of drug products; and post-approval obligations imposed as a condition of approval, such as additional clinical trials, REMS, and surveillance to assess safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There are also continuing annual prescription drug program user fee requirements for any approved products. In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and list their drug products, and are subject to periodic announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other requirements, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon the company and third‑party manufacturers.

Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval or notification before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and product specifications and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third‑party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

The FDA also strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity, and potency that are approved by the FDA. Physicians, in their independent professional medical judgment, may prescribe legally available products for unapproved indications that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies, however, are required to promote their drug products 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 liability, including, but not limited to, criminal and civil penalties under the FDCA and False Claims Act, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, mandatory compliance programs under corporate integrity agreements, debarment, and refusal of government contracts. Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA’s enforcement activity regarding off-label promotion in light of First Amendment considerations; however, there are still significant risks in this area in part due to the potential False Claims Act exposure. Further, the FDA has not materially changed its position on off-label promotion following legal setbacks on First Amendment grounds and the Department of Justice has consistently asserted in FCA briefings that “speech that serves as a conduit for violations of the law is not constitutionally protected.”

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) imposes obligations on manufacturers of prescription biopharmaceutical products for commercial distribution, regulating the distribution of the products at the federal level, and sets certain standards for federal or state registration and compliance of entities in the supply chain (manufacturers and repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers). The DSCSA preempts certain previously enacted state pedigree laws and the pedigree requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). Trading partners within the drug supply chain must now ensure certain product tracing requirements are met that they are doing business with other authorized trading partners; and they are required to exchange transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements. Further, the DSCSA limits the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products and imposes requirements to ensure overall accountability and security in the drug supply chain. Product identifier information (an aspect of the product tracing scheme) is also now required. The DSCSA requirements, development of standards, and the system for product tracing have been and will continue to be phased in over a period of years through 2023, and subject companies will need to continue their implementation efforts. Many states still have in place licensure and other requirements for manufacturers and distributors of drug products. The distribution of product samples continues to be regulated under the PDMA, and some states also impose regulations on drug sample distribution.

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 significant regulatory actions. Such actions may include refusal to approve pending applications, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold or termination of clinical trials, warning letters, untitled letters, modification of promotional materials or labeling, provision of corrective information, imposition of post‑market requirements including the need for additional testing, imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS, product recalls, product seizures or detentions, refusal to allow imports or exports, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, FDA debarment, injunctions, fines, consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements, debarment from receiving government contracts and new orders under existing contracts, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, restitution, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment, and may result in adverse publicity, among other adverse consequences.

Fraud and Abuse, and Transparency Laws and Regulations

Following product approval, our business activities, including but not limited to research, sales, promotion, marketing, distribution, medical education, sponsorships, relationships with prescribers and other referral sources, and other activities will be subject to regulation by numerous federal and state regulatory and law enforcement authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including potentially the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services and its various divisions, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD), and certain state and local governments. Our business activities must comply with numerous healthcare laws, including but not limited to, anti‑kickback and false claims laws and regulations as well as data privacy and security laws and regulations, which are described below.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, furnishing, or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, in whole or in part. The term “remuneration” has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. There are certain statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases, or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor, however, does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances to determine whether one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, as amended, modified the intent requirement under the Anti-Kickback Statute to a stricter standard, such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The ACA further amended the federal civil False Claims Act to provide that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim under the False Claims Act. Therefore, either the federal government or private citizens under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions (discussed further below) can bring an action under the False Claims Act for violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, potentially exposing an alleged violator to substantial monetary damages and penalties. Certain Anti-Kickback safe harbor provisions that protect the rebates paid by drug manufacturers to third parties may also be repealed or materially revised.

The government has asserted False Claims Act liability against manufacturers by alleging that improper arrangements with ordering physicians caused them or another provider to file false claims in violation of the False Claims Act or that manufacturers’ support of patient assistance programs improperly induced beneficiaries to choose their products in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are also 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, patient assistance programs, and other business arrangements. Medicare Advantage and Medicaid managed care plan regulations prohibit certain forms of marketing to enrollees that are designed to discriminate against beneficiaries on the basis of their health conditions or history. These regulations may require regulatory review of marketing materials, and coordination with health plan or governmental regulators. Additionally, the federal government has pursued electronic health record (EHR) vendors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for remunerative relationships involving the EHR platform’s recommendation of particular drugs and “prompting” technology to increase prescribing of particular drugs.

The ACA further created new federal requirements for reporting under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the Sunshine Act) by applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. 2018 legislation extended the Sunshine Act to cover payments and transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level practitioners (with reporting requirements going into effect in 2022 for payments and transfers of value made in 2021).

The Federal Civil False Claims Act (FCA) prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The civil FCA has been used to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, or submission of inaccurate information required by government contracts, improper use of Medicare provider or supplier numbers when detailing a provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses not expressly approved by the FDA in a drug’s label, and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to the products supplied or services rendered. Several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have further been sued under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the civil FCA; however, a November 2017 Department of Justice memorandum now prohibits the use of subregulatory guidance documents to impose new or more stringent requirements on entities outside the Executive Branch of the federal government. Because the Department has experienced recent administration changes, it is unclear whether the new Attorney General will continue this policy. Civil FCA actions may be brought by the government or may be brought by private individuals on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions. If the government decides to intervene in a qui tam action and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any fines or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone, subject to governmental review and certain approvals. Qui tam complaints are filed under seal, and the cases may progress for a number of years before a complaint is unsealed and a manufacturer becomes aware of its existence. Since 2004, these FCA lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, as much as $3.0 billion, regarding certain sales practices and promoting off-label drug uses. For example, civil FCA liability may be imposed for Medicare or Medicaid overpayments arising out of claims that were filed by providers but alleged to have been caused by manufacturers’ incentives, impermissible discounts, or overpayments caused by understated rebate amounts. FCA enforcement may also arise from claims filed as the result of manufacturing marketing materials that contained inaccurate statements or provided certain reimbursement guidance.

The government may further prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal FCA. The criminal FCA prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil FCA, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim.

Similarly, the criminal healthcare fraud statutes impose criminal liability for, among other things, knowingly and willfully attempting or executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers, obtaining money or property of a benefit program by false or fraudulent means, or falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or submitting a materially false statement in connection with the delivery of, or payment from healthcare benefits, items, or services. These statutes are not limited to items and services reimbursed by a governmental health care program and have been used to prosecute commercial insurance fraud as well.

The civil monetary penalties statute is another potential statute under which biopharmaceutical companies may be subject to enforcement. Among other things, the civil monetary penalties statue imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented, or caused to be presented, claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows, or should know, is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The exclusion statute requires the exclusion of entities and individuals who have been convicted of federal- program related crimes or health care felony fraud or controlled substance charges. The statute also permits the exclusion of those that have been convicted of any form of fraud, the anti-kickback statute, for obstructing an investigation or audit, misdemeanor controlled substance charges, those whose health care license has been revoked or suspended, and those who have filed claims for excessive charges or unnecessary services. If a company were to be excluded, its products would be ineligible for reimbursement from any federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and no other entity participating in those programs would be permitted to enter into contracts with the company. Further, employment or contracting with an individual or entity that has been excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs could serve as a basis to invalidate claims for items or services submitted by that entity and to exclude that entity from participation in such programs as well. In order to preserve access to beneficial drugs, the government may elect to exclude officers and key employees of manufacturers, rather than excluding the organization. Such enforcement actions would prohibit the Company from engaging those individuals, which could adversely affect operations, and could result in significant reputational harm.

Payment or reimbursement of prescription drugs by Medicaid or Medicare requires manufacturers of the drugs to submit pricing information to CMS. The Medicaid Drug Rebate statute requires manufacturers to calculate and report price points, which are used to determine Medicaid rebate payments shared between the states and the federal government and Medicaid payment rates for certain drugs. For drugs paid under Medicare Part B, manufacturers must also calculate and report their Average Sales Price, which is used to determine the Medicare Part B payment rate for the drug. Drugs that are approved under a Biologic License Application (BLA) or an NDA, including 505(b)(2) drugs, are subject to an additional inflation penalty which can substantially increase rebate payments. In addition, for BLA and NDA drugs, the Veterans Health Care Act (VHCA) requires manufacturers to calculate and report to the VA a different price called the Non‑Federal Average Manufacturing Price, which is used to determine the maximum price that can be charged to certain federal agencies, referred to as the Federal Ceiling Price, or FCP. Like the Medicaid rebate amount, the FCP includes an inflation penalty. A Department of Defense regulation requires manufacturers to provide this discount through prescription rebates on drugs dispensed by retail pharmacies when paid by the TRICARE Program. All of these price reporting requirements create a risk of submitting false information to the government resulting in potential FCA liability.

The VHCA also requires manufacturers of covered drugs participating in the Medicaid program to enter into Federal Supply Schedule contracts with the VA through which their covered drugs must be sold to certain federal agencies at FCP and to report pricing information. This necessitates compliance with applicable federal procurement laws and regulations and subjects us to contractual remedies as well as administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions. In addition, the VHCA requires manufacturers participating in Medicaid to agree to provide different mandatory discounts to certain Public Health Service grantees and other safety net hospitals and clinics under the 340B Drug Pricing Program and report the ceiling price to the HRSA within Department of Health and Human Services. Manufacturers can be audited by the HRSA and be subjected to civil monetary penalties for knowingly and intentionally overcharging covered entities for drugs.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) also created federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a healthcare benefit program, regardless of whether the payer is public or private, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items, or services relating to healthcare matters. The ACA, as amended, modified the intent requirement under the certain portions of these federal criminal statutes such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it.

Further, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and its respective implementing regulations, extended certain requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information directly to business associates of HIPAA-covered entities. A business associate is defined as a person or organization, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that performs certain functions or activities that involve the use or disclosure of protected health information on behalf of, or provides services to, a covered entity. We are not a covered entity under HIPAA but in certain limited situations, we may be considered a business associate. HITECH also strengthened the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates, and individuals, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, other federal and state laws may govern the privacy and security of health and other information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Even for entities that are not deemed “covered entities” or “business associates” under HIPAA, according to the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers' personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) 15 USC § 45(a). The FTC expects a company's data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Medical data is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. The FTC's guidance for appropriately securing consumers' personal information is similar to what is required by the HIPAA Security Rule. The FTC’s authority under Section 5 is concurrent with HIPAA’s jurisdiction and with any action taken under state law.

In addition, other federal and state laws may govern the privacy and security of health and other information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, California recently enacted legislation – the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was made effective January 1, 2020. The CCPA, among other things, created new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provided new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. The CCPA also created a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach. The California Attorney General may issue clarifying regulations. Although the law includes limited exceptions, including for certain information collected as part of clinical trials as specified in the law, it may regulate or impact our processing of personal information depending on the context, and it remains unclear what language the final Attorney General regulations will contain or how the statute and the regulations will be interpreted.

Many states have also adopted laws similar to each of the above federal laws, which may be broader in scope and apply to items or services reimbursed by any third‑party payer, including commercial insurers, and some have transparency laws that require reporting price increases and related information. Certain state laws also regulate manufacturers’ use of prescriber‑identifiable data. Certain states also require implementation of commercial compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments or the provision of other items of value that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; impose restrictions on marketing practices; or require drug manufacturers to track and report information related to payments, gifts, and other items of value to physicians and other healthcare providers. These laws may affect our future sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that certain business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between pharmaceutical companies and providers and patients, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business, even if investigators ultimately find that no violation has occurred.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws or regulations described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject penalties or other enforcement actions, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, debarment from receiving government contracts or refusal of new orders under existing contracts, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post‑marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti‑fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement Generally

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental payer programs at the federal and state levels, including Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, and other third‑party payers provide coverage for and establish adequate reimbursement levels for our product candidates. Government authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations generally decide which drugs they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels and potential access restrictions. Medicare is a federally funded program managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) through local contractors that administer coverage and reimbursement for certain healthcare items and services furnished to the elderly and disabled. Medicaid is an insurance program for certain categories of patients whose income and assets fall below state‑defined levels and who are otherwise uninsured that is both federally and state funded and managed by each state. The federal government sets general guidelines for Medicaid and each state creates specific regulations that govern its individual program, including supplemental rebate programs that prioritize coverage for drugs on the state Preferred Drug List. Similarly, government laws and regulations establish the parameters for coverage of prescription drugs by TRICARE, the health care program for military personnel, retirees, and related beneficiaries. Many states have also created pharmacy assistance programs for individuals who do not qualify for federal programs. In the United States, private health insurers and other third‑party payers often provide reimbursement for products and services based on the level at which the government provides reimbursement through the Medicare or Medicaid programs for such products and services.

In the U.S. and other potentially significant markets for our product candidates, government authorities and third‑party payers are increasingly attempting to limit or regulate the price of medical products and services, particularly for new and innovative products and therapies, which often has resulted in average selling prices lower than they would otherwise be. For example, in the U.S., federal and state governments reimburse covered prescription drugs at varying rates generally below average wholesale price. Governmental and private payers may also establish certain access restrictions, such as prior approvals or evidence of failure on existing medications or therapies.

These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Third‑party payers are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. Third‑party payers may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA‑approved drug products for a particular indication. Third‑party payers also control costs by requiring prior authorization or imposing other dispensing restrictions before covering certain products and by broadening therapeutic classes to increase competition. Third‑party payers are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost‑effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. Absent clinical differentiators, third‑party payers may treat products as therapeutically equivalent and base formulary decisions on net cost. To lower the prescription cost, manufacturers frequently rebate a portion of the prescription price to the third‑party payers.

Federal programs also impose price controls through mandatory ceiling prices on purchases by federal agencies and federally funded hospitals and clinics and mandatory rebates on retail pharmacy prescriptions paid by Medicaid and TRICARE. These restrictions and limitations influence the purchase of healthcare services and products. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government programs may result in lower reimbursement for our product candidates or exclusion of our product candidates from coverage. In addition, government programs like Medicaid include substantial penalties for increasing commercial prices over the rate of inflation which can affect realization and return on investment.

Private payers often rely on the lead of the governmental payers in rendering coverage and reimbursement determinations. Therefore, achieving favorable CMS coverage and reimbursement is usually a significant gating issue for successful introduction of a new product. In addition, many government programs as a condition of participation mandate fixed discounts or rebates from manufacturers regardless of formulary position or utilization, and then rely on competition in the market to attain further price reductions, which can greatly reduce realization on the sale.

Further, the increased emphasis on managed healthcare in the U.S. and on country and regional pricing and reimbursement controls in the European Union will put additional pressure on product pricing, reimbursement, and utilization, which may adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations. These pressures can arise from rules and practices of managed care groups and health technology assessment bodies, competition within therapeutic classes, availability of generic equivalents, judicial decisions and governmental laws and regulations related to Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare reform, pharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement policies, and pricing in general. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third‑party payers to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Sales of our product candidates will therefore depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our products will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, and other third‑party payers.

As a result of the above, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost‑effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authority approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost‑effective, or the rebate percentages required to secure coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost.

There is often pressure to renegotiate pricing and reimbursement levels, including, in particular, in connection with changes to Medicare. Third-party payers continue to demand discounted fee structures, and the trend toward consolidation among third-party payers tends to increase their bargaining power over price structures. If third-party payers reduce their rates for our products, then our revenue and profitability may decline and our operating margins will be reduced. Because some third-party payers rely on all or portions of Medicare payment systems to determine payment rates, changes to government healthcare programs that reduce payments under these programs may negatively impact payments from third-party payers. Our inability to maintain suitable financial arrangements with third-party payers could have a material adverse impact on our business. Additionally, the reimbursement process is complex and can involve lengthy delays. Third‑party payers may disallow, in whole or in part, providers’ requests for reimbursement based on determinations that certain amounts are not reimbursable under plan coverage, that the drugs provided were not medically necessary, or that additional supporting documentation is necessary. Retroactive adjustments may change amounts realized from third‑party payers. Delays and uncertainties in the reimbursement process may adversely affect market acceptance and utilization of our products, resulting in reduced revenues. The unavailability or inadequacy of third-party coverage and reimbursement could negatively affect the market acceptance of our products and the future revenues we may expect to receive from those products. In addition, we are unable to predict what additional legislation or regulation relating to the healthcare industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted in the future, or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business. Many hospitals implement a controlled and defined process for developing and approving formularies. Any marketing efforts that are determined to have violated such policies could result in the denial or removal of our products from that hospital’s formulary.

Moreover, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third‑party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development. Legislative proposals to reform healthcare or reduce costs under government insurance programs may result in lower reimbursement for our products and product candidates or exclusion of our products and product candidates from coverage. The cost containment measures that healthcare payers and providers are instituting and any healthcare reform could significantly reduce our revenues from the sale of any approved product candidates. We cannot provide any assurances that we will be able to obtain and maintain third‑party coverage or adequate reimbursement for our product candidates in whole or in part.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) rebates and pricing transparency are key areas of legislative and regulatory focus and there may be changes in the regulatory landscape that could have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical supply chain and drug pricing more generally, which could affect our business operations and prospects in unknown and material ways.

Healthcare Reform Measures

The U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals designed to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality, and expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) established a prescription drug benefit program for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Part D plans include both standalone prescription drug benefit plans and prescription drug coverage as a supplement to Medicare Advantage plans. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, which do not utilize formularies to restrict coverage, Part D coverage varies by plan. With some exceptions, 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 any products for which we receive marketing approval. However, Part D plans use competition for coverage to leverage manufacturer rebates. Further, the law requires manufacturers to absorb a significant percentage of the prescription price paid for NDA drugs, including 504(b)(2) drugs, during a beneficiary’s coverage gap. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 permanently increased manufacturer liability for the prescription price in the coverage gap from 50% to 70% beginning in 2019, while simultaneously accelerating closure of the gap. These cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of the legislation, as well as any negotiated price discounts for our future products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan, may decrease the coverage and reimbursement rate that we receive, lower the net price realized on our sales to pharmacies, or both. 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 Medicare Part D may result in a similar reduction in payments from non‑governmental payers.

The ACA established the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute to organize and coordinate federally funded research to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payers, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of any product, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates. If third‑party payers do not consider our product candidates to be cost‑effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product candidates, once approved, as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The ACA made other changes intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health care industry, and impose additional health policy reforms. The law expanded the eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, thereby potentially increasing both the volume of sales and manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability. The law also expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Discount Program, which mandates discounts to certain hospitals, community centers, and other qualifying providers, although, with the exception of children’s hospitals, these newly eligible entities are not eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs and the Health Resources and Services Administration has narrowed its interpretation of which beneficiaries may fill prescriptions through 340B inventories. The law additionally extended manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to patients enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, increased the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products, which is intended to increase the amount of rebates due on those drugs. The revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula can have the further effect of increasing the required 340B discounts. Finally, the ACA imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. Substantial new provisions affecting compliance have also been enacted through the ACA and otherwise, including the reporting of drug sample distribution, which may require us to modify our business practices with healthcare practitioners. Moreover, in the coming years, additional changes could be made to governmental healthcare programs that could significantly impact the success of our product candidates.

The ACA also imposed an affirmative obligation to report and repay any overpayments, including those payments that resulted from violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, false claims act, or civil monetary penalties statute, within sixty (60) days after such overpayment has been identified. Corresponding case law imposes an obligation on entities to exercise reasonable diligence in identifying such overpayments. The failure to timely report and repay is, itself, considered to constitute a violation of the False Claims Act.

The cost of pharmaceuticals continues to generate substantial governmental and third-party payer interest, and pharmaceutical pricing and marketing currently received a great deal of Congressional and administrative attention. There have been numerous initiatives on the federal and state levels in the U.S. for comprehensive reforms affecting the payment for, the availability of, and reimbursement for, healthcare services. In particular, there have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation have also been released and are designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Recent federal budget proposals have included measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Current and future U.S. legislative healthcare reforms may result in price controls and other restrictions for any approved products, if covered, and could seriously harm our business. Drug pricing reform policies may be pursued in the future and may be more aggressive, regardless of which party controls the White House. Given that drug pricing controls is a key legislative and administration priority, it is likely that additional pricing controls will be enacted and could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Some states, such as California, have enacted transparency laws that require manufacturers to report drug price increases and related information. The boom in state laws targeting drug pricing is unprecedented and the requirements are not uniform from state to state, creating additional compliance and commercialization challenges for manufacturers. We further expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations, judicial interpretation of health care reform efforts, and additional legislative and regulatory proposals resulting in ongoing, relatively rapid changes to applicable laws and regulations. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by current and future healthcare reforms.

Government and private payers also increasingly require pre‑approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies or condition coverage on unsuccessful alternative treatment before they will reimburse healthcare providers that use such therapies. For some specialty drugs, payers are conditioning payment on successful treatment measured by objective metrics. While we cannot predict whether any proposed cost‑containment measures will be adopted or otherwise implemented in the future, the announcement or adoption of these proposals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain adequate prices for our product candidates and operate profitably.

As in the past, there may be other efforts to repeal or materially modify various aspects of ACA. The results and effects of such efforts, including judicial and Congressional challenges, could affect our business operations and prospects in unknown ways. Also, it is unclear how ACA and other laws ultimately will be fully implemented or modified. For example, in the case of Texas v. Azar, a federal district court in Texas struck down the ACA in its entirety, finding that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional. The December 15, 2019, opinion concluded that since the individual mandate is “essential” to the ACA, it could not be severed from the rest of the ACA and therefore, the entire ACA was unconstitutional. Despite its decision, however, the court did not issue an injunction and therefore, immediate compliance was not required. Following appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the ruling of the federal district court, on June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Fifth Circuit, which vacated the judgment and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case.

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in California v. Texas (formerly Texas v. Azar), it remains unclear how future decisions from the Supreme Court and the various other courts across the country, if any, to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business. It is also unclear how regulations and sub-regulatory policy, which fluctuate continually, may affect interpretation and implementation of the ACA and its practical effects on our business.

In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. healthcare system, some of which could further limit the prices we will be able to charge for our product candidates, or the amounts of reimbursement available for our product candidates. If future legislation were to impose direct governmental price controls or access restrictions, it could have a significant adverse impact on our business. Additionally, with the change in administration it is possible that President Biden may issue Executive Orders with the potential to change a number of prior executive branch actions on drug pricing. We continue to monitor the potential impact of proposals to lower prescription drug costs at the federal and state level. Managed care organizations, as well as Medicaid and other government agencies, continue to seek price discounts. Some states have implemented, and other states are considering, measures to reduce costs of the Medicaid program, and some states are considering implementing measures that would apply to broader segments of their populations that are not Medicaid-eligible. Due to the volatility in the current economic and market dynamics, we are unable to predict the impact of any unforeseen or unknown legislative, regulatory, payer or policy actions, which may include cost containment and healthcare reform measures. Such policy actions could have a material adverse impact on our profitability.

These and other healthcare reform initiatives may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial operations. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party, or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA has been applied to the marketing of drugs and the conduct of clinical trials outside the U.S. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations. Activities that violate the FCPA, even if they occur wholly outside the United States, can result in criminal and civil fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, oversight, and debarment from government contracts.

Foreign Regulation

To the extent we choose to develop or sell any products outside of the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of our products. For example, in the European Union (EU) we must obtain authorization of a clinical trial application in each member state in which we intend to conduct a clinical trial. Whether or not we obtain U.S. FDA approval for a product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence 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 U.S. FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing, and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. 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. As in the U.S., post‑approval regulatory requirements, such as those regarding product manufacture, marketing, or distribution, would apply to any product that is approved outside the U.S.

Subsidiaries and Inter-Corporate Relationships

As of March 31, 2023, we had two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Vistastem Inc., a California corporation. The operations of these subsidiaries are managed by our senior management team based in South San Francisco, California.

Corporate History

Vistastem, Inc., a California corporation (formerly VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc.) was incorporated on May 26, 1998, and is our wholly-owned subsidiary. Excaliber Enterprises, Ltd. (Excaliber), a publicly-held company (formerly OTCBB: EXCA) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on October 6, 2005. Pursuant to a strategic merger transaction on May 11, 2011, Excaliber acquired all outstanding shares of Vistastem in exchange for 341,823 shares of our common stock and assumed all of Vistastem’s pre-Merger obligations (the Merger). Shortly after the Merger, Excaliber’s name was changed to “Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc.” (a Nevada corporation).

Vistastem, as the accounting acquirer in the Merger, recorded the Merger as the issuance of common stock for the net monetary assets of Excaliber, accompanied by a recapitalization.  The accounting treatment for the Merger was identical to that resulting from a reverse acquisition, except that we recorded no goodwill or other intangible assets. A total of 78,450 shares of our common stock, representing the shares held by stockholders of Excaliber immediately prior to the Merger are reflected as outstanding for all periods presented in the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company included in Item 8 of this Annual Report. Additionally, the Consolidated Balance Sheets reflect the $0.001 par value of Excaliber’s common stock.

On December 20, 2022, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) along with VTGN Merger Sub, Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub), Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pherin), and Kevin McCarthy in his capacity of Stockholder Representative, in order to acquire Pherin (the Pherin Acquisition).  On February 2, 2023 (the Closing Date), we completed the Pherin Acquisition and Pherin is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Immediately prior to the consummation of the Pherin Acquisition, each of Pherin’s directors and officers resigned, and no employees or other affiliates of Pherin on the Closing Date are serving or will serve in their previous roles or in any other capacity with Pherin or with the Company. Following the completion of the Pherin Acquisition, we now have full ownership of intellectual property rights to all five of our pherine drug candidates.

The Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report represent the activity of Vistastem from May 26, 1998, the consolidated activity of Vistastem and Excaliber (now Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation), from May 11, 2011 (the date of the Merger) through March 31, 2023, and the activity of Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from February 2, 2023 (the date of the Pherin Acquisition) through March 31, 2023. For the relevant periods, the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report also include the accounts of Vistastem’s two wholly owned inactive subsidiaries, Artemis Neuroscience, Inc., a Maryland corporation which was dissolved in April 2022, and VistaStem Canada, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Ontario, Canada which was dissolved in June 2022.

Research and Development

Conducting research and development is central to our business model. We have invested and expect to continue to invest significant time and capital in our research and development operations. Our research and development expenses were approximately $44.4 million and $35.4 million for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. We expect that our research and development expenses will remain a significant portion of our total operating costs for the foreseeable future as we seek to complete the development of fasedienol, itruvone, and AV-101 and our other recently acquired pherine product candidates.

Environmental, Social, Governance, and Human Capital

We believe corporate responsibility is fundamental to our mission and we are committed to holding ourselves to high ethical standards. Beyond our quest to develop innovative therapeutic solutions that combat CNS disorders affecting so many lives and to improve healthcare outcomes, we strive to have a positive impact on our employees, our local communities, our patients, our shareholders, the health care ecosystem and society as a whole.

Governance and Leadership

As a late-clinical stage company that is passionate about transforming mental health care, we believe creating an environment that allows our team to collectively thrive and achieve its full potential begins with our Board of Directors, which consists of directors with diverse and dynamic backgrounds in pharmaceutical development, commercialization, and corporate governance. Applying the Nasdaq Stock Market’s continued listing standards for director independence, five of our seven directors are currently independent. At the management level, we have built a team of highly experienced professionals that we believe provide us with a diverse and inclusive culture, while also providing the know-how necessary to allow us to achieve our short- and long-term goals. Among these goals is to develop a formal environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategic roadmap and framework that will guide our operations, so as to ensure that we are operating in a manner that is consistent with our mission of transforming mental health care – One Mind at a Time.

Core Values and Ethics

We are committed to driving improvement and innovation in the care of patients suffering from CNS disorders. In this pursuit, our core values of integrity, compassion, teamwork, and excellence while on our journey to change the way we approach mental healthcare guide our internal processes and define our mission to radically improve mental health and well-being worldwide. In addition, all of our directors, officers and employees are responsible for upholding these values as set forth in our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which forms the foundation of our policies and practices. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on our website at www.vistagen.com.

Environmental Commitment

We are committed to protecting the environment and attempt to mitigate any negative impact of our operations. We strive to address the environmental impacts of the building in which we operate and minimize waste by reducing our use of paper by operating primarily in a digital environment. We have safety protocols in place for handling biohazardous waste in our labs, and we use third-party vendors for biohazardous waste and chemical disposal.

Human Capital and Employees

We believe that our people are one of our greatest assets. We make diversity and inclusion priorities because they are key to unlocking the potential of our people. With colleagues who can contribute unique viewpoints and diverse perspectives to all aspects of the business, we believe that our culture can be more collaborative, more accepting of difference and more prepared for overall success on our journey to reimage medicine.

As of June 28, 2023, we employed 33 full-time employees and one part-time employee. Twenty-one full-time employees work in research and development and laboratory support services and twelve full-time employees work in management, business development, legal, human resources, general and administrative roles. Staffing for other functional areas is achieved through our diverse network of strategic relationships with multiple CROs, CDMOs, and other third-party service providers and consultants. These service providers and consultants provide us with support services on a flexible, real-time, as-needed basis, including services related to, among others, payroll, information technology, legal, investor and public relations, manufacturing, product development, regulatory affairs and FDA program management to complement our internal resources in these areas.

We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees is represented by a labor organization or under any collective bargaining agreement. We consider our employee relations to be good.

Facilities

We lease our office and laboratory space, which consists of approximately 10,900 square feet located in South San Francisco, California, under a lease expiring on July 31, 2027 which also provides a five-year option to renew.  

Legal Proceedings

None.

Available Information

We file reports and other information with the SEC, as required by the Exchange Act. We make available free of charge through our website (http://www.vistagen.com) our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. In addition, we regularly use our website to post information regarding our business, product development programs and governance, and we encourage investors to use our website, particularly the information in the section entitled “Investors,” as a source of information about us. The foregoing references to our website are not intended to, nor shall they be deemed to, incorporate information on our website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K by reference.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

Risk Factor Summary

Our business is subject to substantial risk and an investment in our securities involves various risks. Some of the material risks include those set forth below. You should consider carefully these risks, and those discussed under “Risk Factors” below, before investing in our securities. These risks include, among others:

If we are unable to effectively manage the impact of these and other risks, our ability to operate and execute our business plan would be substantially impaired. In turn, the value of our securities would be materially reduced.

Risk Factors

You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Report before investing in our securities. The risks described below are not the only risks facing our Company.  Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

We are a development-stage biopharmaceutical company with no recurring revenues from product sales or approved products, and limited experience developing new therapeutic product candidates, including conducting clinical trials and other areas required for the successful development of therapeutic products, which makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a development-stage biopharmaceutical company. We currently have no approved products and no revenue from product sales, and we have not yet fully demonstrated an ability to overcome many of the fundamental risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by development stage companies in new and rapidly evolving fields of technology, particularly biotechnology. To execute our business plan successfully, we will need to accomplish or continue to accomplish the following fundamental objectives, either on our own or with collaborators:

We require additional financing to execute our long-term business plan.

From our inception through 2019, a substantial portion of our resources were dedicated to research and development of AV-101 and Vistastem’s stem cell technology platform. Since 2019, we have expended a considerable portion of our resources for research, clinical development, manufacturing and regulatory expense related to fasedienol and itruvone, including costs related to the PALISADE Phase 3 Program and our Phase 1 study of itruvone in MDD. We expect to continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future developing fasedienol, itruvone, AV-101 and our other product candidates, PH15, PH80 and PH284, on our own and in collaborations. These expenditures will include costs associated with general and administrative costs, facilities costs, research and development, acquiring new technologies, manufacturing product candidates, conducting nonclinical experiments and clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approvals should the FDA approve any of such product candidates for sale.

Although we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $16.6 million at March 31, 2023, we have not yet developed products that generate recurring revenue and, assuming successful completion of our planned clinical and nonclinical programs, we will need to invest substantial additional capital resources to commercialize any of them.

During the next twelve months, subject to availability of adequate working capital, we plan to (i) continue to advance our FEARLESS Phase 3 Program, on our own or with a collaborator, to develop and commercialize fasedienol as a new acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD, (ii) complete preparations, on our own or with a collaborator, for and initiate further Phase 2B clinical development of itruvone as a potential stand-alone treatment for MDD, (iii) complete IND-enabling activities, either on our own with a collaborator, for Phase 2B development of PH80, PH15 and PH284 and Phase 2A development of AV-101 for one or more neurological disorders involving the NMDAR, and (iv) conduct various nonclinical studies involving each of our product candidates.

Although we received the $5 million upfront payment under the AffaMed Agreement in August 2020 and expect to recognize that amount as revenue in future periods, we have no other source of revenue or recurring cash flows from product sales to sustain our present activities, and we do not expect to generate sustainable positive operating cash flows until, and unless, we (i) out-license or sell a product candidate to a third-party that is subsequently successfully developed and commercialized, (ii) enter into additional transactions involving our stem cell technology, or (iii) obtain approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities and successfully commercialize fasedienol, or one of our other product candidates, on our own or through collaborations.

As the outcome of our ongoing research and development activities, including the outcome of future anticipated nonclinical studies and clinical trials is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of any of our product candidates, on our own or in collaboration with others. As in prior periods, we will continue to incur substantial costs associated with other clinical and nonclinical development programs for our product candidates. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. As a result of these and other factors, we will need to seek additional capital to meet our future operating plans and requirements, including capital necessary to develop, obtain regulatory approval for fasedienol and our other product candidates, and may seek additional capital in the event there exists favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans and requirements

We have completed in the past a range of potential financing transactions, including public or private equity or debt financings, government or other third-party funding, marketing and distribution arrangements and other collaborations, strategic alliances and licensing arrangements or a combination of these approaches, and we intend to pursue and complete additional financing arrangements in the future. 

Our future capital requirements may depend on many factors, including:

Any additional fundraising efforts will divert certain members of our management team from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop our product candidates. We cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts, in a timely manner, or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. The terms of any future financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity securities and the conversion, exchange or exercise of certain of our outstanding securities will dilute all of our stockholders. The incurrence of debt could result in increased fixed payment obligations, and we could be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We may also seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners in certain territories, including the U.S., or at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or aligned with our business plan, and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

When necessary, if we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis and on acceptable terms, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or product development programs or be unable to continue or expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our future success is highly dependent upon our ability to successfully develop, on our own or with collaborators, any of our current CNS product candidates or acquire or license additional CNS product candidates, and we cannot provide any assurance that we will successfully develop and obtain regulatory approval of any of our current CNS product candidates or future product candidates, or that, if approved, any of our CNS product candidates will be successfully commercialized.

Business development and research and development programs designed to identify, acquire or license additional product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not any additional CNS product candidate is acquired or licensed. If beneficial, we may seek to collaborate with others to develop and commercialize any of our current or future CNS product candidates, if and when they are acquired and developed.  If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services for our products, the resulting revenues or the profitability from these revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we had sold, marketed and distributed our products ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our CNS product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us.  We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of these third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell, market and distribute our products effectively.  If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Risks Related to Product Development, Regulatory Approval

Failures of our current and/or future clinical studies of our product candidates could result in increased costs to us and could delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and continue our business.

Our PALISADE-1 Phase 3 clinical study of fasedienol for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD did not achieve its primary endpoint, as measured by change from baseline using the SUDS as compared to placebo. Successful completion of our nonclinical and clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting an NDA and, consequently, the ultimate approval required before commercial marketing of any product candidate we may develop. Failure of any of our current and/or future clinical and nonclinical trials to achieve the planned endpoints, such as our PALISADE-1 Phase 3 clinical trial of fasedienol, could result in increased costs to us and could delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and continue our business.

We depend heavily on the success of one or more of our current CNS drug candidates and we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates.

We currently have no drug products for sale and may never be able to develop marketable drug products. Our business currently depends heavily on the successful development, manufacturing and regulatory approval of one or more of our current CNS drug candidates, as well as our ability to acquire, license or produce and develop additional product candidates. Each of our current investigational CNS drug candidates will require substantial additional nonclinical and clinical development, manufacturing and regulatory approval before any of them may be commercialized, and there can be no assurance that any of them will ever achieve regulatory approval. The nonclinical and clinical development 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 numerous government authorities in the U.S. and in other countries where we or our collaborators intend to test and, if approved, market any product candidate. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate, we must demonstrate through numerous nonclinical and clinical studies that the product candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication. Research and development of product candidates in the pharmaceutical industry is a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage of any of nonclinical or clinical studies. This process takes many years and may also include post-marketing studies, surveillance obligations and drug safety programs, which would require the expenditure of substantial resources beyond the proceeds we have raised to date. Of the large number of drug candidates in development in the U.S., only a small percentage will successfully complete the required FDA regulatory approval process and will be commercialized. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that any of our current drug candidates or any future product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized in the U.S. or any market outside the U.S.

We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the U.S. until we receive approval of a New Drug Application (NDA) from the FDA, or in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from such countries. Obtaining FDA approval of a NDA is a complex, lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. The FDA may refuse to permit the filing of our NDA, delay, limit or deny approval of a NDA for many reasons, including, among others:

Any of these factors, many of which are beyond our control, could jeopardize our ability to obtain regulatory approval for any current or future drug product candidate we may develop. Any such setback in our pursuit of regulatory approval for any product candidate would have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

In addition, certain of our product candidates, including fasedienol and itruvone, will be subject to regulation as combination products, which means that they are composed of both a drug product and device product. Although we do not contemplate doing so, if marketed individually, each component would be subject to different regulatory pathways and reviewed by different centers within the FDA. Our product candidates that are considered to be drug-device combination products will require review and coordination by FDA’s drug and device centers prior to approval, which may delay approval. In the U.S., a combination product with a drug primary mode of action generally would be reviewed and approved pursuant to the drug approval processes under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. In reviewing the NDA application for such a product, however, FDA reviewers in the drug center could consult with their counterparts in the device center to ensure that the device component of the combination product met applicable requirements regarding safety, effectiveness, durability and performance. Under FDA regulations, combination products are subject to cGMP requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the Quality System (QS) regulations applicable to medical devices. Problems associated with the device component of the combination product candidate may delay or prevent approval.

The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted and may continue to adversely impact our business.

Beginning in late-2019, a new strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) spread across the world and caused considerable uncertainty about the potential effects of the virus and its variants, and the extent of and effectiveness of responses taken on international, national and local levels. Measures taken to limit the impact of the pandemic, including shelter-in-place orders, social distancing measures, travel bans and restrictions, and business and government shutdowns, resulted in significant negative economic impacts on a global basis. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted our business and may continue to do so. Additionally, future outbreaks may have several adverse effects on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

COVID-19 also created significant disruption and volatility in national, regional and local economies and markets. Uncertainties related to, and perceived or experienced negative effects from COVID-19, may cause significant volatility or decline in the trading price of our securities, capital markets conditions and general economic conditions. Our future results of operations and liquidity could be adversely impacted by supply chain disruptions and operational challenges faced by our CROs, CMOs, clinical sites involved in our clinical studies and other contractors. The COVID-19 pandemic, or another highly transmissible and pathogenic infectious disease, could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in a further economic downturn or a global recession. Such events may limit or restrict our ability to access capital on favorable terms, or at all, lead to consolidation that negatively impacts our business, weaken demand, increase competition, cause us to reduce our capital spend further, or otherwise disrupt our business or make it more difficult to implement our strategic plans.

We have been granted Fast Track designation from the FDA for development of fasedienol for the treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and AV-101 for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). However, these designations may not actually lead to faster development or regulatory review or approval processes for fasedienol or AV-101. Further, there is no guarantee the FDA will grant Fast Track designation for fasedienol or AV-101 as a treatment option for other CNS indications or for any of our other product candidates in the future.

The Fast Track designation is a program offered by the FDA, pursuant to certain mandates under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, designed to facilitate drug development and to expedite the review of new drugs that are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. Compounds selected must demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The FDA’s Fast Track designation allows for close and frequent interaction with the FDA. A designated Fast Track drug may also be considered for priority review with a shortened review time, rolling submission, and accelerated approval if applicable. The designation does not, however, guarantee FDA approval or expedited approval of any application for the product candidate.

In December 2017, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for development of AV-101 for the adjunctive (add-on) treatment of MDD in patients with an inadequate response to current antidepressants. In September 2018, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for development of AV-101 for the treatment of NP. In December 2019, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for development of fasedienol for the treatment of SAD. However, these FDA Fast Track designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process for fasedienol or AV-101 and the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation of fasedienol or AV-101 if it believes that the respective designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development programs.

In addition, we may apply for Fast Track designation for fasedienol, AV-101 and any of our other product candidates as a treatment option for other CNS indications. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant a Fast Track designation, and even if we believe our product candidates may be eligible for this designation, we cannot be sure that the FDA will grant it.

Results of earlier clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.

The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our current and/or our other future product candidates, if any, including positive results, may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Each of our current or any other future product candidates in later stages of clinical development may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials, as is the case for results from our PALISADE-1 clinical trial. Many companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in later-stage clinical trials due to adverse safety profiles or lack of efficacy, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Similarly, our future clinical trial results may not be successful for these or other reasons.

Moreover, nonclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in nonclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA approval or approval from a similar regulatory authority in another country. With respect to our current product candidates, if our future nonclinical or clinical studies fail to produce positive results, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for these candidates and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects, could be materially adversely affected.

Any changes in planned timing or nature of clinical trials compared to completed clinical trials could impede our ability to meet our clinical development objectives for our product candidates.

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

For example, the timing of planned clinical trials may be affected by delays caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including potential delays in recruitment and enrollment in our planned clinical and nonclinical studies or supply chain disruptions experienced by certain of our CMOs and/or CROs. In addition, clinical development of our products may be further affected if we or any of our collaborators seek to optimize and scale-up production of a product candidate. In such case, we will need to demonstrate comparability between the newly manufactured drug substance and/or drug product relative to the previously manufactured drug substance and/or drug product. Demonstrating comparability may cause us to incur additional costs or delay initiation or completion of our clinical trials, including the need to initiate a dose escalation study and, if unsuccessful, could require us to complete additional nonclinical or clinical studies of our product candidates. In addition, health and safety precautions at clinical sites related to the COVID-19 pandemic could cause us to incur additional costs or delay initiation or completion of planned clinical and/or nonclinical trials.

If serious adverse events or other undesirable side effects or safety concerns attributable to our product candidates occur, the clinical development of our product candidates may be delayed or adversely affected.

Undesirable side effects or safety concerns caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt our clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval. Although no treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in any clinical trials of any of our product candidates completed to date, if treatment-related SAEs or other undesirable side effects or safety concerns, or unexpected characteristics attributable to any of our product candidates are reported in any future clinical trials involving our drug candidates, they may adversely affect or delay our clinical development and commercialization of the effected product candidate, and the occurrence of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial prospects. Results of our future clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of adverse side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or other regulatory agency could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects or safety concerns caused by these product candidates, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us or any collaborators from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expense, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenue from the sale of our product candidates.

Failures or delays in the commencement or completion of our planned nonclinical and clinical studies of our product candidates could result in increased costs to us and could delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and continue our business.

We will need to successfully complete at least two Phase 3 clinical trials and certain other clinical and nonclinical studies prior to our potential submission of an NDA for regulatory approval of fasedienol as an as needed, over time, treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD, or for any other anxiety disorder such as AjDA. For itruvone, at present, we believe we will need to complete at least one additional Phase 2B clinical study, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials, as well as standard nonclinical and long-term clinical safety studies, as well as other smaller clinical studies prior to the potential submission of a NDA for regulatory approval of itruvone as a stand-alone rapid-onset treatment for MDD, or any other depression disorder. For AV-101, we believe we will need to complete our ongoing exploratory Phase 1B clinical study, two Phase 2 clinical studies, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials, additional toxicology and other standard nonclinical and long-term clinical safety studies, as well as certain standard smaller clinical studies prior to the potential submission of an NDA for regulatory approval in any CNS indication. For PH15, PH80 and PH284, we are in the process of determining the work required to sucessfuly complete the clinical and nonclinical development of each of these product candidates. Successful completion of our nonclinical and clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting an NDA and, consequently, the ultimate approval required before commercial marketing of any product candidate we may develop. We do not know whether any of our future-planned nonclinical and clinical trials of any of our product candidates will be completed on schedule, if at all, as the commencement and completion of nonclinical and clinical trials can be delayed or prevented for a number of reasons, including, among others:

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

Changes in regulatory requirements, regulatory guidance or unanticipated events during our nonclinical studies and clinical trials of our CNS product candidates may occur, which may result in changes to nonclinical studies and clinical trial protocols or additional nonclinical studies and clinical trial requirements, which could result in increased costs to us and could delay our development timeline.

Changes in regulatory requirements, guidance or unanticipated events during our nonclinical studies and clinical trials of any of our CNS product candidates may force us to amend nonclinical studies and clinical trial protocols or the regulatory authority may impose additional nonclinical studies and clinical trial requirements. Amendments or changes to our clinical trial protocols would require resubmission to the regulatory authority and IRBs for review and approval, which may adversely impact the cost, timing or successful completion of clinical trials. Similarly, amendments to our nonclinical studies may adversely impact the cost, timing, or successful completion of those nonclinical studies. If we experience delays completing, or if we terminate, any of our nonclinical studies or clinical trials, or if we are required to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, the commercial prospects for our CNS product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed.

We rely, and expect that we will continue to rely, on third parties to conduct our nonclinical and clinical trials of our current CNS product candidates and will continue to do so for any other future CNS product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties and/or meet expected deadlines, completion of our nonclinical or clinical trials and development of our current and/or future CNS product candidates may be delayed and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our current or future CNS product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

By strategic design, we do not have the extensive internal staff resources to independently conduct nonclinical and clinical trials of our product candidates completely on our own. We rely on our network of strategic relationships with various academic research centers, medical institutions, nonclinical and clinical investigators, contract laboratories, CROs and other third parties to assist us to conduct and complete nonclinical and clinical trials of our product candidates. We enter into agreements with third-party CROs to provide monitors for and to manage data for our clinical trials, as well as provide other services necessary to prepare for, conduct and complete clinical trials. We rely heavily on these and other third parties for efficient execution of nonclinical and clinical trials for our product candidates and we control only certain aspects of their activities. As a result, we have less direct control over the conduct, timing and completion of these nonclinical and clinical trials and the management of data developed through nonclinical and clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own internal staff resources. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties and inefficiencies in coordinating activities. CROs and other outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to conduct our nonclinical and clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted and completed in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific requirements and standards, and our reliance on CROs, or independent investigators does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs, and any investigator in an investigator-sponsored study are required to comply with regulations and guidelines, including current Good Clinical Practice regulations (cGCPs) for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. These regulations are enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the European Economic Area and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any products in clinical development. The FDA enforces cGCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we, any of our CROs or any of our third-party collaborators fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in clinical trials involving our product candidates may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, the FDA will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with cGCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or the failure of our CROs or other third-party collaborators to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action up to and including civil and criminal penalties.

Although we design our clinical trials for our product candidates, our clinical development strategy involves having CROs and other third-party investigators and medical institutions conduct clinical trials of our product candidates. As a result, many important aspects of our drug development programs are outside of our direct control. In addition, although CROs, or independent investigators or medical institutions, as the case may be, may not perform all of their obligations under arrangements with us or in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, under certain circumstances, we may be responsible and subject to enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution for any violations of FDA laws and regulations during the conduct of clinical trials of our product candidates. If such third parties do not perform clinical trials of our product candidates in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the development and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed or our development program materially and irreversibly harmed. In certain cases, including investigator-sponsored clinical studies, we cannot control the amount and timing of resources these third parties devote to clinical trials involving our product candidates. If we are unable to rely on nonclinical and clinical data collected by our third-party collaborators, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of, or increase the size of our clinical trials and this could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

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

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture, formulate, analyze, hold and distribute supplies of our CNS product candidates for all nonclinical and clinical studies, and we intend to continue to rely on third parties to produce all nonclinical, clinical and commercial supplies of our CNS product candidates in the future.

By strategic design, we do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire or develop, extensive internal infrastructure or technical capabilities to manufacture, formulate, analyze, hold or distribute supplies of our product candidates, for use in nonclinical and clinical studies or commercial scale.  As a result, with respect to all of our product candidates, we rely, and will continue to rely, completely on CMOs to manufacture API and formulate, hold and distribute final drug product. The facilities used by our CMOs to manufacture API and formulate final drug product for any of pir product candidates are subject to a pre-approval inspection by the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory agencies to assess compliance with applicable regulatory guidelines and requirements, including cGMPs, and may be required to undergo similar inspections by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory agencies, after we submit INDs, NDAs or relevant foreign regulatory submission equivalent to the applicable regulatory agency.

We do not directly control the manufacturing process, or the supply or quality of materials used in the manufacturing, analysis and formulation of our product candidates, and, with respect to all of our product candidates, we are completely dependent on our CMOs to comply with all applicable cGMPs for the manufacturing of both API and finished drug product. If our CMOs cannot secure adequate supplies of suitable raw materials due to supply chain disruptions, or successfully manufacture our product candidates, including API and finished drug product, that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory agencies, production of sufficient supplies of our product candidates, including API and finished drug product, may be delayed and our CMOs may not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities, or the FDA may take other actions, including the imposition of a clinical hold. In addition, we have no direct control over our CMOs’ ability to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. All of our CMOs are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such other companies, which exposes our CMOs to regulatory risks for the production of such materials and products. As a result, failure to satisfy the regulatory requirements for the production of those materials and products may affect the regulatory clearance of our CMO’s facilities generally or affect the timing of manufacture of any of our product candidates for required or planned nonclinical and/or clinical studies. If the FDA or an applicable foreign regulatory agency determines now or in the future that our CMOs’ facilities are noncompliant, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would adversely impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates. Our reliance on CMOs also exposes us to the possibility that they, or third parties with access to their facilities, will have access to and may appropriate our trade secrets or other proprietary information.

We do not yet have long-term supply agreements in place with our CMOs and each batch manufactured of our product candidates is or will be individually contracted under a separate supply agreement. If we engage new CMOs, such contractors must complete an inspection by the FDA and other applicable foreign regulatory agencies. We plan to continue to rely upon CMOs and, potentially, collaboration partners, to manufacture research and development scale, and, if approved, commercial quantities of our product candidates. Although we believe our current scale of API manufacturing for AV-101, and our contemplated scale of API manufacturing for fasedienol, itruvone, PH15, PH80 and PH284, and the current and projected supply of API and finished drug product for each of our product candidates will be adequate to support our planned nonclinical and clinical studies, no assurance can be given that unanticipated supply shortages or CMO-related delays in the manufacture and formulation of API and/or finished drug product for any or all of our product candidates will not occur in the future.

Additionally, fasedienol, itruvone, PH15, PH80 and PH284 will be considered drug-device combination products. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP requirements applicable to drug/device combination products, including applicable provisions of the FDA’s or a comparable foreign regulatory authority’s drug cGMP regulations, device cGMP requirements embodied in the Quality System Regulation (QSR) or similar regulatory requirements outside the U.S. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly affect supplies of our product candidates. The facilities used by our CMOs to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities pursuant to inspections that will or may be conducted after we submit our NDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with cGMPs and QSRs. If our CMOs cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. CMOs may face manufacturing or quality control problems causing drug substance production and shipment delays or a situation where the contractor may not be able to maintain compliance with the applicable cGMP and QSR requirements. Any failure to comply with cGMP or QSR requirements or other FDA, EMA and comparable foreign regulatory requirements could adversely affect our clinical research activities and our ability to develop our product candidates and market our products following approval.

Even if we receive marketing approval for any of our CNS product candidate in the U.S., we may never receive regulatory approval to market the same CNS product candidate outside of the U.S.

In order to market any of our CNS product candidate outside of the U.S., we must establish and comply with the numerous and varying safety, efficacy and other regulatory requirements of other countries. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product candidate testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approvals in other countries might differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The marketing approval processes in other countries may implicate all of the risks detailed above regarding FDA approval in the U.S. as well as other risks. In particular, in many countries outside of the U.S., products must receive pricing and reimbursement approval before the product can be commercialized. Obtaining this approval can result in substantial delays in bringing products to market in such countries. Marketing approval in one country does not ensure marketing approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining marketing approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in others. Failure to obtain marketing approval in other countries or any delay or other setback in obtaining such approval would impair our ability to market our product candidates in such foreign markets. Any such impairment would reduce the size of our potential market, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and prospects.

If any of our CNS product candidates are ultimately regulated as controlled substances, we, our CMOs, as well as future distributors, prescribers, and dispensers will be required to comply with additional regulatory requirements which could delay the marketing of our product candidates, and increase the cost and burden of manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, and prescribing our product candidates.

Before we can commercialize our product candidates in the U.S. or any market outside the U.S., the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or its foreign counterpart may need to determine whether such product candidates will be considered to be a controlled substance, taking into account the recommendation of the FDA or its foreign counterpart, as the case may be. This may be a lengthy process that could delay our marketing of a product candidate and could potentially diminish any regulatory exclusivity periods for which we may be eligible, which would increase the cost associated with commercializing such products and, in turn, may have an adverse impact on our results of operations. Although we currently do not know whether the DEA or any foreign counterpart will consider any of our current or future product candidate to be controlled substances, we cannot yet give any assurance that such product candidates will not be regulated as controlled substances.

If any of our product candidates are regulated as controlled substances, depending on the DEA controlled substance schedule in which the product candidates are placed or that of its foreign counterpart, we, our CMOs, and any future distributers, prescribers, and dispensers of the scheduled product candidates may be subject to significant regulatory requirements, such as registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, storage, distribution, importation, exportation, inventory, quota and other requirements administered by the DEA or a foreign counterpart of the DEA as the case may be. Moreover, if any of our product candidates are regulated as controlled substances, we and our CMOs would be subject to initial and periodic DEA inspection. If we or our CMOs are not able to obtain or maintain any necessary DEA registrations or comparable foreign registrations, we may not be able to commercialize any product candidates that are deemed to be controlled substances or we may need to find alternative CMOs, which would take time and cause us to incur additional costs, delaying or limit our commercialization efforts.

Because of their restrictive nature, these laws and regulations could limit commercialization of our product candidates, should they be deemed to contain controlled substances. Failure to comply with the applicable controlled substance laws and regulations can also result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement. The DEA or its foreign counterparts may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate administrative proceedings to revoke those registrations. In some circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings or consent decrees. Individual states also independently regulate controlled substances.

If we are unable to establish broad sales and marketing capabilities on our own or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our CNS product candidates, we may not be able to generate any revenue from product sales.

We currently have limited internal resources for the sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products, and we may not be able to create broad internal capabilities in the foreseeable future. Therefore, to market our CNS product candidates, if approved by the FDA or any other regulatory body, we must establish broad internal capabilities related to sales, marketing, managerial and other non-technical capabilities relating to the commercialization of our product candidates or make contractual arrangements with third parties to perform such services, prior to market approval. If we are unable to establish adequate internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, or if we are unable to do so contractually on commercially reasonable terms, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected. Moreover, creating broad sales and marketing capabilities will require substantial capital, which we may not be able to obtain.

Even if we receive marketing approval for our CNS product candidates, our product candidates may not achieve broad market acceptance, which would limit the revenue that we generate from their sales.

The commercial success of our CNS product candidates, if approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, will depend upon the awareness and acceptance of our product candidates among the medical community, including physicians, patients and healthcare payers. Market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including, among others:

If our CNS product candidates are approved but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by patients, physicians and payers, we may not generate sufficient revenue from our product candidates to become or remain profitable. Before granting reimbursement approval, healthcare payers may require us to demonstrate that our product candidates, in addition to treating these target indications, also provide incremental health benefits to patients. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payers about the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

Our CNS product candidates may cause undesirable safety concerns and side effects that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

If our product candidates are determined to cause undesirable side effects and safety concerns, we or regulatory authorities may interrupt, delay or halt nonclinical studies and clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by regulatory authorities.

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of potential patient populations. With a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidate. If our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others identify undesirable safety concerns or side effects caused by such product candidates (or any other similar products) 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 would substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates and significantly impact our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues.

Even if we receive marketing approval for our CNS product candidates, we may still face future development and regulatory difficulties.

Even if we receive marketing approval for our CNS product candidates, regulatory authorities may still impose significant restrictions on our product candidates, indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies. Our product candidates will also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements governing the labeling, packaging, storage and promotion of the product and record keeping and submission of safety and other post-market information. The FDA and other regulatory authorities have significant post-marketing authority, including, for example, the authority to require labeling changes based on new safety information and to require post-marketing studies or clinical trials to evaluate serious safety risks related to the use of a drug. The FDA and other regulatory authorities also have the authority to require, as part of an NDA or post-approval, the submission of a REMS or comparable drug safety program. Any REMS or comparable drug safety program required by the FDA or other regulatory authority may lead to increased costs to assure compliance with new post-approval regulatory requirements and potential requirements or restrictions on the sale of approved products, all of which could lead to lower sales volume and revenue.

Manufacturers of drug and device products and their facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMPs and other regulations. If we or a regulatory agency discover problems with our product candidates, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where our product candidates are manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on our product candidates, the manufacturer or us, including requiring withdrawal of our product candidates from the market or suspension of manufacturing. If we, our product candidates, or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may, among other things:

Competing therapies could emerge adversely affecting our opportunity to generate revenue from the sale of our CNS product candidates.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive. There are many public and private pharmaceutical companies, universities, governmental agencies and other research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of product candidates that may be similar to and compete with our product candidates or address similar markets. It is probable that the number of companies seeking to develop product candidates similar to and competitive with our product candidates will increase in the future.

Currently, management is unaware of any FDA-approved rapid-onset, treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD having the same mechanism of pharmacological action and safety profile as fasedienol. Also, management is currently unaware of any FDA-approved oral treatment for MDD having the same mechanism of pharmacological action and safety profile as our intranasally-administered itruvone or our orally administered AV-101 in combination with probenecid. However, new antidepressant products with other mechanisms of pharmacological action or products approved for other indications, including the FDA-approved anesthetic ketamine hydrochloride administered intravenously, are being or may be used for treatment of MDD, as well as other CNS indications for which itruvone or AV-101 in combination with probenecid may have therapeutic potential. Additionally, other non-pharmaceutical treatment options, such psychotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are used before or instead of standard antidepressant medications to treat patients with MDD.

With respect to fasedienol and current treatment options for SAD in the U.S., our competition may include, but is not limited to, current generic oral antidepressants approved by the FDA for treatment of SAD, as well as certain classes of drugs prescribed on an off-label basis for treatment of SAD, including benzodiazepines such as alprazolam, and beta blockers such as propranolol, and certain investigational oral drug candidates in Phase 2 development. In the field of new generation, oral treatments for adult patients with MDD, we believe our principal competitors may be Axsome, Alkermes, Relmada and Sage. Additional potential competitors may include, but not be limited to, academic and private commercial clinics providing intravenous ketamine therapy on an off-label basis and Janssen’s intranasally-administered esketamine. We are still assessing our competition for PH80 for the treatment of hot flashes due to menopause and for migraine headaches, PH15 to improve cognitive impairment and PH284 for the loss of appetite.

Many of our potential competitors, alone or with their collaborators, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals, and the commercialization of investigational product candidates.  With respect to fasedienol, in addition to potential competition from certain current FDA-approved antidepressants and off-label use of benzodiazepines and beta blockers, we believe additional drug candidates in development for SAD may include, but potentially not be limited to, an oral fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitor in development by Janssen, and two oral drug candidates in Phase 2 development that act on the alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, one in development by Bionomics and the other in development by Vanda. With respect to itruvone and AV-101 in combination with probenecid for treatment of depression disorders, including MDD, and AV-101 in combination with probenecid for treatment of certain neurological disorders, including levodopa-induced dyskinesia associated with therapy for Parkinson’s disease, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy, we believe a range of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have programs to develop new drug candidates and/or medical device technologies for such indications, including, but not limited to, Abbott Laboratories, Acadia, Allergan, Alkermes, Aptynix, AstraZeneca, Axsome, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, IntraCellular, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Neurocrine, Novartis, Ono, Otsuka, Pfizer, Relmada, Roche, Sage, Sumitomo Dainippon, Takeda and Xenon, as well as any affiliates of the foregoing companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

We may seek to establish collaborations, and, if we are not able to establish them on commercially reasonable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans.

Our drug development programs and the potential commercialization of our investigational product candidates will require substantial additional cash to fund expenses. We may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of those product candidates, such as the AffaMed Agreement.

We may derive revenue from research and development fees, license fees, milestone payments and royalties under any collaborative arrangement into which we enter, including the AffaMed Agreement. However, our ability to generate revenue from such arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. In addition, our collaborators have the right to abandon research or development projects and terminate applicable agreements, including funding obligations, prior to or upon the expiration of the agreed upon terms. As a result, we can expect to relinquish some or all of the control over the future success of a product candidate that we license to a third party in the territories included in the licenses.

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

We may also 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 additional 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 its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

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

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional CNS product candidates, or we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

The success of our business depends primarily upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize CNS product candidates with therapeutic and commercial potential. We may fail to pursue additional development opportunities for our current CNS product candidates or identify additional CNS product candidates for development and commercialization for a number of reasons. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying new product candidates or our product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the products unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval.

We strategically focus on a limited number of research and development programs and product candidates and are currently focused primarily on development of fasedienol and itruvone. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other potential CNS-related indications for fasedienol and/or itruvone that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial drugs or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable drugs. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through future collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Research and development programs to identify and advance new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

We are subject to healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, once we begin commercializing our CNS product candidates, we may be subject to additional healthcare statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. Healthcare providers, physicians and others will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of our product candidates, if approved. Our future arrangements with third-party payers will 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 our product candidates, if we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Ensuring that our future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations could be costly. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do 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 were found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines and exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, any of which could substantially disrupt our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be out of compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. If we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, if approved. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. For example, if we receive FDA marketing approval for fasedienol as an needed treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD, physicians may prescribe fasedienol to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the FDA-approved label. However, if we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper off-label promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or imposed permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Even if approved, reimbursement policies could limit our ability to sell our CNS product candidates.

Market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend heavily on reimbursement policies and may be affected by healthcare reform measures. Government authorities and third-party payers, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels for those medications. Cost containment is a primary concern in the United States healthcare industry and elsewhere. Government authorities and these third-party payers have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for our product candidates and, if reimbursement is available, the level of such reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, our product candidates. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

In some foreign countries, particularly in Canada and European countries, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to strict governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take six months or longer after the receipt of regulatory approval and product launch. To obtain favorable reimbursement for the indications sought or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates with other available therapies. If reimbursement for our product candidates is unavailable in any country in which we seek reimbursement, if it is limited in scope or amount, if it is conditioned upon our completion of additional clinical trials, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our operating results could be materially adversely affected.

We may seek FDA Orphan Drug designation for one or more of our CNS product candidates. Even if we have obtained FDA Orphan Drug designation for a product candidate, there may be limits to the regulatory exclusivity afforded by such designation.

We may, in the future, choose to seek FDA Orphan Drug designation for one or more of our current or future CNS product candidates. Even if we obtain Orphan Drug designation from the FDA for a product candidate, there are limitations to the exclusivity afforded by such designation. In the U.S., 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, including when the FDA concludes that the later drug is safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. For purposes of small molecule drugs, the FDA defines “same drug” as a drug that contains the same active moiety and is intended for the same use as the drug in question. To obtain Orphan Drug status for a drug that shares the same active moiety as an already approved drug, it must be demonstrated to the FDA that the drug is safer or more effective than the approved orphan designated drug, or that it makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, 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 U.S. 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 or if another drug with the same active moiety is determined to be safer, more effective, or represents a major contribution to patient care.

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future profitability may depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets for which we may rely on collaboration with third parties such as our collaboration with AffaMed to develop and commercialize fasedienol in key Asian markets. If we commercialize our product candidates in foreign markets, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

Foreign sales of our product candidates could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

If we 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 a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

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. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development, or production efforts. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties, or other sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position

We have incurred significant net losses since inception, and we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability, which would depress the market price of our common stock and could cause you to lose all or a part of your investment.

We have incurred significant net losses in each fiscal year since our inception in 1998, including net losses of approximately $59.2 million and $47.8 million during our fiscal years ended March 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. At March 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $326.9 million and our auditors have included a qualification to their opinion on our Financial Statements at March 31, 2023 as a result of the uncertainty of our ability to continue as a going concern. We do not know whether or when we will become profitable. Substantially all of our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to incur increasing levels of operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. We expect our research and development expense to significantly increase in connection with planned nonclinical and clinical studies, and out-sourced manufacturing, of our product candidates. As a public company, we incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. As a result, we expect to continue to incur significant and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do become profitable, we may not be able to sustain or increase our profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate recurring revenues. Through March 31, 2023, we have generated approximately $22.7 million in revenues, consisting of receipts of non-dilutive cash payments from collaborators, sublicense revenue, including the $5.0 million cash payment received under the AffaMed Agreement during the quarter ended September 30, 2020, the majority of which remains recorded as deferred revenue at March 31, 2023, and research and development grant awards from the NIH. We have not yet commercialized any product or generated any revenues from product sales, and we do not know when, or if, we will generate any revenue from product sales. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we obtain marketing approval of, and begin to experience sales of our current and/or future CNS product candidate, or we enter into one or more development and commercialization agreements with respect our current CNS product candidates or one or more other future CNS product candidates. Our ability to generate recurring revenue depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, our ability to:

Current volatile and/or recessionary economic conditions in the U.S. or abroad could adversely affect our business or our access to capital markets in a material manner.

To date, our principal sources of capital used to fund our development programs and other operations have been the net proceeds we received from sales of equity securities. We have and will continue to use significant capital for the development of our product candidates, and, as such, we expect to seek additional capital from future issuance(s) of our securities, which may consist of issuances of equity and/or debt securities, to fund our planned operations.

Accordingly, our results of operations and the implementation of both our short-term and long-term business plan could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy, including conditions that are outside of our control. A prolonged economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business and may have a material adverse effect on us, including limiting or restricting our ability to access capital on favorable terms, or at all, which would limit our ability to obtain adequate financing to maintain our operations.

We previously identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, and we may identify future material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to remediate these material weaknesses, or if we fail to establish and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements, and we may conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective, which may adversely affect our business.

We previously identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting that, as of March 31, 2022, were remediated. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim condensed consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Although we have determined that the previously identified material weaknesses have been remediated as of March 31, 2022, we cannot assure you that we will not identify other material weaknesses in the future, which could negatively impact our results of operations in future periods.

Ensuring that we have adequate internal control over financial reporting so that we can produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is a costly and time-consuming effort that needs to be re-evaluated frequently. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Implementing any future changes to our internal control over financial reporting may entail substantial costs to hire additional personnel, modify our existing processes and will take significant time to fully implement. These changes may not, however, be effective in establishing and maintaining the adequacy of our internal control, and any failure to maintain that adequacy, or consequent inability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis, could increase our operating costs and harm our business.

Any failure to maintain or implement required effective internal control over financial reporting, or any difficulties we encounter in their implementation, could result in additional material weaknesses, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our financial statements. Furthermore, if we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent material misstatements due to fraud or error, our business and results of operations could be harmed, and investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information. We also could become subject to investigations by The Nasdaq Stock Market, the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

Raising additional capital is likely to cause substantial dilution to our existing stockholders, may restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights, and may require us to seek stockholder approval to authorize additional shares of our common stock.

We may pursue private and public equity offerings, debt financings, and strategic acquisitions, collaborations and licensing arrangements in the future. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, or to the extent, for strategic purposes or in the context of strategic acquisitions, we issue shares of common stock, our current stockholders’ ownership interest in our company will be substantially diluted. In addition, the terms of any such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that materially adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. Debt financing, if available, would increase our fixed payment obligations and would involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaboration, strategic acquisitions, partnerships and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, our intellectual property, future revenue streams or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

We may be required to raise additional financing by issuing new securities with terms or rights superior to those of our existing securityholders, which could adversely affect the market price of shares of our common stock and our business.

We will require substantial additional financing to fund future operations, including research and development activities for our CNS product candidates, assuming our clinical development programs are successful and we receive necessary regulatory approvals from the FDA. We may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms, if at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, the percentage ownership of our current stockholders will be reduced, and the holders of the new equity securities may have rights superior to those of our existing security holders, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and the voting power of shares of our common stock. If we raise additional funds by issuing debt securities, the holders of these debt securities would similarly have some rights senior to those of our existing securityholders, and the terms of these debt securities could impose restrictions on operations and create a significant interest expense for us, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to use net operating losses to offset future taxable income is subject to certain limitations.

As of March 31, 2023, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $191.9 million and $65.2 million, respectively, which have begun to expire in fiscal 2022 and will continue to expire in future periods.  Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), changes in our ownership may limit the amount of our net operating loss carryforwards that could be utilized annually to offset our future taxable income, if any. This limitation would generally apply in the event of a cumulative change in ownership of our company of more than 50% within a three-year period. Any such limitation may significantly reduce our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards before they expire. Any such limitation, whether as the result of prior or future offerings of our debt and/or equity securities, private placements, sales of our common stock by our existing stockholders or additional sales of our common stock by us could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in future years. We have not yet completed a study to assess whether an ownership change for purposes of Section 382 has occurred, or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since our inception, due to the significant costs and complexities associated with such study.

General Company-Related Risks

If we fail to retain and attract senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully produce and develop our product candidates.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and technical personnel across multiple key functions, including, but not limited to clinical operations, finance, legal, human resources, information technology, CMC and quality assurance, regulatory affairs and medical affairs. We are highly dependent upon our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as well as our other senior management personnel, advisors, consultants and scientific and clinical collaborators. As of the date of this Report, we have 33 full-time employees, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our product candidates or disrupt our administrative functions.

Although we have not historically experienced unique difficulties attracting and retaining qualified employees, we could experience such problems following our change in business plans as a result of the negative results of our PALISADE-1 clinical trial or in the future. As of the date of this Report, a total of nine employees have voluntarily resigned from their positions within the Company since the PALISADE-1 outcome was reported, including our Chief Commercial Officer and Chief Medical Officer. Work conducted by these individuals that furthers our current business plan has assumed by other employees and, when appropriate, based on clinical, regulatory and financial considerations, may be resumed by personnel hired in the future. However, competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceuticals field is intense, and we may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms.

In addition, we rely on a broad and diverse range of strategic consultants and advisors, including manufacturing, nonclinical and clinical development and regulatory advisors and CMOs and CROs, to assist us in designing and implementing our research and development and regulatory strategies and plans for our product candidates. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

As we seek to advance development of our product candidates, we will need to further expand our research and development capabilities and our contractual arrangements with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management.

Our future financial performance and our ability to develop 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 research, development and regulatory efforts effectively, and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative, research and development, regulatory and other personnel. The hiring, training and integration of new employees may be more difficult, costly and/or time-consuming for us because we have fewer resources than a larger organization. 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.

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

As we develop our product candidates. either on our own or in collaboration with others, we will face inherent risks of product liability as a result of the required clinical testing of such product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we or our collaborators commercialize any such product candidates. For example, we may be sued if any of the product candidates we or our collaborators develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

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

Unfavorable global economic or political conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by global political conditions, as well as general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial and stock markets. Global financial and political crises cause extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, such as the economic downturn triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, could result in a variety of risks to our business, including, weakened demand for our product candidates and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could also strain our suppliers, possibly resulting in supply disruption, or cause our customers to delay making payments for our services. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party CMOs, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of cybersecurity or other system failures.  Our business depends on complex information systems, and any failure to successfully maintain these systems or implement new systems to handle our changing needs could result in a material disruption of our product candidates’ development programs or otherwise materially harm our operations. 

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property, our proprietary business information and that of our suppliers, as well as personally identifiable information of employees. Similarly, our third-party CROs, CMOs and other contractors and consultants possess certain of our sensitive data. The secure maintenance of this information is material to our operations and business strategy. Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our third-party CROs, CMOs and other contractors and consultants are vulnerable to attacks by hackers, damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, breach due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions, natural disasters, terrorism and telecommunication and electrical failures. Additionally, having shifted substantially to remote working arrangements, we also face a heightened risk of cybersecurity attacks or data security incidents and are more dependent on internet and telecommunications access and capabilities. Any such attack or breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and there has been an increasing amount of focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business, including recently enacted laws in a majority of states requiring security breach notification. Thus, any access, disclosure or other loss of information, including our data being breached at our partners or third-party providers, could result in legal claims or proceedings and liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, disruption of our operations, and damage to our reputation, which could adversely affect our business.

While we have not experienced any such system failure, accident, or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for fasedienol, itruvone, AV-101 or other product candidates could result in substantial delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liabilities and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Remote working arrangements could significantly increase the Company’s digital and cybersecurity risks.

Most of our employees are geographically dispersed from our headquarters facility in South San Francisco and now routinely work remotely. With the continuing shift to remote working, and the use of virtual board and executive management meetings, cybersecurity risks are exponentially greater, including increased risk of phishing and other cybersecurity attacks as well as increased risk of unauthorized dissemination of sensitive personal information or proprietary or confidential information about us or our customers, employees, or business partners. Despite our cybersecurity measures, we may be more susceptible to security breaches and other security incidents because we have less capability to implement, monitor, and enforce our information security and data protection policies. Techniques or software used to gain unauthorized access, and/or disable, degrade, or harm our systems may be difficult to detect for prolonged periods of time, and we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or put in place protective or preventive measures. The damage or disruption of our systems, or the theft or compromise of our technology, data, or intellectual property, may negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations, reputation, stock price and long-term value, which could adversely affect our Company's business.

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

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

Current politics in the U.S. could diminish the value of the pharmaceutical industry, thereby diminishing the value of our securities.

The current political environment in the U.S. has led many incumbents and political candidates to propose various measures to reduce the prices for pharmaceuticals. These proposals may receive increasing publicity which, in turn, may cause the investing public to reduce the perceived value of pharmaceutical companies. Any decrease in the overall perception of the pharmaceutical industry may have an adverse impact on our share price and may limit our ability to raise capital needed to continue our drug development programs.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property Rights

If we are unable to adequately protect our proprietary technology or obtain and maintain issued patents that are sufficient to protect our product candidates, others could compete against us more directly, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business, including seeking patents intended to cover our product candidates, their compositions and formulations, their methods of use and methods of manufacturing, delivery devices, and any other inventions we consider important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success will depend significantly on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, to defend and enforce our patents, to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and to operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain the proprietary position of our product candidates. We own patents and patent applications related to product candidates fasedienol (PH94B), itruvone (PH10), PH80, PH15 and AV-101 and have licensed patents and patent applications related to certain stem cell technology.

Although we own and have licensed issued and patents and pending patent applications relating to our product candidates in the U.S. and selected countries in other markets, we cannot provide any assurances that our pending U.S. and corresponding foreign patent applications will mature into issued patents and, if they do, that any of our patents will include claims with a scope sufficient to protect our product candidates or otherwise provide any competitive advantage.

Moreover, other parties may have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our product candidates and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have granted or may be granted patents that overlap or conflict with our patent properties, for example, either by claiming the same methods or formulations or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. Such third-party patent positions may limit or even eliminate our ability to obtain or maintain patent protection and may limit or eliminate our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

The uncertainty about adequate protection includes changes to the patent laws through either legislative action to change statutory patent law or court action that may reinterpret existing law in ways affecting the scope or validity of issued patents. Moreover, relevant laws differ from country to country.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies, including our patent portfolio with respect to our product candidates, involve complex legal and factual questions, and, therefore, the issuance, scope, validity, and enforceability of any patent claims that we may be granted cannot be predicted with certainty.

Our ability to obtain valid and enforceable patents depends, among other factors, on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the relevant prior art. Such prior art includes, for example, scientific publications, investment blogs, granted patents, and published patent applications. Patent uncertainty cannot be eliminated because of the potential existence of other prior art, about which we are currently unaware, that may be relevant to our patent applications and patents and that may prevent a pending patent application from being granted or result in an issued patent being held invalid or unenforceable. Moreover, the relevant standards for granting and reviewing patents vary among the countries in which we pursue patents.

In addition, some patent-related uncertainty exists because of the challenge of finding and addressing all of the relevant and material prior art in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields. For example, there are numerous reports in the scientific literature of compounds that target similar cellular receptors as do certain of our product candidates or that were evaluated in early (often pre-clinical) studies that did not progress to regulatory approval. In addition, even some reports in the trade press and public announcements made by us before the filing date of our AV-101 patent applications mentioned that AV-101 was in development for certain therapeutic purposes. For example, we published a web post on the NIH clinical trials website prior to the filing of our initial AV-101 patent application, which describes unit doses for a then future study but does not mention the treatment of depression and does not provide any preclinical or clinical study data relating to depression or any other medical condition, disease or disorder. This post was not submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in our two granted U.S. patents related to (i) unit dose formulations of AV-101 effective to treat depression and (ii) methods of treating depression with AV-101, respectively. However, it was submitted in two continuation depression-related AV-101 patent applications that have similar claims, and the USPTO did not make further rejections based on that post. Another source of uncertainty pertains to patent properties that were in-licensed by us for which prior art submissions were under the control of the licensor. We rely on these licensors to satisfy the relevant disclosure obligations.

In the event any previously published prior art is deemed to be invalidating prior art, it may cause certain of our issued patents to be invalid and/or unenforceable, which would cause us to lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on relevant product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

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

The USPTO and various other foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment, and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in the abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Even if patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability, or scope of such issued patents or any other issued patents we own or license, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable.

United States and foreign patents and patent applications may be subject to various types of infringement and validity proceedings, including interference proceedings, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review proceedings, supplemental examination, and challenges in district court. Patents may be subjected to opposition, post-grant review, invalidity actions, or comparable proceedings lodged in various foreign, both national and regional, patent offices or courts. These proceedings could result in loss of the patent or denial of the patent application or loss or reduction in the scope of one or more of the claims of the patent or patent in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates or competitive products.

Furthermore, though an issued patent is presumed valid and enforceable, its issuance is not conclusive as to its validity or its enforceability, and the patent may not provide us with adequate proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products. Even if a patent is granted and is held to be valid and enforceable, competitors may be able to design around our patents, for example, by using pre-existing or newly developed technology. Other parties may develop and obtain patent protection for more effective technologies, designs, or methods.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiated legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, and non-enablement. Grounds for unenforceability assertions include allegations that someone connected with the prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution.

Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

In addition, such patent-related proceedings may be costly. Thus, any patent properties that we may own or exclusively license ultimately may not provide commercially meaningful protection against competitors. Furthermore, an adverse decision in an interference proceeding can result in a third party receiving the patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, market, or otherwise commercialize our product candidates.

We may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical knowledge or trade secrets by consultants, vendors, or former or current employees. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we may encounter significant problems in protecting our proprietary rights in these countries. If these developments were to occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our sales.

Our ability to enforce our patent rights also depends on our ability to detect infringement. It is difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or manufacturing processes that are used in their products. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement by a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product. Any litigation to enforce or defend our patent rights, even if we were to prevail, could be costly and time-consuming and would divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations. We may not prevail in any lawsuits we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded if we prevailed may not be commercially meaningful.

In addition, proceedings to enforce or defend our patents could put our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly. Such proceedings could also provoke third parties to assert claims against us, including that some or all of the claims in one or more of our patents are invalid or otherwise unenforceable. If any patents covering our product candidates are invalidated or found unenforceable, our financial position and results of operations could be materially and adversely impacted. In addition, if a court found that valid, enforceable patents held by third parties covered our product candidates, our financial position and results of operations could also be materially and adversely impacted.

Overall, the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain, and we cannot ensure that:

We also may rely upon unpatented trade secrets, unpatented know-how, and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position, which we seek to protect, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees and our collaborators and consultants. It is possible that technology relevant to our business will be independently developed by a person that is not a party to such an agreement.  Furthermore, if the employees, collaborators, and consultants who are parties to these agreements breach or violate the terms of these agreements, we may not discover or have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets through such breaches or violations. Further, our trade secrets could otherwise become known or be independently discovered by our competitors.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us, alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights, which may prevent or delay our product development efforts and stop us from commercializing candidate products or increase the costs of commercializing them if approved. Also, we may file counterclaims or initiate other legal proceedings against third parties to challenge the validity or scope of their intellectual property rights, the outcomes of which also would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We cannot assure that our business, product candidates, and proprietary methods do not or will not infringe the patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties. Third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us or our licensors or collaborators, alleging that we or our licensors or collaborators infringe their intellectual property rights. In addition, we or our licensors or collaborators may file counterclaims in such proceedings or initiate separate legal proceedings against third parties to challenge the validity or scope of their intellectual property rights, including in oppositions, interferences, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or derivation proceedings before the United States or other jurisdictions.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. Success also will depend on our ability to prevail in litigation if we are sued for infringement or to resolve litigation matters with rights and at costs favorable to us.

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may allege that our product candidates or the use of our technologies infringes their patent claims or other intellectual property rights held by them or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. As we continue to develop and, if approved, commercialize our current product candidates and future product candidates, competitors may claim that our technology infringes their intellectual property rights as part of their business strategies designed to impede our successful commercialization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, third parties may have currently pending patent applications that later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe, or that such third parties assert are infringed by our technologies.

The foregoing types of proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming and many of our own or our licensors’ or collaborators’ adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these kinds of legal actions than we or our licensors or collaborators can dedicate. Our defense of litigation or other proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, the misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States or the European Union. 

The outcome of intellectual property litigation is subject to uncertainties that cannot be adequately quantified in advance. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products, or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs, and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient financial resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

An unfavorable outcome in the foregoing kinds of proceedings could require us or our licensors or collaborators to cease using the related technology or developing or commercializing our product candidates or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors or collaborators a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we or our licensors or collaborators obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors or collaborators.

In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business.

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. There could also 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, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Patent litigation and other types of intellectual property litigation can involve complex factual and legal questions, and litigation outcomes are uncertain. Any claim relating to intellectual property infringement that is successfully asserted against us may require us to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorney’s fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a third party’s patents, for past use of the asserted intellectual property and royalties and other consideration going forward if we are forced to take a license. In addition, if any such claim is successfully asserted against us and we are unable to obtain such a license, we may be forced to stop or delay developing, manufacturing, selling or otherwise commercializing our product candidates.

Patent litigation and other types of intellectual property litigation is costly and time-consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court, or redesign our products.

In addition, intellectual property litigation or claims could force us to do one or more of the following:

Any of these risks coming to fruition could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

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

We enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers, and other advisors. These agreements generally provide that inventions conceived by the party in the course of rendering services to us will be our exclusive property. However, these agreements may not be honored and may not effectively assign intellectual property rights to us. For example, even if we have a consulting agreement in place with an academic advisor pursuant to which such academic advisor is required to assign any inventions developed in connection with providing services to us, such academic advisor may not have the right to assign such inventions to us, as it may conflict with his or her obligations to assign their intellectual property to his or her employing institution.

Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We do not seek to protect our intellectual property rights in all jurisdictions throughout the world, and we may not be able to adequately enforce our intellectual property rights even in the jurisdictions where we seek protection.

Filing, prosecuting, and defending patents on product candidates in all countries and jurisdictions throughout the world is prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. could be less extensive than those in the U.S., assuming that rights are obtained in the U.S. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. The statutory deadlines for pursuing patent protection in individual foreign jurisdictions are based on the priority filing date of each of our patent applications and the time periods allowed for filing related applications in a given country.  Thus, for each of the patent families that we believe provide coverage for our lead product candidates or technologies, we will need to decide where and when to pursue protection outside the U.S.

Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we do not pursue and obtain patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Even if we pursue and obtain issued patents in particular jurisdictions, our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent third parties from so competing.

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

An unfavorable outcome could require us or our licensors or collaborators to cease using the related technology or developing or commercializing our product candidates, or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us or our licensors or collaborators a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we or our licensors or collaborators obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us or our licensors or collaborators. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business.

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. There could also 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, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

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

We are dependent, in part, on licensed intellectual property. If we were to lose our rights to licensed intellectual property, we may not be able to continue developing or commercializing our product candidates if approved. If we breach any of the agreements under which we license the use, development, and commercialization rights to our product candidates or technology from third parties or, in certain cases, we fail to meet certain development or payment deadlines, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

For certain stem cell technologies, we are a party to a number of license agreements under which we are granted rights to intellectual properties that are or could become important to our business. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that any future license agreements will impose on us, various development, regulatory, and/or commercial diligence obligations, payment of fees, milestones and/or royalties, and other obligations. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market products, which could be covered by the license. Our business could suffer, for example, if any current or future licenses terminate, if the licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms.

As we have done previously, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow the commercialization of our product candidates, and we cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist that might be enforced against our current product candidates or future products in the absence of such a license. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could materially harm our business, and the third parties owning such intellectual property rights could seek either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation.

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

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

We have entered into several licenses, both in-license agreements and out-license agreements, to support and leverage our various stem cell technology-related programs. We may enter into additional license(s) to third-party intellectual property that are necessary or useful to our business. Our current licenses, and any future licenses that we may enter into, impose various royalty payments, milestone, and other obligations on us. For example, the licensor may retain control over patent prosecution and maintenance under a license agreement, in which case, we may not be able to adequately influence patent prosecution or prevent inadvertent lapses of coverage due to failure to pay maintenance fees. If we fail to comply with any of our obligations under a current or future license agreement, our licensor(s) may allege that we have breached our license agreement and may accordingly seek to terminate our license with them. In addition, future licensor(s) may decide to terminate our license at will. Termination of any of our current or future licenses could result in our loss of the right to use the licensed intellectual property, which could materially adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize a product candidate or product, if approved, as well as harm our competitive business position and our business prospects.

In addition, if our licensors fail to abide by the terms of the license, if the licensors fail to prevent infringement by third parties, if the licensed patents or other rights are found to be invalid or unenforceable, or if we are unable to enter into necessary licenses on acceptable terms our business could suffer.

Some intellectual property that we have licensed may have been discovered through government-funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements, and a preference for U.S. industry. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights, subject us to an expenditure of resources with respect to reporting requirements and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Some of the intellectual property rights we have licensed or will license in the future may have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding and may therefore be subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to intellectual property embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act). These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose.

In addition, the U.S. government has the right to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if we fail, or the applicable licensor fails, to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Also, the U.S. government may acquire title to these inventions in any country in which a patent application is not filed within specified time limits.

Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is further subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us, or the applicable licensor, to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the U.S. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the U.S. or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property.

In the event that we apply for additional U.S. government funding and we discover compounds or drug candidates as a result of such funding, intellectual property rights to such discoveries may be subject to the applicable provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act.

If we do not obtain additional protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar foreign legislation by extending the patent terms and obtaining data exclusivity for our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

In the U.S., depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of the U.S. patents we own or license may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. For example, we may not be granted an extension if the active ingredient of PH94B, PH10 or AV-101 is used in another drug company’s product candidate and that product candidate is the first to obtain FDA approval.

Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our ability to generate revenues could be materially adversely affected.

Similar kinds of patent term and regulatory and data protection periods are available outside of the U.S. We will pursue such opportunities to extend the exclusivity of our products, but we cannot predict the availability of such exclusivity pathways or that we will be successful in pursuing them.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involve both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time-consuming, and inherently uncertain. In addition, the U.S., in recent years, enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation: the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, referred to as the America Invents Act. The America Invents Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. It is not yet clear what, if any, impact the America Invents Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of any patents that may issue from our patent applications, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

In addition, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. The full impact of these decisions is not yet known. For example, on March 20, 2012, in Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Court held that several claims drawn to measuring drug metabolite levels from patient samples and correlating them to drug doses were not patentable subject matter. The decision appears to impact diagnostics patents that merely apply a law of nature via a series of routine steps, and it has created uncertainty around the ability to obtain patent protection for certain inventions. Additionally, on June 13, 2013 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Court held that claims to isolated genomic DNA are not patentable but claims to complementary DNA molecules are patent eligible because they are not a natural product. The effect of the decision on patents for other isolated natural products is uncertain.

Additionally, on March 4, 2014, the USPTO issued a memorandum to patent examiners providing guidance for examining claims that recite laws of nature, natural phenomena, or natural products under the Myriad and Prometheus decisions. This guidance did not limit the application of Myriad to DNA but, rather, applied the decision to other natural products. Further, in 2015, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that methods for detecting fetal genetic defects were not patent-eligible subject matter. Other more recent court decisions and related USPTO examination guidelines must be considered, particularly as they relate to changes in what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection. Foreign patent and intellectual property laws are also evolving and are not predictable as to their impact on the Company and other biopharmaceutical companies.

In addition to increasing uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain future patents, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on these and other decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that may issue in the future.

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

Certain of our current employees have been, and certain of our future employees may have been, previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We also engage advisors and consultants who are concurrently employed at universities or who perform services for other entities.

Although we are not aware of any claims currently pending or threatened against us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, advisors, or consultants have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or another third party. We have and may in the future also be subject to claims that an employee, advisor or consultant performed work for us that conflicts with that person’s obligations to a third party, such as an employer, and thus, that the third party has an ownership interest in the intellectual property arising out of work performed for us. 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 to defend such claims, in addition to paying monetary 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 our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our commercial development efforts.

Numerous factors may limit any potential competitive advantage provided by our intellectual property rights.

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, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative:

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

Risks Related to our Securities

If we fail to comply with the continued listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market, our common stock may be delisted and the price of our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets could be negatively impacted.

On September 6, 2022, we were notified by the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (Nasdaq) that we were not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirements set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) requires listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share, and Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) provides that a failure to meet the minimum bid price requirement exists if the deficiency continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days. The notification provided that we had 180 calendar days, or until March 6, 2023, to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2). To regain compliance, the bid price of our common stock must have a closing bid price of at least $1.00 per share for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days. Based on our written notification to Nasdaq of our intention to cure the deficiency by implementing a previously stockholder-authorized reverse stock split, if necessary, on March 7, 2023, Nasdaq granted us a second 180-day period, through September 5, 2023, in which to regain compliance. On June 6, 2023, we effected a one-for-thirty reverse split of our issued and outstanding common stock which caused the trading price of our common stock to regain compliance with the minimum bid price rule as of June 21, 2023.

Although we are currently in compliance with Nasdaq’s continued listing standards, no assurance can be given that we will continue to meet applicable Nasdaq continued listing standards. Failure to meet applicable Nasdaq continued listing standards could result in a delisting of our common stock, which could materially reduce the liquidity of our common stock and result in a corresponding material reduction in the price of our common stock. In addition, delisting could harm our ability to raise capital through alternative financing sources on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and may result in the inability to advance our drug development programs, potential loss of confidence by investors and employees, and fewer business development opportunities.

Market volatility may affect our stock price and the value of your investment.

The market price for our common stock, similar to that of other biopharmaceutical companies, is likely to remain highly volatile. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to a number of factors, most of which we cannot control, including, among others:

Future sales and issuances of our common stock may cause our stock price to decline.

Sales or issuances of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales or issuances are occurring or might occur, including under our Sales Agreement, could significantly reduce the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise adequate capital through the sale of additional equity securities.

The stock market in general, and small biopharmaceutical companies like ours in particular, have frequently experienced significant volatility in the market prices for securities that often has been unrelated to the operating performance of the underlying companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In certain situations in which the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit against us, the defense and disposition of the lawsuit could be costly and divert the time and attention of our management and harm our operating results. Additionally, if the trading volume of our common stock remains low and limited there will be an increased level of volatility and you may not be able to generate a return on your investment.

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

The trading market for our common stock relies in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. We do not control these analysts. The price of our common stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrade our common stock or if such analysts issue other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us or our business.

There may be additional issuances of shares of preferred stock in the future.

Our Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended (the Articles), permit us to issue up to 10.0 million shares of preferred stock.  As a result, our Board could authorize the issuance of additional series of preferred stock in the futures and such preferred stock could grant holders preferred rights to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividends before dividends would be declared to holders of our common stock, and the right to the redemption of such shares, possibly together with a premium, prior to the redemption of the common stock. In the event and to the extent that we do issue additional preferred stock in the future, the rights of holders of our common stock could be impaired thereby, including without limitation, with respect to liquidation.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock and, consequently, our stockholders’ ability to achieve a return on their investment will depend on appreciation in the price of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividend on our common stock and do not currently intend to do so in the foreseeable future. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the success of an investment in shares of our common stock will depend upon any future appreciation in their value. There is no guarantee that shares of our common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which our stockholders purchased them.

We incur significant costs to ensure compliance with corporate governance, federal securities law and accounting requirements.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), which requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition, and the rules and regulations implemented by the SEC, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, each of which imposes additional reporting and other obligations on public companies.  We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to comply with these public company reporting requirements, including accounting and related audit costs, legal costs to comply with corporate governance requirements and other costs of operating as a public company. These legal and financial compliance costs will continue to require us to divert significant resources that we could otherwise use to achieve our research and development and other strategic objectives.

The filing and internal control reporting requirements imposed by federal securities laws, rules and regulations on companies that are not “smaller reporting companies” under federal securities laws are rigorous and, once we are no longer a smaller reporting company, we may not be able to meet them, resulting in a possible decline in the price of our common stock and our inability to obtain future financing. Certain of these requirements may require us to carry out activities we have not done previously and complying with such requirements may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Any failure to adequately comply with applicable federal securities laws, rules or regulations could subject us to fines or regulatory actions, which may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

The disclosures in this section are not required since we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

Item 2.  Properties

Our corporate headquarters and laboratories are located at 343 Allerton Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, where we occupy approximately 10,900 square feet of office and lab space under a lease expiring on July 31, 2027, which contains a 5-year option to renew. We believe that our facilities are suitable and adequate for our current and foreseeable needs.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

None.

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our common stock was approved for listing and has traded since May 11, 2016 on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “VTGN”.

Below is the range of high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated as reported by the Nasdaq Capital Market. The market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.  

We completed a stockholder approved 1-for-30 reverse split of our issued and outstanding common stock effective on June 6, 2023 (the Reverse Stock Split). The per share high and low prices in the table above and other references to shares and per share prices elsewhere in this Report have been adjusted retrospectively to reflect the Reverse Stock Split.

On June 27, 2023 the closing price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market was $1.69 per share.

At June 27, 2023, we had 7,872,479 shares of common stock outstanding held by approximately 13,000 stockholders.  At June 27, 2023, no shares of our preferred stock were outstanding.

Dividend Policy

We have never paid or declared any cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. 

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

The disclosures in this section are not required because we qualify as a smaller reporting company under federal securities laws.

Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Report) includes forward-looking statements. All statements contained in this Report other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, our business strategy and plans, and our objectives for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our business is subject to significant risks including, but not limited to, our ability to obtain substantial additional financing, the results of our research and development efforts, the results of nonclinical and clinical testing, the effect of regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other domestic and foreign regulatory agencies, the impact of competitive products, product development and technological difficulties, the effect of our accounting policies, and other risks as detailed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in this Report.  Further, even if our product candidates appear promising at various stages of development, our share price may decrease such that we are unable to raise additional capital without significant dilution or other terms that may be unacceptable to our management, Board of Directors (Board) and stockholders.

Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management or Board to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the future events and trends discussed in this Report may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We are under no duty to update any of these forward-looking statements after the date of this Report or to conform these statements to actual results or revised expectations. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements.

Business Overview

We are a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company aiming to transform the treatment landscape for individuals living with anxiety, depression and other CNS disorders. We are advancing therapeutics with the potential to be faster-acting, and with fewer side effects and safety concerns, than those currently available for treating anxiety, depression and multiple CNS disorders. Our pipeline includes six clinical-stage product candidates, including five investigational agents belonging to a new class of neuroactive drugs known as pherines, in addition to AV-101, an oral prodrug of an antagonist of the glycine site of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR). Pherines, administered as nasal sprays, are designed with an innovative rapid-onset mechanism of action that activates chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity and can selectively and beneficially impact key neural circuits in the brain without requiring systemic uptake or direct activity on CNS neurons. AV-101 inhibits the activity of the ion channel of the NMDAR but does not block it, unlike some approved NMDAR antagonists having significant side effects.

Our goal is to develop and commercialize, on our own and with multiple global and regional strategic partners, innovative therapies for anxiety, depression, and other CNS indications where current treatment options are inadequate to meet the needs of millions of patients in the U.S. and worldwide. First and foremost, we are passionate about transforming mental health care and redefining what is possible in the treatment of anxiety and depression disorders – One Mind at a Time™.

Our Product Candidates

Pherine Product Candidates

Five of our product candidates – fasedienol (PH94B), itruvone (PH10), PH15, PH80 and PH284 – belong to a new class of synthetic neuroactive steroids referred to as pherines. Pherines, which are administered in ultra-low microgram level doses as odorless and tasteless nasal sprays, are designed to selectively engage chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity and induce rapid-onset pharmacologic and behavioral benefits. Specifically, each of our pherine product candidates is a distinct chemical entity that selectively modulates particular areas of the brain, such as the limbic amygdala (the main fear and anxiety center of the brain), the hypothalamus, the hippocampus, the locus ceruleus, and the prefrontal cortex. We believe each of our pherine product candidates has the potential to be a fast-acting therapy for one or more CNS disorders, including social anxiety disorder (fasedienol), major depressive disorder (itruvone), cognitive impairment (PH15), vasomotor syndrome (hot flashes) due to menopause, as well as migraine headaches (PH80) and disorders related to appetite loss (cachexia) (PH284), all without requiring apparent systemic uptake or binding to classic abuse liability receptors or steroidal hormone receptors.

Fasedienol Nasal Spray

Fasedienol (PH94B) is a synthetic investigational pherine from the androstane family in Phase 3 clinical development in the U.S. for treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD). When administered intranasally in microgram doses, fasedienol activates receptors of peripheral nasal chemosensory neurons connected to subsets of neurons in the olfactory bulbs that, in turn, connect to neurons in the limbic amygdala involved in the pathophysiology of SAD and potentially other anxiety and mood disorders. Fasedienol is pharmacologically active without requiring apparent systemic uptake and distribution of the compound to the brain to achieve its rapid-onset and short duration of anxiolytic effects.

The proposed MOA of fasedienol is fundamentally differentiated from all currently approved anti-anxiety medications, including the three antidepressants approved by the FDA for the treatment of SAD, as well as all benzodiazepines and beta blockers, which, although not FDA-approved for the treatment of SAD, are prescribed for treatment of SAD on an off-label basis. Pre-clinical and Phase 2 clinical studies completed to date suggest that fasedienol has the potential to achieve rapid-onset anti-anxiety effects without systemic uptake or transport into the brain, significantly reducing the risk of side effects and other safety concerns such as potential drug-drug interactions, abuse, misuse and addiction associated with certain other systemic pharmaceuticals that act directly on the CNS and are sometimes prescribed for anxiety disorders.

SAD PALISADE Phase 3 Program

PALISADE-1.    In May 2021, we initiated our PALISADE Phase 3 Program for fasedienol in SAD with PALISADE-1, a single-administration assessment Phase 3 public speaking challenge clinical study of fasedienol for the acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD. Following discussions with the FDA in mid-2020 during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we agreed to design PALISADE-1 in a manner substantially similar to the single-administration assessment Phase 2 public speaking challenge study of fasedienol, which involved self-administration of only a single dose of fasedienol by subjects randomized to the treatment arm. All subjects were given an anxiety-provoking public speaking challenge, conducted only in a clinical setting, and their change in a SUDS score was determined.

In July 2022, we announced top line results from PALISADE-1. Although the safety and tolerability of fasedienol in PALISADE-1 were favorable and consistent with previously reported results from previous clinical trials, PALISADE-1 did not achieve its primary efficacy endpoint, as measured by change from baseline using the SUDS as compared to placebo. We believe the following hypotheses are potential explanations for the unexpected outcome in PALISADE-1: (i) the study was conducted during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, introducing significant systemic variability in terms of changing social dynamics, subject stress, study site and CRO personnel turnover and mask wearing regulations; (ii) given the foregoing, the public speaking challenge study design may not have been scalable to a large Phase 3 study, particularly during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic; and (iii) some subjects in the study may have had reduced potential to respond to fasedienol due to impaired olfactory cell function potentially caused by the COVID-19 virus, nasal swab testing for COVID-19, RSV or influenza, and/or heavy cannabis use, smoking or vaping.

PALISADE-2.   In October 2021, near the end of the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we initiated PALISADE-2, which involved the same clinic-based, single-administration assessment public speaking challenge study design and use of the SUDS as the primary efficacy endpoint as PALISADE-1. In July 2022, after receiving top line results from PALISADE-1, we paused recruitment and enrollment in PALISADE-2 to allow independent third-party biostatisticians to conduct an interim analysis of available data from subjects randomized in PALISADE-2 up to the date we paused the study. In September 2022, based on their review of unblinded data from the 140 subjects who had completed PALISADE-2, the independent third-party biostatisticians recommended that we continue PALISADE-2 as planned, without revealing the underlying data to us.

Although the results of the interim analysis of PALISADE-2 indicated that continuation of the study would not be futile, after considering the expense, time, and challenges associated with PALISADE-1, as well as the potential methodological complexities involved in resuming PALISADE-2, we closed the PALISADE-2 study. Topline results from the 140 subjects who completed PALISADE-2 are expected in the second half of 2023.

PALISADE Open Label Study.   The PALISADE OLS was a Phase 3, open-label safety trial designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple, as-needed administrations (up to four times a day) of fasedienol in adults with SAD. The PALISADE OLS also evaluated the change from baseline in monthly standard clinical measurements and behavioral assessment scales (LSAS, CGI-I, and PGI-C) in response to anxiety-provoking social situations in daily‑life after the administration of fasedienol. The key exploratory efficacy endpoint in the study included evaluation of the change from baseline on the LSAS, which measures SAD patients’ response to anxiety-provoking social and performance situations experienced in their daily lives. Following the completion of PALISADE-1, we terminated the PALISADE OLS early, solely for strategic business reasons, and not due to any safety concerns with fasedienol.

Safety and tolerability of fasedienol were assessed and summarized during monthly visits from baseline to end of treatment in AEs, laboratory values, 12‑lead electrocardiograms (ECGs), physical examinations, and vital sign assessments following exposure to fasedienol. Long-term administration of 3.2 µg of fasedienol, as-needed up to four times per day, was safe and well-tolerated, with no new safety findings or trends identified, regardless of the number of doses administered by each subject (safety population: n=481). Headache was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) (17.0%), and, except for COVID-19 TEAEs (11.4%) which were not considered related to fasedienol, no other TEAE occurred in more than 5.0% of subjects. Over 30,000 doses of fasedienol were administered by patients during the study, with a mean duration of four months and a maximum study duration of over ten months.

The final data set from PALISADE OLS demonstrates clinically meaningful functional improvement, as measured by the LSAS, and total LSAS scores, in both men and women, continued to decline in consecutive months during the study, as follows:

For subjects who continued in the study, total LSAS scores continued to decline from baseline, with improvements observed each month on the LSAS through nine months. The continued improvement in LSAS scores is indicative of the therapeutic potential of multiple, patient-tailored, as-needed administrations of fasedienol over time to help patients build confidence to engage in anxiety-provoking social and performance situations in their daily lives more frequently and with less fear and anxiety.

In addition, the CGI-I results indicated 43% of the 218 patients assessed after three months were “much” or “very much” improved, and PGI-C results indicated 44% of the 218 patients assessed after three months considered themselves “much” or “very much” improved.

FDA Feedback on Path Forward; FEARLESS-1.   We believe data from approximately 400 subjects in the PALISADE OLS over a period of one month and beyond, combined with the data from the previous Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of fasedienol after two weeks of use, as discussed above, demonstrate the potential for fasedienol to achieve robust overall reduction in symptoms of SAD and improvement in severity of the disorder over time, as measured by the LSAS. These data also appear to suggest that studies involving multiple administrations of fasedienol over time on an as-needed basis, up to four times per day, when subjects experience daily, real-life, socially stressful situations may most accurately reflect the true efficacy of fasedienol in patients with SAD and represent the actual way in which they would use fasedienol, if approved. Utilizing the LSAS as the primary efficacy outcome measure in our next Phase 3 study is consistent with the pivotal registration trials for all three currently approved treatments for SAD. As those studies indicate, the LSAS is capable of measuring a drug’s efficacy in patients with SAD due to its ability to capture patient feedback on fear and anxiety regarding various social situations, as well avoidance of such situations. Hence, we believe using the LSAS as the primary efficacy endpoint for our further Phase 3 development of fasedienol has the potential to demonstrate its efficacy and true impact on patients’ lives.

In the first quarter of calendar 2023, we met with the FDA to discuss next steps in our Phase 3 development plan for fasedienol in SAD, which plan includes, among other things, conducting, on our own or  with collaborators, a multiple-assessment, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study of fasedienol in adults in a real-world setting, using the LSAS as the primary efficacy outcome measure to evaluate the efficacy of fasedienol over time in patients with SAD to support a potential fasedienol New Drug Application (NDA). Positive feedback from the FDA at this meeting confirmed the acceptable use of the LSAS as a primary efficacy endpoint. Accordingly, we are positioned to finalize key components of FEARLESS, our potential NDA-enabling Phase 3 development program for fasedienol for treatment of SAD.

Unlike the PALISADE Phase 3 studies, which involved assessment of only a single, self- administered dose of fasedienol in a clinic-based public speaking challenge using the SUDS as the primary outcome measure, our FEARLESS program will assess multiple administrations of fasedienol, on a patient-tailored as-needed basis, up to six times per day, in a real-world setting over a multiple week period, with the LSAS as the primary efficacy endpoint, consistent with the FDA’s three precedent-setting approvals of antidepressants for treatment of SAD. Dr. Michael R. Liebowitz, a Columbia University psychiatrist, former director and founder of the Anxiety Disorders Clinic at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and current Managing Director of The Medical Research Network LLC in New York City, is the innovator of the LSAS and will be the Principal Investigator for our FEARLESS program in SAD.

Exploratory Phase 2A Study in AjDA and Future Development Opportunities.    During the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a small exploratory Phase 2A clinical study of fasedienol designed to assess its therapeutic potential in adults experiencing adjustment disorder with anxiety (AjDA). Adjustment disorder (AjD) occurs within three months of exposure to a stressor as evidenced by marked distress that is out of proportion to the socially or culturally expected reactions to the stressor, or that represents significant impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of daily functioning. Our small exploratory study in AjDA is believed to be the first ever randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2A study in the U.S. aimed at exploring the pharmacological treatment of AjDA, and the first clinical trial that evaluated the effects of a fixed dosing regimen of fasedienol, involving intranasal administration of 3.2 µg of fasedienol four times per day over four weeks. A total of 71 subjects were screened for the study, 41 were randomized, 7 discontinued, and 34 completed four weeks of treatment. The study, which was not designed to achieve statistical significance, did not demonstrate a clinically significant difference between fasedienol and placebo as measured on the clinician-rated Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A). Site variances and both a high drug response rate and high placebo response rate were observed, likely related to the various aspects of AjDA that make it a challenging indication to study. The study of AjDA is complicated because the disorder is, by definition, temporary and self-resolving, making it difficult to identify the cause of clinical improvement or whether placebo played a role in any improvement observed. AjDA is a temporary stress reaction. The stress reaction typically starts within three months of an identifiable stressful situation, but because the disorder is directly linked to a stressor, once the stressor ends, the anxiety reaction may also end, with or without treatment.

Fixed dosing of fasedienol four times per day, over four weeks, was well tolerated, with no appreciable differences in TEAEs between fasedienol and placebo. All reported TEAEs were of mild or moderate severity, with no severe or serious TEAEs reported during the study. Headache was the most commonly reported TEAE, reported by 3 subjects (15.8%) on fasedienol and 2 subjects (9.1%) on placebo.

Despite the methodological challenges inherent in the exploratory Phase 2A study in AjDA, we believe fasedienol builds resilience against anxiety and reduces the cognitive and physical paralysis that occurs during moments of heightened anxiety and stressful situations. Results of the AjDA study may provide support for an as-needed fasedienol dosing approach over time as the preferred mode of treatment.

We may also have potential opportunities to explore the development of fasedienol for other anxiety-related disorders, including postpartum anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and procedural anxiety.

Itruvone Nasal Spray

Itruvone (PH10) is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine from the pregnane family with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for depression disorders. Itruvone, which is administered as a nasal spray at microgram-level doses, is designed to engage and activate chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity, which are connected to neural circuits in the brain that produce antidepressant effects. Specifically, in a manner similar to fasedienol, itruvone’s proposed MOA involves the regulation of the olfactory-amygdala neural circuits believed to increase activity of the limbic-hypothalamic sympathetic nervous system and increase the release of catecholamines. Importantly, unlike all currently approved oral antidepressants (ADs) and rapid-onset ketamine-based therapy, including both intravenous ketamine and intranasal ketamine (esketamine), we believe itruvone does not require systemic uptake and distribution of the compound to the brain to produce rapid-onset of antidepressant effects. In all clinical studies completed to date, itruvone has been well-tolerated and has not caused psychological side effects (such as dissociation and hallucinations) or other safety concerns that may be associated with ketamine-based therapy.

In January 2023, we launched a small U.S. single center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study to investigate the safety and tolerability of itruvone in healthy adult subjects (n=12). The study was designed to confirm the favorable safety profile of itruvone established in three previous clinical studies conducted in Mexico, as well as facilitate our plans for Phase 2B development of itruvone in the U.S. as a fast-acting stand-alone treatment for MDD. In June 2023, we announced positive data from this study. There were no reported SAEs or discontinuations due to adverse events in the trial. Two AEs were reported during the treatment period, fatigue and headache, which occurred in the same subject. Both AEs resolved without sequelae and were mild in severity. Following itruvone administration, there were no clinically significant findings in ECGs, vital signs, and laboratory parameters. Overall, itruvone was well-tolerated and continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile.

The FDA has granted Fast Track designation for development of itruvone as a potential adjunctive treatment for MDD.

PH80 Nasal Spray

PH80 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for both vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) due to menopause and migraine headaches. PH80, which is administered as a nasal spray at microgram-level doses, engages and activates chemosensory neurons in the nasal cavity, which are connected to neural circuits in the brain that modulate neural circuits in the basal forebrain associated with the control of body temperature, as well as premonitory and aura symptoms of migraines. Results from a previously unpublished exploratory randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2A study of PH80 for the acute treatment of vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) due to menopause demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the daily number of menopausal hot flashes compared to placebo at the end of the first week of treatment (p<.001), and the improvement was maintained through each treatment week until the end of the four-week treatment period. We are currently preparing, on our own or with collaborators, to submit an U.S. IND for a Phase 2B clinical study of PH80 as a treatment for hot flashes due to menopause.

In addition, PH80 initiates neural impulses in the olfactory bulb transmitted by pathways that rapidly affect the function of multiple structures in the brain, including the amygdala and hypothalamus that have been linked to the pathology of migraine. Due to its MOA and a small proof of concept study, we believe PH80 may have therapeutic potential to relieve premonitory and aura symptoms of migraines. 

PH15 Nasal Spray

PH15 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments to improve cognitive impairment caused by mental fatigue and potentially other disorders. Early functional MRI studies in human volunteers at Stanford University revealed that intranasal administration of PH15 induced rapid activation of brain areas related to cognition (Sobel et al, Brain, 1999). In a small double blind, placebo-controlled study Phase 2 study of human subjects who were sleep deprived to induce mental fatigue, intranasal PH15 showed rapid and significant improvement in cognitive and psychomotor performance and improvement of reaction time that was better than the effect of a placebo and 400 mg of oral caffeine. We are currently evaluating the path forward to submitting an U.S. IND for a Phase 2 clinical study, on our own or with collaborators, and the appropriate indication for demonstrating improvement of cognitive function.

PH284 Nasal Spray

PH284 is an odorless, tasteless synthetic investigational pherine with a novel, rapid-onset potential MOA that is fundamentally differentiated from the MOA of all currently approved treatments for the loss of appetite associated with chronic disorders such as cancer. Cachexia is a serious but under recognized consequence of many chronic diseases with body mass loss of >10% and a prevalence of 5 to 15 %. We believe PH284 may have therapeutic potential for improving subjective feelings of hunger in patients with cachexia.  We are currently evaluating the path forward to submitting an U.S. IND for cachexia, on our own or with collaborators, and the appropriate patient populations for demonstrating increase in appetite and weight gain in a second Phase 2 study.

AV-101

AV-101 (4-Cl-KYN) is a novel, oral prodrug that targets the NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor), an ionotropic glutamate receptor in the brain. Abnormal NMDAR function is associated with numerous CNS diseases and disorders. The active metabolite of AV-101, 7-chloro-kynurenic acid (7-Cl-KYNA), is a potent and selective full antagonist of the glycine binding site of the NMDAR that inhibits the function of the NMDAR. Unlike ketamine and many other NMDAR antagonists, 7-Cl-KYNA is not an ion channel blocker. In clinical and nonclinical testing completed to date, AV-101 has demonstrated good oral bioavailability and an excellent pharmacokinetic (PK) profile. No binding of AV-101 or 7-Cl-KYNA to off-site targets was identified by an extensive receptor screening study. Moreover, in all clinical trials completed to date, AV-101 has been safe and very well-tolerated with no psychological side effects or safety concerns and no treatment-related serious adverse events that are often observed with classic channel-blocking NMDAR antagonists such as ketamine and amantadine. Nonclinical results also indicate that chronic administration of 4-Cl-KYN induces hippocampal neurogenesis, a hallmark of drugs that have antidepressive effects, and increases endogenous levels of KYNA, which also is a functional NMDAR glycine site antagonist.

Based on observations and findings from preclinical studies, we believe AV-101 has the potential to become a new oral treatment alternative for multiple CNS disorders. We are currently preparing for Phase 2A development of AV-101, on our own or with collaborators,  as a treatment for one or more neurological disorders involving the NMDAR receptor.  Multiple studies have shown AV-101 to be safe and well-tolerated, and a range of preclinical studies indicate potential in multiple indications, including levodopa-induced dyskinesia, neuropathic pain, seizures, MDD, and suicidal ideation.

The FDA has granted Fast Track designation for development of AV-101 as a potential adjunctive treatment for MDD and as a non-opioid treatment for neuropathic pain.

Acquisition of Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On December 20, 2022, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) along with VTGN Merger Sub, Inc., our wholly owned subsidiary (Merger Sub), Pherin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pherin), and Kevin McCarthy in his capacity of Stockholder Representative, to acquire Pherin (the Pherin Acquisition). On February 2, 2023 (the Closing Date), we completed the Pherin Acquisition and Pherin is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Immediately prior to the consummation of the Pherin Acquisition, each of Pherin’s directors and officers resigned, and no employees or other affiliates of Pherin on the Closing Date are serving or will serve in their previous roles or in any other capacity with Pherin or with the Company.

As consideration for the Pherin Acquisition, we (i) issued an aggregate of 413,670 unregistered shares of our common stock to the exchange agent for the Pherin Acquisition, which shares were issued to approximately 96.07% of Pherin stockholders eligible to receive common stock in exchange for their outstanding shares of Pherin common stock (the Stock Consideration), and (ii) paid to the exchange agent for the Pherin Acquisition, an aggregate of approximately $126,100 for the approximately 3.93% remaining Pherin stockholders who were not eligible to receive Stock Consideration in exchange for their outstanding shares of Pherin common stock (the Cash Consideration and, together with the Stock Consideration, the Merger Consideration). We have accounted for the Pherin Acquisition as an asset acquisition.

Following the completion of the Pherin Acquisition, we now have full ownership of intellectual property rights to fasedienol and itruvone, as well as PH15, PH80 and PH284.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

We consider certain accounting policies related to revenue recognition, determination of right-of-use assets under lease transactions and related lease obligations, impairment of long-lived assets, research and development, stock-based compensation, warrant liability and income taxes to be critical accounting policies that require the use of significant judgments and estimates relating to matters that are inherently uncertain and may result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements. These estimates include, but are not limited to, those relating to stock-based compensation, revenue recognition, research and development expenses, determination of right-of-use assets under lease transactions and related lease obligations, and the assumptions used to value warrants, warrant modifications, and useful lives for property and equipment and related depreciation calculations. Our actual results could differ from these estimates.

Revenue Recognition

The AffaMed Agreement, involving clinical development and commercialization of fasedienol for acute treatment of anxiety in adults with SAD, and potentially other anxiety-related disorders, in Greater China, South Korea, and Southeast Asia, has been the basis of our reported revenue for both our fiscal year ending March 31, 20232 (Fiscal 2023) and 2022 (Fiscal 2022). In prior years, we occasionally generated revenue from collaborative research and development arrangements, licensing and technology access fees and government grants. We recognize revenue following the guidance of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) and its related amendments, collectively referred to as ASC (Accounting Standards Codification) Topic 606.

Under ASC Topic 606, we recognize revenue when our customer obtains control of promised goods or services, in an amount that reflects the consideration that we expect to receive in exchange for those goods or services. To determine revenue recognition for arrangements that we determine are within the scope of Topic 606, we perform the following five steps: (i) identify the contract with a customer; (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract; (iii) determine the transaction price, including variable consideration, if any; (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract; and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) we satisfy a performance obligation. We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that we will collect the consideration to which we are entitled in exchange for the goods or services we transfer to a customer.

Once a contract is determined to be within the scope of Topic 606, we assess the goods or services promised within each contract and determine those that are performance obligations. Arrangements that include rights to additional goods or services that are exercisable at a customer’s discretion are generally considered options. We assess whether these options provide a material right to the customer and if so, they are considered performance obligations. The exercise of a material right may be accounted for as a contract modification or as a continuation of the contract for accounting purposes.

We assess whether each promised good or service is distinct for the purpose of identifying the performance obligations in the contract. This assessment involves subjective determinations and requires judgments about the individual promised goods or services and whether such are separable from the other aspects of the contractual relationship. Promised goods and services are considered distinct provided that: (i) the customer can benefit from the good or service either on its own or together with other resources that are readily available to the customer (that is, the good or service is capable of being distinct) and (ii) our promise to transfer the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract (that is, the promise to transfer the good or service is distinct within the context of the contract). In assessing whether a promised good or service is distinct in the evaluation of a collaboration arrangement subject to Topic 606, we consider factors such as the research, manufacturing and commercialization capabilities of the collaboration partner and the availability of the associated expertise in the general marketplace. We also consider the intended benefit of the contract in assessing whether a promised good or service is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract. If a promised good or service is not distinct, we are required to combine that good or service with other promised goods or services until we identify a bundle of goods or services that is distinct.

The transaction price is then determined and allocated to the identified performance obligations in proportion to their standalone selling prices (SSP) on a relative SSP basis. SSP is determined at contract inception and is not updated to reflect changes between contract inception and satisfaction of the performance obligations. Determining the SSP for performance obligations requires significant judgment. In developing the SSP for a performance obligation, we consider applicable market conditions and relevant Company-specific factors, including factors that were contemplated in negotiating the agreement with the customer and estimated costs. In certain circumstances, we may apply the residual method to determine the SSP of a good or service if the standalone selling price is considered highly variable or uncertain. We validate the SSP for performance obligations by evaluating whether changes in the key assumptions used to determine the SSP will have a significant effect on the allocation of arrangement consideration between multiple performance obligations.

If the consideration promised in a contract includes a variable amount, we estimate the amount of consideration to which we will be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to a customer. We determine the amount of variable consideration by using the expected value method or the most likely amount method. We include the unconstrained amount of estimated variable consideration in the transaction price. The amount included in the transaction price is constrained to the amount for which it is probable that a significant reversal of cumulative revenue recognized will not occur. At the end of each subsequent reporting period, we re-evaluate the estimated variable consideration included in the transaction price and any related constraint, and if necessary, adjust our estimate of the overall transaction price. Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis in the period of adjustment.

If an arrangement includes development and regulatory milestone payments, we evaluate whether the milestones are considered probable of being reached and estimate the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone value is included in the transaction price. Milestone payments that are not within our control or the licensee’s control, such as regulatory approvals, are generally not considered probable of being achieved until those approvals are received.

In determining the transaction price, we adjust consideration for the effects of the time value of money if the timing of payments provides us with a significant benefit of financing. We do not assess whether a contract has a significant financing component if the expectation at contract inception is such that the period between payment by the licensee and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the licensee will be one year or less. For arrangements with licenses of intellectual property that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based on the level of sales, and the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, we recognize royalty revenue and sales-based milestones at the later of (i) when the related sales occur, or (ii) when the performance obligation to which the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied.

We then recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when (or as) each performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time or over time, and if over time, based on the use of an output or input method.

Right-of-use Assets and Lease Obligations

We account for our leases following the guidance of Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)” (ASU 2016-02). ASU 2016-02 requires that we determine, at the inception of an arrangement, whether the arrangement is or contains a lease, based on the unique facts and circumstances present. Operating lease assets represent our right to use an underlying asset for the lease term (Right of use assets) and operating lease liabilities represent our obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Right-of-use assets and operating lease liabilities are recognized at the commencement date of the lease based upon the present value of lease payments over the lease term. When determining the lease term, we include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain, at inception, that we will exercise that option. The interest rate implicit in lease contracts is typically not readily determinable; accordingly, we use our incremental borrowing rate, which is the rate that would be incurred to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment, based upon the information available at the commencement date. The lease payments used to determine our operating lease assets may include lease incentives, stated rent increases and escalation clauses linked to rates of inflation, when determinable, and are recognized in determining our Right-of-use assets. Our operating lease is reflected in the right-of-use asset – operating lease; operating lease obligation – current portion; and operating lease obligation – non-current portion in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Lease expense for minimum lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Short-term leases, defined as leases that have a lease term of 12 months or less at the commencement date, are excluded from this treatment and are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. Variable lease payments are amounts owed by us to a lessor that are not fixed, such as reimbursement for common area maintenance costs for our facility lease; and are expensed when incurred.

Financing leases, formerly referred to as capitalized leases, are treated similarly to operating leases except that the asset subject to the lease is included in the appropriate fixed asset category, rather than recorded as a Right-of-use asset, and depreciated over its estimated useful life, or lease term, if shorter.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

In accordance with ASC 360-10, Property, Plant & Equipment—Overall, we review long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of property and equipment may not be recoverable. Determination of recoverability is based on an estimate of undiscounted future cash flows resulting from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event such cash flows are not expected to be sufficient to recover the carrying amount of the assets, we write down the assets to their estimated fair values and recognize the loss in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. We do not carry any capitalized intellectual property or product licenses as assets subject to impairment on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses are composed of both internal and external costs. Internal costs include salaries and employment-related expenses, including stock-based compensation expense, of scientific personnel and direct project costs. External research and development expenses consist primarily of costs associated with clinical and nonclinical development of fasedienol, itruvone, and AV-101. All such costs are charged to expense as incurred.

We also record accruals for estimated ongoing clinical trial costs. Clinical trial costs represent costs incurred by CROs and clinical trial sites. Progress payments are generally made to CROs, clinical sites, investigators and other professional service providers. We analyze the progress of the clinical trial, including levels of subject enrollment, invoices received and contracted costs when evaluating the adequacy of accrued liabilities. Significant judgments and estimates must be made in determining the clinical trial accrual in any reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates under different assumptions. Revisions are charged to research and development expense in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known.

Costs incurred in obtaining product or technology licenses are charged immediately to research and development expense if, at acquisition, the product or technology licensed has not achieved regulatory approval or reached technical feasibility and has no alternative future uses. We treated the Pherin Acquisition as an acquisition of assets for accounting purposes. Since, at the date of the acquisition, neither fasedienol, itruvone nor the other three pherines acquired had achieved regulatory approval and each required significant additional development and expense and were without alternative future use, we recorded the costs related to acquiring the assets as research and development expense in our Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for our fiscal year ended March 31, 2023.

Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize compensation cost for all stock-based awards to employees and non-employee consultants based on the grant date fair value of the award.  We record stock-based compensation expense over the period during which the employee or other grantee is required to perform services in exchange for the award, which generally represents the scheduled vesting period. We have not granted restricted stock awards to employees or consultants, nor do we have any awards with market or performance conditions. Noncash expense attributable to compensatory grants of our common stock to non-employees is determined by the quoted market price of the stock on the date of grant and is either recognized as fully-earned at the time of the grant or expensed ratably over the term of the related service agreement, depending on the terms of the specific agreement.

We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock-based awards as of the grant date. The Black-Scholes model is complex and dependent upon key data input estimates. The primary data inputs with the greatest degree of judgment are the expected term of the stock options and the estimated volatility of our stock price. The Black-Scholes model is highly sensitive to changes in these two inputs. The expected term of the options represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. We use the simplified method in accordance with guidance provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to estimate the expected term as an input into the Black-Scholes option pricing model. We determine expected volatility using the historical method based on the historical daily trading data of the common stock of a peer group of public companies over the expected term of the option, as we do not believe that the historical volatility of our common stock will be indicative of its future performance.

Warrants Issued in Connection with Equity Financing

We evaluate the appropriate balance sheet classification of warrants we issue as either equity or as a derivative liability. In accordance with ASC 815-40, Derivatives and Hedging-Contracts in the Entity’s Own Equity (ASC 815-40), we classify a warrant as equity if it is “indexed to the Company’s equity” and meets several specific conditions for equity classification. A warrant is not considered “indexed to the Company’s equity,” in general, when it contains certain types of exercise contingencies or potential adjustments to its exercise price. If a warrant is not indexed to the Company’s equity or it has net cash settlement that results in the warrants to be accounted for under ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity or ASC 815-40, it is classified as a derivative liability which is carried on the consolidated balance sheet at fair value with any changes in its fair value recognized immediately in the Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. At March 31, 2023 and 2022, we had both investor warrants and share-based compensation warrants outstanding that were classified as equity.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes using the asset and liability approach promulgated by ASC 740, Income Taxes, for financial reporting purposes. We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Valuation allowances are established, when necessary, to reduce the deferred tax assets to an amount expected to be realized.